America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected Issues

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

On August 2, 2007, Congress passed the America COMPETES Act (H.R. 2272), which the
President signed into law (P.L. 110-69) on August 9, 2007. The act responds to concerns that the
United States may not be able to compete economically with other nations in the future due to
insufficient investment today in science and technology research and science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and workforce development. A similar concern
had led President Bush to announce the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) in January

2006 during his State of the Union address.

The America COMPETES Act authorizes an increase in the nation’s investment in science and
engineering research and in STEM education from kindergarten to graduate school and
postdoctoral education. The act also establishes the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy
(ARPA-E) and Discovery Science and Engineering Innovation Institutes. (Appendix A provides a
summary of the act’s programs.)
The act authorizes increases in funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF), National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories, and the Department of Energy (DOE)
Office of Science over FY2008-FY2010. If maintained, the increases would double the budgets
of those agencies over seven years. The Administration’s ACI also proposes a doubling-path, but
for over ten years for physical sciences and engineering research at the three agencies.
Within DOE, ARPA-E is designed to support transformational energy technology research
projects with the goal of enhancing the economic and energy security of the United States, based
on the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The Administration and others
support the conceptual goal of ARPA-E, but questions whether or not the DARPA model can be
used for the energy sector, and has concerns about it potentially redirecting funds from current
DOE research activities. ARPA-E proponents counter that ARPA-E is needed to facilitate the
energy marketplace by accelerating research that will bridge the gap between basic research and
industrial development.
At the heart of the America COMPETES Act is the goal of maintaining the United States as the
leader in the global economy. Three broad trends influence today’s globalization of the economy.
The first is technology, which has sharply reduced the cost of communication and transportation
that previously divided markets. The second is a dramatic increase in the world supply of labor
producing goods and services traded internationally. The third is government policies that have
reduced barriers to trade and investment.
An issue for Congress is whether to fund America COMPETES Act programs at authorized
funding levels. FY2008 appropriations did not. For FY2009, the federal agencies that manage
America COMPETES Act programs are funded through an interim continuing resolution until
March 6, 2009, at the FY2008 level. Funding for the remainder of FY2009 and all of FY2010
remains to be determined.

Overview of America COMPETES Act..........................................................................................1
Overview of U.S. Competitiveness Initiatives................................................................................2
Issues for Congress..........................................................................................................................5
Perspectives on the Definition of Competitiveness...................................................................5
Trade Balance.....................................................................................................................6
Foreign Direct Investment..................................................................................................7
Workforce and Wages.........................................................................................................8
Competitiveness in Perspective........................................................................................12
General Issues.........................................................................................................................13
American Competitiveness Initiative......................................................................................15
Science and Engineering Research.........................................................................................16
Research Funding.............................................................................................................16
NASA Funding.................................................................................................................18
High-Risk, High-Reward Research..................................................................................19
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy...................................................................20
Discovery Science and Engineering Innovation Institutes................................................24
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education..............................25
Department of Energy.......................................................................................................26
National Science Foundation............................................................................................28
Department of Education..................................................................................................29
Appropriations Status....................................................................................................................30
Evaluation of the America COMPETES Act.................................................................................44
Evaluation Mechanisms Within the America COMPETES Act..............................................45
Evaluation Mechanisms Beyond Those in the America COMPETES Act.............................46
Outcomes ....................................................................................................................... ... 46
Output Indicators..............................................................................................................46
Input Indicators.................................................................................................................47
Concluding Observations..............................................................................................................50
Title I: Office of Science and Technology Policy; Government-Wide Science......................53
Title II: National Aeronautics and Space Administration........................................................54
Title III: National Institute of Standards and Technology.......................................................55
Title IV: Ocean and Atmospheric Programs............................................................................58
Title V: Department of Energy—Protecting America’s Competitive Edge Through
Energy Act, or the PACE-Energy Act..................................................................................59
Title VI: Education..................................................................................................................60
Subtitle A: Teacher Assistance..........................................................................................60
Subtitle B: Mathematics....................................................................................................61
Subtitle C: Foreign Language Partnership Program.........................................................62
Subtitle D: Alignment of Education Programs.................................................................62
Subtitle E: Mathematics and Science Partnership Bonus Grants......................................62
Title VII: National Science Foundation..................................................................................62
Title VIII: General Provisions.................................................................................................70

Figure 1. Foreign Direct Investment in the United States and U.S. Direct Investment
Abroad, Annual Flows, 1990-2006..............................................................................................7
Figure 2. Trends in Routine and Nonroutine Task Input, 1960-1980............................................10
Figure 3. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Workforce, 1950-2000 (in
thousands).................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 4. Trends in Annual U.S. Base Salaries, in Constant 2005 Dollars, 1995-2005................12
Figure 5. World Economic Forum Analysis of U.S. Competitiveness..........................................48
Table 1. U.S. Trade in Advanced Technology Products..................................................................6
Table 2. Comparison of America COMPETES Act Programs, the FY2008 Appropriation,
and the President’s FY2009 Budget Request, the House of Representatives FY2009
Appropriations, the Senate FY2009 Appropriations, and the America COMPETES Act
FY2008, FY2009, and FY2010 Authorization...........................................................................31
Appendix A. Summary of Legislative History..............................................................................51
Appendix B. Legislative Information System Summary of America COMPETES Act...............53
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................71

n August 2, 2007, Congress passed the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully
Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act or the America
COMPETES Act (H.R. 2272), which the President signed into law (P.L. 110-69) on O

August 9, 2007. The America COMPETES Act had substantial bipartisan support passing 367-57
in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.
The America COMPETES Act is intended to increase the nation’s investment in science and
engineering research, and in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
education from kindergarten to graduate school and postdoctoral education. The act is designed to
focus on two perceived concerns believed to influence future U.S. competitiveness: inadequate
research and development funding to generate sufficient technological progress, and inadequate
numbers of American students proficient in science and mathematics or interested in science and
engineering careers relative to international competitors.
The act is an authorization act, so new programs established by the act will not be initiated unless ¹
funded through subsequent appropriations. Similarly, increases in the authorization level of
existing programs may or may not translate into increased funding.
This report provides an overview of the America COMPETES Act provisions, summarizes its
legislative origin and the origins of some of the new programs it authorizes, analyzes selected
America COMPETES Act programs that are the focus of appropriation discussions, and provides
a comparison of the President’s budget, congressional appropriations, and America COMPETES
Act authorization levels for FY2008. Appendix A provides an overview of the act’s legislative
history. Appendix B provides a summary of all the provisions of the act.

The America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) has eight titles that authorize programs and activities
at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of
Education (ED), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Commerce’s
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).
Among its provisions, the act authorizes the following:
Research
Funding of research supported by NIST, the DOE Office of Science, and the NSF
for FY2008-FY2010 at a rate that, if sustained, would double these agencies’
research budgets over seven years;
Early career and new investigator grants for science, engineering, and
mathematics researchers at DOE and NSF;

¹^For^a^dis^c^us^sⁱ^oⁿ^of^the^a^u^th^or^iz^a^tion/a^ppr^opr^ia^ti^ons^pr^oc^e^s^s^,^s^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^R^S²⁰³⁷¹^,^Overvi^{ew o}^f^t^h^e
^Auth^or^iz^ati^on-^Ap^pr^oprⁱ^a^ti^ons^Pr^oc^e^s^s^{, by}^{Bill He}^niff^Jr.

A new Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)² in DOE that
would sponsor transformational energy technology research projects; and
New Discovery Science and Engineering Innovation Institutes at DOE National
Laboratories, which are multidisciplinary institutes that are intended to apply
fundamental science and engineering discoveries to technological innovations.
Education
Scholarship and training programs to recruit new K-12 STEM teachers who
would simultaneously earn STEM degrees plus teacher certification, and enhance
the skills of existing STEM teachers through a variety of activities administered
by the DOE, NASA, NSF, and ED; and
Student-focused STEM programs at ED, DOE, and NSF including Math Now for
elementary and middle school students, grants to states for public, statewide,
specialty, secondary schools in science and mathematics, Advanced Placement
(AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) courses at the high school level,
scholarships and fellowships for undergraduate and graduate students, and
enhanced mentoring for postdoctoral scholars.
The act also includes White House efforts, under OSTP, to foster innovation and competitiveness
activities including a National Science and Technology Summit, National Technology and
Innovation Medal, and President’s Council on Innovation and Competitiveness.

For the nation to maintain economic growth and a high standard of living, the United States must
be competitive in a global economy. To be competitive, U.S. companies must engage in trade,
retain market shares, and offer high quality products processes and services. Scientific and
technological advances can further economic growth because they contribute to the creation of
new goods, services, jobs, and capital, or increase productivity. Such advances can compensate
for possible disadvantages in the cost of capital and labor faced by firms by enhancing the quality
or efficiency in the production of existing goods and services. Scientific advances, government
activity, the organization and management of firms, and serendipity can all influence
technological progress regardless of economic conditions. In addressing U.S. competitiveness,
two policy approaches have primarily been used. One relies on direct measures that include
budget outlays and the provision of services by government agencies. The other uses indirect ³
measures such as financial incentives and legal changes.
Since World War II, the United States has used a combination of direct and indirect approaches to ⁴
enhance current and future U.S. competitiveness. Following World War II, the Steelman report

²^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^A^R^P^A^-^E^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^R^L³⁴⁴⁹⁷^,^A^d^v^anc^e^d^Re^se^arc^h^Proje^c^t^{s Age}ⁿ^c^y^{- Ene}^r^gy⁽^ARPA-
^E)^:^Bac^k^g^r^o^un^d,^St^atus^,^an^d^Se^le^c^t^e^d^I^s^s^u^e^s^for^C^o^ngr^e^s^s^,^by^D^e^b^o^r^a^{h D}^.^Stine^.
³^Ex^c^e^r^{pt f}^r^o^m^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³³⁵²⁸^,^Iⁿ^d^u^s^t^rⁱ^al^C^o^m^p^e^tit^iv^eⁿ^e^s^s^{and Te}^c^hno^lo^gic^a^{l Adv}^a^nc^e^m^eⁿ^t:^D^e^bate^O^v^e^r
^Go^vern^m^en^t^P^o^lⁱ^cy^{, by}^W^e^nd^y^H^.^Sc^ha^c^h^t.
⁴^Bruc^e^L^.^{R. Sm}^ith,^A^m^eri^c^aⁿ^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^{ce P}^o^lⁱ^{cy S}ⁱⁿ^{ce Wo}^rl^d^Wa^{r II}⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton, D}^C^{: B}^r^ook^ing^s^P^r^e^s^s^,²⁰⁰⁰⁾^{. K}^e^{nt H}^.
^Hu^gh^es,^Buil^din^g^t^h^e^Ne^x^t^Ame^r^ic^{an Ce}^nt^ury^:^The^Past^an^{d Pre}^s^eⁿ^{t o}^f^Ame^r^ic^an^Ec^on^omic^Com^p^e^titiv^eⁿ^e^s^s
^(Ba^ltim^ore^:^T^h^e^J^ohns^H^opk^ins^Pre^s^s^,²⁰⁰^{5). J}^a^m^e^s^T^u^rne^r^,^“^T^he^N^e^x^t^Innov^a^tion^Re^v^o^luti^on^{: L}^a^yⁱ^ng^the^G^r^oun^dw^ork
^f^o^{r t}^h^{e Un}ⁱ^t^e^{d S}^t^at^es,^”ⁱⁿ^nov^a^tioⁿ^s^{, sp}^rin^g²⁰⁰⁶^,^p^.¹²³^-¹⁴⁴^,^at^h^ttp^://p^u^b^licaa.an^si.^o^rg^/sites/ap^d^l^/^D^o^c^u^m^en^ts/
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

was issued expressing concerns about U.S. competitiveness: “the future is certain to confront us ⁵
with competition from other national economies of a sort we have not hitherto had to meet.”
Interest in the competitiveness issue perhaps reached its peak in the 1970s, when some experts
became concerned that Japan, Europe, and newly industrialized countries were becoming major
competitors with the United States. The United States had lost market share in autos, cameras,
stereos, television sets, steel, machine tools, and microelectronics. Some also expressed concerns
that U.S. technological superiority, as exhibited by the balance of trade in high-technology
products, was declining as the U.S. share of world exports on research and development (R&D)-
intensive goods fell while the Japanese share rose. Other indicators were lower productivity
growth in the United States than Japan, a narrowing in the gap of the production in the number of
scientists and engineers graduating from U.S. universities and those engaged in R&D in the
United States compared to Japan and West Germany, the relative proficiency of U.S. high school
students in science and mathematics, and a decline in the number of patents granted to Americans
while those to foreign inventors doubled. The cause, some believed, was due to U.S. expenditures
for civilian R&D falling behind that of Europe and Japan, or some European countries and Japan ⁶
deriving more economic benefit from their R&D expenditures.
Congress responded by taking a number of actions including passing the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-480), the Patent and Trademark Act Amendments of

1980 (known as the Bayh-Dole Act, P.L. 96-517), the Federal Technology Transfer Act (P.L. 99-

502), the National Cooperative Research Act (P.L. 98-462), and the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-418). In addition, the Semiconductor Manufacturing
Technology, or SEMATECH, consortium, an on-site test facility and a conduit for new ⁷
technological advances for the U.S. semiconductor industry, was created.
Additional congressional actions also focused on increasing corporate spending on research and
development in response to competitiveness concerns included the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax
Act (P.L. 97-34) and the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-514), which provided for a research
and experimentation (R&E) tax credit. The Small Business Development Act (P.L. 97-219; P.L. ⁸

99-443) established a set-aside of federal R&D funds to support work in innovative small firms.

The competitiveness concerns continued until the mid-1990s when the United States economy
and technological innovation improved. Actions were taken by U.S. manufacturers to improve
their quality and efficiency, universities and national laboratories increased their linkages to U.S.
companies, and the United States was successful in many innovation-based industries such as

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^Ne^w^s^%²⁰^aⁿ^d^%²⁰^Pu^b^l^icatioⁿ^s^/^O^th^er%²⁰^D^o^c^u^m^en^ts/T^u^rⁿ^e^r-Inⁿ^o^v^a^tioⁿ^s^.^p^d^f^.
⁵^Jo^hn^R.^S^t^eel^m^aⁿ^,^Sc^ie^nc^e^and^P^ublic^P^o^lic^y⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton^,^D^C^{: G}^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^e^{nt P}^rⁱⁿ^ting^O^f^fⁱ^ce^{, A}^u^g^u^s^t¹⁹⁴⁷⁾^.
^R^e^pr^inte^d^by^the^A^r^no^P^r^e^s^s^,^N^e^w^Y^o^r^k^{, N}^Y^,¹⁹⁸^0.
⁶^Bruc^e^L^.^{R. Sm}^ith,^A^m^eri^c^aⁿ^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^{ce P}^o^lⁱ^{cy S}ⁱⁿ^{ce Wo}^rl^d^Wa^{r II}⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton, D}^C^{: B}^r^ook^ing^s^P^r^e^s^s^,²⁰⁰⁰⁾^{, p}^.¹^01-
¹⁰⁵^.
⁷^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³²⁰⁷⁶^,^T^h^{e B}^a^y^h^-Do^l^{e A}^c^t^:^S^e^l^ect^ed^Issu^{es i}ⁿ^P^a^t^eⁿ^t^P^o^lⁱ^{cy an}^d^t^h^{e Co}^mmerci^a^lⁱ^z^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^o^f
^Te^c^hnol^ogy^,^by^W^e^nd^y^H^.^Sc^ha^c^h^{t, C}^R^S^R^e^por^t^R^L³⁰³²⁰^,^P^a^t^eⁿ^t^Own^e^rshⁱ^p^aⁿ^d^F^e^d^e^ra^l^R^e^sea^r^{ch a}ⁿ^d^Devel^o^p^m^en^t
⁽^R^&^D^{): A}^Di^scu^ssi^oⁿ^oⁿ^t^h^{e B}^a^yh-Do^l^{e A}^c^t^an^{d t}^h^e^S^t^even^soⁿ^-^Wydl^{er A}^c^t^a^{nd C}^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³³⁵²⁶^,^Co^op^era^tⁱ^ve
^R^&^{D: Fe}^de^{ral Efforts to}^Prom^ot^{e In}^du^st^ri^a^l^Co^mp^etⁱ^tⁱ^ven^ess^{, a}^{ll b}^y^W^e^nd^y^H^.^Sc^ha^c^h^{t. C}^R^S^R^e^p^o^r^t^I^B⁹³⁰²^4,
^SEM^A^TEC^H^:^I^s^s^u^e^s^aⁿ^d^O^p^ti^ons^,^by^G^l^e^{nn J}^.^Mc^L^oug^hliⁿ^.
⁸^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³³⁵²⁸^,^In^dustri^a^l^Compe^titiv^eⁿ^e^{ss a}ⁿ^d^Te^c^hⁿ^o^lo^gi^c^a^{l Adv}^anc^e^m^eⁿ^{t: De}^ba^te^Ov^e^r^Gov^e^r^nmeⁿ^t
^Polic^y^{, by}^W^e^ndy^H^.^Sc^ha^c^h^t.

Internet applications, biotechnology, and nanotechnology while the Japanese economy was in a ⁹
decline.
Now that the nation has entered the 21^st century, today’s competitiveness concerns tend to be
focused on issues related to globalization—that is, a global economy—along with some of the
same concerns discussed in previous competitiveness debates—these include whether or not
federal science and engineering research funding is sufficient, questions about STEM education
quality, and the number of Americans obtaining science and engineering degrees. Much of what
Americans consume or buy is produced in other countries, and much of what Americans produce
is exported abroad. For example, a growing number of the largest U.S. companies rely on
international markets for over 50% of their sales and employ more foreign workers than
domestic. This globalization has a growing impact, both positive and negative, on the economic
futures of American companies, workers, and families. Increasing integration with the world
economy can make the United States more productive, leading to increases in living standards
and real disposable incomes. However, rising trade with low-wage developing countries increases
workers’ concerns about job loss, lower wages, and benefits as American companies take actions
to compete in a global economy. The information technology revolution has expanded these ¹⁰
competitiveness concerns to U.S. white collar jobs.
Three broad trends influence today’s globalization of the economy. The first is technology, which
has sharply reduced the cost of communication and transportation that previously divided
markets. The second is a dramatic increase in the world supply of labor producing goods and
services traded internationally. The third is government policies that have reduced barriers to ¹¹
trade and investment.
The America COMPETES Act includes policies that address each of these trends. The act
addresses these issues by authorizing primarily direct measures in each of these policy areas. In
addition, the act authorizes two committees—one inside government and the other outside
government—to look at indirect policy mechanisms.
With respect to technology, some believe that today’s federal funding of basic science and
engineering research is inadequate to generate the technological progress needed to create new
industries and the associated jobs. The act responds to that concern by increasing federal funding
of basic research at the federal agencies primarily responsible for funding physical sciences,
engineering, mathematics, and computer science—fields that are considered to be major
contributors to competitiveness due to their potential for innovation and job creation. In addition,
the America COMPETES Act renames and refocuses an existing program that helps fund high-
risk research and development at small and medium-sized businesses.
With respect to labor, the act takes actions that are intended to make the U.S. labor pool more
competitive with the world supply of labor. Currently, some believe that inadequate numbers of
American students are proficient in science and mathematics. In addition, the number of
Americans pursuing post-secondary STEM degrees is considered to be low relative to students in

⁹^G^e^org^e^{R. H}^e^a^t^{on, J}^r^.,^Chris^t^op^h^e^{r T}^.^H^ill,^P^a^tric^k^Wⁱ^ndha^m^,^D^a^{vid W}^.^Cheⁿ^e^y^{, “}^I^nnov^a^tioⁿ^Polic^y^T^oda^y^{in the}
^Uⁿ^ite^{d S}^t^a^t^e^s^{: T}^h^e^Ma^ins^t^r^e^a^m^C^ons^eⁿ^s^u^s^a^{nd O}^t^he^r^Vie^w^s^,^”^Te^c^h^nol^og^y^P^o^lic^y^Iⁿ^te^rⁿ^a^tiona^l^,^Ma^y²⁰⁰^{7, a}^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.te^c^hnop^oli.^ne^t/^I^nnov^a^tion^P^olic^y²⁰⁰^7.p^d^f^.
¹⁰^Ex^c^e^r^{pt f}^r^o^m^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³⁴⁰⁹¹^,^G^l^o^b^a^liz^ati^oⁿ^,^W^o^r^k^e^r^Iⁿ^s^e^c^u^r^ity^{, a}ⁿ^d^Polⁱ^c^y^Appr^oac^he^s^,^by^R^a^y^m^{ond J}^.
^A^h^earn^.
¹¹^Ibid^.

countries considered to be U.S. competitors.¹² The act responds to these concerns by initiating a
number of actions to increase the quality and quantity of STEM teachers as well as mechanisms
to encourage more American students to undertake advanced STEM classes and post-secondary
STEM degrees.
With respect to government trade and investment policies, the act authorizes meetings, studies,
and committees to identify possible actions the United States might undertake. This includes, for
example, studying and reviewing the costs faced by U.S. businesses engaged in innovation
compared with foreign competitors.
Beyond the America COMPETES Act, other recent legislative initiatives propose federal efforts
that
encourage industry to spend more on research and development,
promote joint research activities between companies,
foster cooperative work between industry and universities,
facilitate the transfer of technology from federal laboratories to the private sector,
and
provide incentives for quality improvements.¹³

The America COMPETES Act had strong bipartisan support. Even though President Bush signed
the act into law, however, the Administration stated a series of concerns, many related to the ¹⁴
Administration’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). In addition, while some experts ¹⁵
believe that actions should be taken to make the United States more competitive, others do not.
Some believe that actions should be taken in response to competitiveness concerns, but express ¹⁶
doubts that the actions proposed in the America COMPETES Act are the best actions to take.
The definition of a nation’s competitiveness, and the public’s response to particular policies, can
vary depending on whether it is from the perspective of an individual domestic firm, a

¹²^{CRS Rep}^o^r^{t 9}⁸^-8⁷¹^,^Sc^ie^nc^e^,^En^gine^e^rⁱⁿ^g,^an^{d M}^a^the^m^a^tic^s^Ed^uc^atio^n:^Stat^us^aⁿ^d^I^s^s^u^e^s^{, by}^Chris^tine^M.
^Ma^tthe^w^s^.^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³³⁴³^4,^Sc^ie^nc^e^,^Te^c^hⁿ^o^l^ogy^{, E}ⁿ^gⁱ^ne^e^rⁱⁿ^{g, a}ⁿ^d^M^a^the^m^a^tic^s⁽^S^TEM⁾^Educ^atio^n:
^Bac^k^g^r^o^uⁿ^d^,^Fe^de^r^a^l^Po^lic^y^,^a^nd^Le^gis^l^ativ^e^Ac^ti^on^{, by}^J^e^ff^r^e^y^J^.^K^u^eⁿ^zⁱ^.
¹³^For^m^o^r^e^de^ta^ils^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^p^o^r^t^R^L³³⁵^28,^In^dustri^a^{l Com}^p^e^titiv^eⁿ^e^{ss and}^Te^c^hⁿ^o^lo^gic^a^l^Adv^anc^e^m^eⁿ^{t: De}^bate
^{Over Go}^vern^m^en^t^P^o^lⁱ^c^y^{, by}^W^eⁿ^d^y^H^.^Sc^ha^c^h^t.
¹⁴^U^.^S.^P^r^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^{t (G}^.W^{. Bus}^h^),^Ame^r^ic^{an Compe}^tⁱ^tiv^eⁿ^e^{ss Initi}^ativ^e^,^D^o^m^e^s^tic^P^o^lic^y^Counc^il/O^f^fⁱ^c^e^of^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^nd
^T^e^c^hnolog^y^P^o^lic^y^,^Fe^brua^ry²⁰⁰^{6, p}^.¹⁹^{, a}^t^htt^p^://w^w^w^.os^t^p.g^o^v^/^p^d^f^/^a^cⁱ^book^le^t.p^d^f^.
¹⁵^S^{ee f}^o^{r exa}^m^p^l^e,^Ro^b^e^rt^J.^S^a^m^u^el^soⁿ^,^“A^P^h^on^y^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^ce^G^a^p^?^,^”^Wa^shⁱⁿ^gt^on^Po^st^{, Fe}^br^ua^r^y^22,²⁰⁰⁶^{, a}^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.^w^a^s^hing^tonp^os^t.c^o^m^/^w^p^-^d^yⁿ^/c^onteⁿ^t/^a^r^tic^le^/20^06/^02/²¹^/^A^R²⁰⁰⁶⁰²²¹⁰¹¹⁶^6.^htm^{l; Se}^ba^s^tia^{n Ma}^lla^by^{, “}^T^he
^F^a^{ke S}^cⁱ^eⁿ^{ce T}^h^reat^,^”^Wa^shⁱⁿ^gt^on^P^o^st^{, Fe}^br^ua^r^y^{6, 20}⁰⁶^{, a}^t^h^ttp:^/^/^w^w^w^.^w^a^s^hing^ton^pos^t.c^o^m^/^w^p^-^d^yⁿ^/^c^onteⁿ^t^/^a^r^tic^le^/
²⁰⁰^6/^02/^05/^A^R²⁰⁰⁶⁰²⁰⁵⁰¹⁰⁵^9.h^t^m^l^.
¹⁶^S^ee,^f^o^{r exa}^m^p^l^e,^Davi^d^G^o^l^d^st^on^,^“M^akiⁿ^{g roo}^m^f^o^{r d}ⁱ^ssen^t^,^”^Na^tu^re,⁴⁴⁸^:⁵²⁴^,^A^u^gu^st^2,²⁰⁰⁷^,^at
^http:^//w^w^w^.na^t^ure^.^c^o^m^/^na^ture^/^j^ou^rna^l^/^v^448/ⁿ⁷¹^53/^f^u^ll/44⁸⁵^24a^.^h^t^m^l.

multinational corporation, or domestic labor. For an individual domestic firm, the focus of
competitiveness is trade and the firm’s ability to compete for market share against imports from
abroad or to compete with foreign firms in overseas export markets. From this perspective, a key ¹⁷
measure of competitiveness is the economy’s trade balance.
Table 1 shows U.S. trade in advanced technology products. In the past, the United States ran a
surplus in these products, but that surplus dropped sharply in 2000 and turned into a deficit in
2002. Since then, the nation’s trade balance deficit increased to $43.6 billion in 2005, then
declined to $38.1 billion in 2006. Since many U.S. companies, however, particularly those in
electronics, assemble their products overseas, it is difficult to tell whether or not the United States ¹⁸
is losing the high technology race.
Table 1. U.S. Trade in Advanced Technology Products
^Year^{U.S. Exports}^{U.S. Imports}^{Trade Balance}
¹⁹⁹^{0 93.4}^59.3^34.1
¹⁹⁹^{5 138.}⁴^124.⁸^13.6
¹⁹⁹^{6 154.}⁹^130.⁴^24.5
¹⁹⁹^{7 179.}⁵^147.³^32.2
¹⁹⁹^{8 186.}⁴^156.⁸^29.6
¹⁹⁹^{9 200.}³^181.²^19.1
²⁰⁰^{0 227.}⁴^222.¹^5.3
²⁰⁰^{1 200.}¹^195.³^4.8
²⁰⁰^{2 178.}⁶^195.²^-16.6
²⁰⁰^{3 180.}²^207.⁰^-26.8
²⁰⁰^{4 201.}⁴^238.³^-36.9
²⁰⁰^{5 216.}¹^259.⁷^-43.6
²⁰⁰^{6 252.}⁷^290.⁸^-38.1
²⁰⁰^{7 273.}⁴^326.⁹^-53.5
^Source:^{U.S. Bureau of the}^Cens^us.^{U.S. International Trade in}^{Goods and Services}^{. FT-900, issued monthly. Ex}^cerpt
^{from CRS Report RL33}⁵⁷^7,^{U.S. I}^{nternational T}^{rade: Tre}^{nds and Fore}^casts^{, by Dick K. Nanto, Shayera}^h^{Ilias, and J.}
^{Michael Donnelly.}
^Notes:^{Includes about 5}⁰⁰^{of some 22,0}⁰⁰^{commodity classificati}^{on codes that meet t}^{he following criteria: (1)}
^{contains product}^{s whose te}^ch^{nology is from a recognized high tec}^{hnology field (e.g}^{., biotechnology)}^{, (2) represe}^nt
^{leading edge technology in that fi}^{eld, and (3) constitute a significan}^{t part of all items covered in t}^he^selected
^{classification code}^{. Data are on a BoP basis.}

¹⁷^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^S²²⁴⁴^5,^T^a^x^e^s^an^{d Inte}^rn^ati^oⁿ^a^{l C}^o^mpe^titiv^eⁿ^e^s^s^,^by^D^ona^{ld J}^.^Ma^r^p^le^s^.
¹⁸^Ex^c^e^r^{pt f}^r^o^m^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³³⁵⁷⁷^,^U^.^{S. I}ⁿ^te^r^nat^io^nal^Tr^a^d^e^:^Tr^e^nds^aⁿ^d^For^e^c^a^s^t^s^,^b^y^Di^{ck K.}^Nan^t^o^,^S^h^ay^erah
^Ilⁱ^a^s,^an^d^J.^Mⁱ^ch^ael^Donⁿ^e^l^l^y^.

For a U.S. multinational corporation, one based in the United States but with production facilities
abroad, competitiveness is defined as the ability of its overseas operations to compete for market
share with firms from foreign host countries or firms from third countries. From this perspective,
a key measure of competitiveness is the degree to which these firms invest their resources in the ¹⁹
United States or in other countries (known as “foreign direct investment”). As shown in Figure ²⁰
1, foreign direct investment in the United States declined sharply after 2000, when a record
$300 billion was invested in U.S. businesses and real estate, but rebounded to $184 billion by ²¹

2006.

Figure 1. Foreign Direct Investment in the United States and U.S. Direct Investment
Abroad, Annual Flows, 1990-2006
^Source:^E^xcer^{pt from CRS Rep}^{ort RS2185}^7,^{Foreign Direct Investment in the United States: An Econ}^{omic Analysis}^,
^{by James}^{K. Jackson. CRS analysis from Departm}^{ent of Commer}^ce^data.
Domestic labor is likely to share some of the same concerns of the firms and corporations for
whom they work, but is also likely to define competitiveness as the firm’s ability to compete
against foreign firms in export markets or in markets within the United States. Competition is
viewed as being between different investment sites and the ability of the United States to compete
with foreign countries as a location for what domestic labor views as a job-creating business

¹⁹^Ex^c^e^r^{pt f}^r^o^m^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^S²²⁴^45,^Tax^e^s^a^nd^Inte^rn^ati^ona^{l Com}^p^e^titiv^eⁿ^e^s^s^{, by}^D^ona^{ld J}^.^Ma^r^p^le^s^.
²⁰^T^h^e^Uⁿ^ite^{d Sta}^t^e^s^de^fⁱ^ne^s^f^o^r^e^{ign dir}^e^c^tⁱⁿ^v^e^s^t^m^e^{nt a}^s^the^ow^ne^r^s^hip^or^c^o^ntr^o^l,^dir^e^c^tly^or^indir^e^c^t^ly^{, b}^y^one^f^o^r^e^igⁿ
^pe^{rson (i}^nd^iv^idua^l,^braⁿ^c^h^,^pa^rt^ne^{rship, a}^ssocⁱ^a^tⁱ^on,^g^o^v^e^rnm^e^{nt, e}^t^c^.^{) of}^10%^or^m^o^re^of^the^v^o^ting^se^c^u^ritie^{s of}^aⁿ
^inc^o^r^p^or^a^t^e^d^U^.^S.^busⁱⁿ^e^s^s^eⁿ^te^r^p^rⁱ^s^e^or^aⁿ^e^q^uiv^a^le^{nt i}ⁿ^te^r^e^s^t^{in a}ⁿ^uni^nc^or^por^a^t^e^d^U^.^S.^busⁱⁿ^e^s^s^eⁿ^t^e^r^p^rⁱ^s^e^{. 15}^C^.^F.R^.
^{§ 8}^06.¹⁵⁽^a⁾⁽¹⁾^.
²¹^Ex^c^e^r^{pt f}^r^o^m^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^S²¹⁸^57,^Fore^ig^{n Dire}^c^t^Inv^e^s^tmeⁿ^{t i}ⁿ^the^Unite^d^St^ate^s^{: A}ⁿ^Ec^o^nomic^A^naly^s^is^{, by}
^Ja^m^e^{s K.}^Jac^k^soⁿ^.

investment. Key measures for domestic labor are the level of employment and the wages received ²²
from employment in the economy.
The United States is both the largest recipient of foreign direct investments as well as the largest ²³²⁴
investor abroad. Investment by U.S. firms abroad was $249 billion in 2006 (see Figure 1).
While some view these investments as an economic gain, others express concern about displaced
U.S. workers and lower wages. Seventy percent of U.S. foreign direct investment, however, is
concentrated in high-income developed countries and the share of investment going to developing
countries has fallen in recent years. As a result, most economists conclude that direct investment
abroad is due to a broad restructuring of U.S. manufacturing industries and does not lead to fewer ²⁵
jobs or lower incomes overall for Americans.
NSF statistical analysts have indicated that determining the science and engineering workforce
and the jobs created as a result of science and engineering is a challenging task. NSF identifies
five broad categories of science and engineering occupations: computer and mathematical
scientists, life scientists, physical scientists, social scientists, and engineers.
This classification, however, does not account for all those with science and engineering degrees
who use this knowledge in their occupations. For example, a chemist who teaches high school
chemistry and an engineer who manages a manufacturing plant are classified as a teacher and a
manager, respectively, and are not included in NSF’s analysis of the science and engineering
(S&E) workforce. In addition, there are those who are in science- and engineering-related
occupations who use science and engineering knowledge in their jobs, but who may or may not
have degrees in science and engineering: for example, a patent attorney or a physician. Some also
use their S&E training in nominally non-S&E occupations such as writers, salesmen, financial
managers, and legal consultants. As the need for science and engineering knowledge has
increased for a growing number of occupations, traditional accounting of such occupations
provides less understanding of the science and engineering workforce and it could be
considerably larger, perhaps two to three times, than provided in government analyses by the ²⁶
NSF, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and the U.S. Census Bureau.
According to the National Science Board (NSB), depending on the definition and perspective
used, the size of the science and engineering workforce varied between approximately 5.0 million
and 21.4 million individuals in 2006. NSB suggests that the most relevant number may be 17.0
million, which in 2006 was the number of individuals who had at least one degree in a science
and engineering field, or 21.4 million, which also includes those who have degrees in an S&E

²²^Ex^c^e^r^{pt f}^r^o^m^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^S²²⁴^45,^Tax^e^s^a^nd^Inte^rn^ati^ona^{l Com}^p^e^titiv^eⁿ^e^s^s^{, by}^D^ona^{ld J}^.^Ma^r^p^le^s^.
²³^Ex^c^e^r^{pt f}^r^o^m^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^S²¹¹^18,^U^.^S^.^Di^rect^In^vest^m^en^t^A^b^r^o^ad^{: T}^r^end^s^an^d^C^u^rren^t^Issu^es^,^b^y^Ja^m^e^s^K.
^Jacksoⁿ^.
²⁴^Ex^c^e^r^{pt f}^r^o^m^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^S²¹⁸^57,^Fore^ig^{n Dire}^c^t^Inv^e^s^tmeⁿ^{t i}ⁿ^the^Unite^d^St^ate^s^{: A}ⁿ^Ec^o^nomic^A^naly^s^is^{, by}
^Ja^m^e^{s K.}^Jac^k^soⁿ^.
²⁵^Ex^c^e^r^{pt f}^r^o^m^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^S²¹¹^18,^U^.^S^.^Di^rect^In^vest^m^en^t^A^b^r^o^ad^{: T}^r^end^s^an^d^C^u^rren^t^Issu^es^,^b^y^Ja^m^e^s^K.
^Jacksoⁿ^.
²⁶^N^a^tiona^l^Sc^ie^nc^e^Fo^un^da^tio^{n, “}^C^oun^ting^t^h^e^S&^{E W}^o^r^k^f^o^r^c^e^—^I^t^’^s^N^o^{t t}^h^a^t^Ea^s^y^,”^N^{SF 99-}³⁴⁴^,^Ma^y^{3, 199}^{9 a}^t
^http:^//nsf^.g^ov^/sta^tistic^s/issue^b^rf^/sib99³⁴^4.^htm^.^N^a^tiona^{l Sc}^ie^nc^e^B^o^a^r^{d, Sc}^ie^nc^e^aⁿ^d^Engⁱ^ne^e^r^ing^Iⁿ^dⁱ^c^a^t^or^s²⁰⁰⁸
^(A^rling^t^on,^V^A^{: Na}^tiona^{l Sc}^ie^nc^e^Fo^un^da^tio^{n) Cha}^p^te^{r 3 a}^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.ns^f^.g^ov^/^s^ta^tistic^s/se^ind0^8/^pdf^/c^03.^pdf^.

related field such as health or technology. According to the NSB, these numbers reflect the many
ways science and technical knowledge is used in the United States. This is quite different from
that of NSF’s science and engineering occupation data (5.0 million in 2006), the U.S. Census
Bureau’s data (3.9 million in 2005), or BLS data (5.4 million for S&E and 7.4 for STEM ²⁷
occupations in May 2006). A third option is provided by NSF’s data that is based on workers’
own reporting of their need for at least a bachelor’s degree level of science and engineering ²⁸
knowledge (12.9 million in 2003).
Statistical analysts also find challenging accounting for the need of all workers to have a basic
understanding of STEM and of the workers whose employment is related to new technologies.
Figure 2 provides an analysis that shows how the skills needed for employment have changed
due to computerization. This computerization has reduced the need for routine manual and
cognitive tasks and replaced them with high-level tasks. This analysis found that “Translating task
shifts into education demand, the model can explain sixty percent of the estimated relative
demand shift favoring college labor during 1970 to 1998. Task changes within nominally ²⁹
identical occupations account for almost half of this impact.”
The most long-term analysis of S&E workforce trends is that of the U.S. Census Bureau. As
shown in Figure 3, the number of workers in science and engineering occupations grew
significantly—7.7 times larger in 2000 than in 1950. This growth rate is higher than that of the
total labor force, which grew 2.3 times, and that of all managers and professionals, which grew

4.9 times. The STEM growth rate in the 1990s was a little more than three times that of the ³⁰

overall labor force.

²⁷^T^h^e^N^S^B^de^fⁱ^ne^s^ST^{EM oc}^c^upa^tⁱ^ons^a^s^s^c^ie^nc^e^a^{nd e}ⁿ^gⁱ^ne^e^r^ing⁽^S^&^E⁾^oc^c^upa^ti^ons^pl^us^te^c^hnicⁱ^aⁿ^s^,^pr^og^r^a^m^m^e^r^s^,
^te^c^hnic^a^l^m^a^na^ge^r^s^{, a}^{nd a}^s^m^a^{ll num}^be^r^of^S&^E-^r^e^la^te^{d oc}^c^upa^tioⁿ^s^s^u^c^h^a^s^a^c^t^ua^r^y^a^{nd a}^r^c^h^ite^c^t^.
²⁸^N^a^tiona^l^Sc^ie^nc^e^B^o^a^r^d,^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^{nd E}ⁿ^gⁱ^ne^e^r^ing^Iⁿ^dic^a^t^or^s²⁰⁰⁸⁽^A^r^ling^t^on,^VA^{: N}^a^tiona^{l Sc}^ie^nc^e^Fo^un^da^tioⁿ⁾
^Cha^p^te^{r 3}^a^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.nsf^.^g^ov^/^s^ta^tistic^s/se^ind0^8/^pdf^/c^03.p^d^f^.
²⁹^Davⁱ^d^{H. A}^u^to^{r, Fra}ⁿ^k^L^e^v^y^{, an}^d^Rich^ard^J.^M^u^rⁿ^an^{e, “T}^h^e^Sk^ill^Coⁿ^t^en^t^o^f^Recen^{t T}^ec^hnolog^ic^a^l^C^h^aⁿ^g^e^:^Aⁿ
^Em^pirⁱ^c^a^l^Ex^plor^a^tion^,^”^Q^uar^te^r^l^y^J^our^na^{l o}^f^Ec^o^nom^ic^s^{, 11}⁸⁽⁴⁾^,^N^o^v^e^m^b^e^r²⁰⁰^3.
³⁰^B^.^Lⁱ^nds^a^y^L^o^w^e^{ll a}^{nd Ma}^r^k^R^e^g^e^ts^{, “A}^H^a^l^f^-^C^eⁿ^tur^y^Sna^p^s^hot^o^f^the^ST^{EM W}^o^r^k^f^o^r^c^e^,¹⁹⁵^0-²⁰⁰⁰^,”^C^o^m^m^is^sⁱ^on
^on^Prof^e^s^sⁱ^ona^lsⁱⁿ^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^{nd T}^e^c^hnol^og^y^,^A^u^g^u^s^t²⁰⁰^{6, a}^t^htt^p^s^://w^w^w^.c^ps^t.org^/^ST^EM/ST^E^M_White^1.^pdf^.

Figure 2. Trends in Routine and Nonroutine Task Input, 1960-1980
^Source:^{David H. Autor, Frank}^{Levy, and Richard J. M}^u^r^{nane, “The Skill Content of Recent Tech}ⁿ^olog^ical
^{Change: An}^{Empirical E}^{xploration,”}^{Quarterly Jou}^{rnal of Economics}^{, 118(}^{4), Novembe}^{r 2}⁰⁰^3.

Figure 3. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Workforce,

1950-2000 (in thousands)

^Source:^{B. Lindsay Lowell and M}^{ark Regets, “A Half-Centu}^{ry Snap}^{shot of the STEM}^{Workforce, 1}⁹^50-2⁰⁰^0,”
^{Commission on Professionals in Science and Tech}^{nology, August}²⁰⁰^{6 at}^http^{s://www.cpst.org/STEM/}
^{STEM_White1.pdf.}
^Notes:^{Derived from U.S}^{. Census microdata. STEM Core = engin}^{eering, life and physical scientists,}^{and math}
^{and information tech}^nology.
More recent data of STEM workforce trends from BLS shows mixed results. These data show a
decline in STEM professionals as a percentage of the employed civilian workforce beginning in ³¹
2000. On the other hand, BLS reports that science and engineering occupations are projected to
grow by 21.4% from 2004 to 2014, compared to a growth of 13% in all occupations during the ³²
same time period. It is anticipated that approximately 65% of the growth in science and ³³
engineering occupations will be in the computer-related occupations. Faster than average
growth is expected as well in the life sciences, social sciences, and the science and engineering-
related occupations of post-secondary teachers, healthcare practitioners and technicians, and
science managers. In addition, unemployment in S&E occupations was 1.6% in 2006. And, as
discussed above, it is important to remember that these projections involve only the demand for
strictly defined S&E occupations, and do not include the wider range of jobs in which S&E ³⁴
degree holders often use their training.

³¹^Rⁱ^c^h^a^r^{d El}^lis^{, “}^I^s^U^.^S.^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^{nd T}^e^c^hnol^og^y^P^o^lic^y^A^d^rⁱ^f^t^?^,^”^C^o^m^m^is^sⁱ^{on on}^Pr^of^e^s^sⁱ^ona^lsⁱⁿ^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^nd
^T^e^c^hnolog^y^,^O^c^tobe^{r 200}^{7, a}^t^htt^p^s^://w^w^w^.c^ps^t.org^/^ST^EM/ST^E^M8_Re^p^ort.^pdf^.
³²^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^L^a^bor^{, B}^u^r^e^a^u^of^L^a^bor^Sta^tis^tic^s^,^O^f^fⁱ^ce^of^O^c^c^upa^tiona^{l S}^t^a^tis^tic^s^a^nd^Em^ploy^m^e^nt^P^r^oje^c^tⁱ^ons^,
^BL^{S Releas}^{es 2}⁰⁰⁴^-²⁰¹⁴^Em^p^l^o^y^men^t^P^r^o^j^ectioⁿ^s^,^Decem^b^e^{r 7}^,²⁰⁰⁵^,^h^t^t^p^://w^ww^.b^ls.g^o^v^/ⁿ^ew^s.rele^ase/
^e^c^opr^o.^nr^0.^htm^.
³³^Co^m^p^u^t^er-related^o^ccu^p^a^ti^oⁿ^sⁱⁿ^clu^d^e^m^a^th^e^m^{atical sci}^eⁿ^{ce o}^ccu^p^a^tioⁿ^s^.
³⁴^N^a^tiona^l^Sc^ie^nc^e^B^o^a^r^d,^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^{nd E}ⁿ^gⁱ^ne^e^r^ing^Iⁿ^dic^a^t^or^s²⁰⁰⁸⁽^A^r^ling^t^on,^VA^{: N}^a^tiona^{l Sc}^ie^nc^e^Fo^un^da^tioⁿ⁾
^Cha^p^te^{r 3}^a^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.nsf^.^g^ov^/^s^ta^tistic^s/se^ind0^8/^pdf^/c^03.p^d^f^.

Figure 4 shows that the compensation for those in most STEM occupations is above those for the
entire U.S. labor force while the growth rate in compensation is about the same. For all STEM
workers, compensation ranges from $53,000 to $58,000 per annum compared to $47,000 to ³⁵
$49,500 for people in the professions, and $31,500 to $34,500 for all workers in 2005.
The mean real salary for recent S&E bachelor’s degree recipients increased an average of 15%
across all fields from 1993 to 2003. In 2003, median salaries for S&E bachelor’s degree holders

15-19 years after receiving their degree had the highest salary, $65,000—higher than non-S&E ³⁶

bachelor’s degree recipients whose salary at that stage of their career was $49,000. There can be
a great deal of variance, however, among STEM occupations, fields, and sub-fields.
Figure 4. Trends in Annual U.S. Base Salaries, in Constant 2005 Dollars, 1995-2005
^Source:^{Derived from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Cu}^rrent^{Population Surveys}^{data. Commissi}^{on on}
^{Professionals in Science and Tech}^{nology, “Sc}^{ience and Tech}^{nology Salaries: Trends and Details, 1995-20}^05,”
^{August 20}^06,^{at https://www.cpst}^.org/^STEM/^{STEM5_Report.pdf.}
The Council on Competitiveness contends that these traditional measures of competitiveness—
trade balance, foreign direct investment, level of employment and wages—do not fully capture a
nation’s competitiveness. For firms, factors such as foreign affiliate sales, intrafirm trade,
fragmentation of global supply chains, and lack of inclusion of services and intangibles such as
knowledge and intellectual property are not incorporated into today’s assessment of the nation’s
competitiveness. The Council on Competitiveness also suggests that due to the global economy,
assessing a nation’s trade balance is not as useful a measure as it once was. Today, competition is
not as much domestic companies competing with foreign companies (as captured in trade
balances), but a world where “value is created through intangible assets flowing through ³⁷
constantly shifting global networks of multinational firms.” For individuals, the Council on
Competitiveness suggest that factors such as pension funds, real estate, value of healthcare

³⁵^C^o^m^m^is^sⁱ^{on on}^Pr^of^e^s^sⁱ^ona^lsⁱⁿ^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^{nd T}^e^c^hnol^og^y^,^“^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^ce^a^{nd T}^e^c^hnol^og^y^Sa^la^rⁱ^es^{: T}^r^e^nds^a^{nd D}^e^ta^ils^,
¹⁹⁹^5-²⁰^05,”^A^u^g^u^s^t²⁰⁰⁶^{, a}^t^htt^p^s^://w^w^w^.c^ps^t.or^g^/^ST^EM/ST^E^M5_R^e^por^t^.^p^d^f^.
³⁶^N^a^tiona^l^Sc^ie^nc^e^B^o^a^r^d,^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^{nd E}ⁿ^gⁱ^ne^e^r^ing^Iⁿ^dic^a^t^or^s²⁰⁰⁸⁽^A^r^ling^t^on,^VA^{: N}^a^tiona^{l Sc}^ie^nc^e^Fo^un^da^tioⁿ⁾
^Cha^p^te^{r 3}^a^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.nsf^.^g^ov^/^s^ta^tistic^s/se^ind0^8/^pdf^/c^03.p^d^f^.
³⁷^Couⁿ^c^{il o}ⁿ^C^o^m^p^e^titiv^eⁿ^e^ss,^Compe^titiv^eⁿ^e^{ss Inde}^x^:^W^h^e^r^e^Ame^r^ic^{a St}^an^ds^(W^a^s^hing^ton^,^{DC: C}^o^uⁿ^c^{il o}ⁿ
^Com^p^e^titiv^eⁿ^e^s^s^,^N^o^v^e^m^b^e^r²⁰⁰⁶^{), p.}²³^.

benefits, and purchasing power should be additional measures to understand an individual’s
prosperity. They also propose assessing whether or not prosperity is equivalent across all levels of ³⁸
society, and the potential individuals have to improve their prosperity through their own efforts.
The America COMPETES Act is based on a set of assumptions such as the following:
^●STEM knowledge is necessary for all Americans, not just those entering science
and engineering careers. American K-12 students do not have sufficient
proficiency in STEM due to a lack of teachers with education or training in
STEM. Scientists, engineers, and teachers with STEM degrees or enhanced
STEM knowledge will generate more enthusiasm for STEM in students than
those without such degrees; more enthusiastic students will lead to a better-
trained and more competitive workforce.
An insufficient number of Americans obtain degrees in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics compared to the nation’s economic competitors.
More Americans need to be encouraged to pursue such fields so that the United
States has the workforce necessary to generate the new ideas that led to the new
industries. Individuals who obtain STEM degrees are smart people who can work
in a variety of occupations beyond those traditionally assumed for those who earn
such degrees.
Science and engineering research is important to U.S. competitiveness because of
its influence on U.S. economic growth. Current science and engineering basic
research funding, particularly in the physical sciences, engineering, mathematics,
and computer science, is insufficient compared to other countries with whom the
United States competes. Additional federal funding of basic science and
engineering research will make the nation more competitive by creating whole
new industries, and the related jobs, and enhancing existing ones.
These assumptions are based on a variety of analyses. For example, in K-12 STEM education,³⁹
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Program for
International Student Assessment (PISA) compared the scores of U.S. 15-year-old students in
science and mathematics literacy to the scores of their peers internationally in 2006. American
students scored an average of 489 points on science literacy, lower than the OECD average of 500 ⁴⁰
points, and 474 points in mathematics literacy, lower than the OECD average score of 498.
Further, another study found that middle school mathematics teachers in the United States are not
as well prepared to teach mathematics as many of their counterparts in five other countries, and

³⁸^Ibid^.
³⁹^Se^e^a^l^s^o^C^R^S^R^e^p^o^r^t^98-⁸⁷^1,^Scⁱ^e^nc^e^,^Engi^ne^e^r^ing^,^aⁿ^d^M^a^the^m^at^ic^s^Educ^at^io^n:^S^t^at^us^aⁿ^d^I^s^s^u^e^s^,^by^Chris^tine^M.
^Ma^tthe^w^s^,^a^{nd C}^R^S^R^e^p^o^r^t^R^L³³⁴³⁴^,^Sc^ie^nc^e^,^Te^c^hⁿ^o^lo^gy^{, E}^ngi^ne^e^r^ing,^an^{d M}^a^t^h^e^m^atic^s⁽^S^TEM⁾^Educ^a^tio^n:
^Bac^k^g^r^o^uⁿ^d^,^Fe^de^r^a^l^Po^lic^y^,^a^nd^Le^gis^l^ativ^e^Ac^ti^on^{, by}^J^e^ff^r^e^y^J^.^K^u^eⁿ^zⁱ^.
⁴⁰^U^.^{S. D}^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^Educ^a^tio^{n, N}^a^tiona^{l C}^e^nte^r^f^o^r^E^duc^a^tⁱ^on^Sta^tⁱ^s^tic^s^,^“^H^ig^hlig^hts^Fr^om^P^I^SA²⁰⁰^6:^P^e^r^f^or^m^a^nc^e
^of^U^.^{S. 1}⁵^-^Y^e^a^r^-^O^{ld St}^ude^ntsⁱⁿ^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^{nd Ma}^t^h^e^m^a^tic^s^L^ite^ra^c^y^{in a}ⁿ^Inte^rna^tⁱ^ona^{l C}^onte^x^t,”^N^C^{ES Re}^por^{t Num}^b^e^r
²⁰⁰⁸^-⁰¹⁶^,^Decem^b^e^r^{2007 a}^t^htt^p^://nc^e^s^.e^d.g^o^v^/^pubs²⁰⁰⁸^/²⁰⁰⁸⁰¹⁶^.pdf^.

this inadequate teacher preparation joins deficiencies in mathematics curriculum as reasons ⁴¹
contributing to lower scores for American middle-schoolers.
The United States has one of the lowest rates of first university degrees⁴² awarded in STEM fields
to that in non-STEM degree production in the world according to NSF data. In 2002, STEM
degrees accounted for 16.8% of all first university degrees awarded in the United States ⁴³
compared to an international average of 26.4%.
In science and engineering research, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, with support from
the National Science Foundation, has developed a research and development satellite account to
estimate the effect of investment in research and development on U.S. economic growth. By this
analysis, if R&D were treated as investment, it would have accounted for 5% of real gross ⁴⁴
domestic product (GDP) growth between 1959 and 2004, and 7% between 1995 and 2004.
These are illustrations of the many analyses available that emphasize such themes. Some,
however, question these fundamental assumptions. They question, for example, if the United
States invests in federal research programs, to what extent can the U.S. exclusively benefit from
those investments? Since research is international, could not any country benefit from these
investments? At what point is the nation’s research investment sufficient to reach its goals? In
STEM education, is this not a state and local issue? Can the federal government really have any
major influence in this policy area? Will STEM education investments take too long to reach
fruition relative to other investments? Will federal investments in research and STEM education
provide jobs for all Americans as opposed to just scientists and engineers? Others question
whether or not the actions in the act are by themselves sufficient to enhance U.S. competitiveness ⁴⁵
as many other factors beyond STEM research and education contribute to U.S. competitiveness.
Further, some question the fundamental premise that any action is necessary at all regarding U.S.
competitiveness. They question whether or not science and engineering research and STEM ⁴⁶
education are problems at all. These analysts express doubts as to whether additional scientists
and engineers in the United States are needed given current workforce projections, and why if the ⁴⁷
demand is so high, salaries for those in STEM occupations are not higher. Other analysts

⁴¹^W^illia^m^Sc^hm^{idt, e}^t^a^l^{., “}^T^he^P^r^e^p^a^r^a^tion^G^a^{p: T}^e^a^c^he^{r Educ}^a^tioⁿ^f^o^{r Middle}^Sc^ho^ol^Ma^the^m^a^tic^{s i}ⁿ^Six^Co^un^trie^s,”
^Ma^the^m^a^tic^s^T^e^a^c^h^ing^{in t}^h^e²¹^st^C^e^ntur^y⁽^M^T²¹⁾^pr^o^j^e^c^t^{, c}^oⁿ^duc^t^e^{d by}^Mic^h^ig^aⁿ^Sta^t^e^Uⁿ^iv^e^r^s^ity^f^o^r^the^N^a^ti^ona^l
^Sc^ie^nc^e^Fou^nda^ti^on^{, 2}⁰⁰⁷^{, a}^t^htt^p^://uste^d^s.m^s^u.e^du/^MT^21Re^por^t.p^d^f^.^Na^tiona^{l Sc}^ie^nc^e^F^o^u^nda^ti^on^,^“^U^{.S. Mi}^ddle
^S^c^h^o^o^l^M^a^t^h^T^each^ers^A^r^{e Il}^l^-^p^r^ep^ared^Am^oⁿ^g^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Couⁿ^t^e^rp^art^s^,^”^p^r^{ess rel}^{ease 0}⁷^-¹⁸⁵^,^De^ce^m^b^{er 1}¹^,²⁰⁰⁷^,
^a^t^http^://w^ww^.ns^f^.g^ov^/ⁿ^e^w^s/^ne^w^s^_sum^m^.^jsp?^cⁿ^tn_i^d=¹¹⁰⁸^45.
⁴²^Fⁱ^rst^unⁱ^v^ersi^t^y^d^e^gre^e^{s are t}^h^o^s^{e d}^e^si^gn^at^ed^L^e^vel⁵^A^b^y^the^Inte^rna^tio^na^{l Sta}ⁿ^da^{rd Cla}^ssifⁱ^c^a^tion^o^f^Educ^a^tion
^{(ISCED 9}⁷^{), a}ⁿ^d^usua^lly^re^quire^l^e^{ss tha}ⁿ^fⁱ^v^e^y^e^a^r^{s to c}^o^m^p^le^te^{. More}^inf^o^rm^a^{tion o}ⁿ^t^h^{is c}^l^a^ssifⁱ^c^a^{tion a}ⁿ^{d t}^h^e
^ISCED^is^a^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^htt^p^://w^w^w^.^une^s^c^o.^org^/^e^duc^a^tio^n/^inf^o^rm^a^tio^n/^nf^s^une^s^c^o/doc^/ⁱ^s^c^e^d_19^97.^htm^.
⁴³^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³³⁴³⁴^,^Sc^ie^nc^e^,^Te^c^hnol^ogy^,^En^gine^e^rⁱⁿ^g,^an^{d M}^a^the^m^at^ic^s⁽^S^TEM⁾^Educ^a^tio^n:^B^a^c^k^g^r^o^u^nd,
^Fe^de^{ral Po}^lic^y^,^a^nd^Le^gisl^ativ^e^A^c^tion^,^b^y^Je^ff^re^y^{J. Ku}^en^zi.
⁴⁴^Bure^a^u^of^Ec^o^nom^ic^Aⁿ^a^l^y^s^is^/N^a^tiona^{l Sc}^ie^nc^e^Fou^nda^ti^on^{, “}²⁰⁰^{7 Re}^s^e^a^r^c^h^a^{nd D}^e^v^e^lopm^eⁿ^{t Sa}^te^llite^A^c^c^ount,”
^Se^pte^m^be^{r 28, 2}⁰⁰⁷^a^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.be^a^.^g^o^v^/^ne^w^s^r^e^le^a^s^e^s^/g^eⁿ^e^r^a^l^/^r^d/²⁰⁰^7/^pdf^/rdre^port⁰⁷^.^p^d^f^.
⁴⁵^G^e^org^e^{R. H}^e^a^t^{on, J}^r^.,^Chris^t^op^h^e^{r T}^.^H^ill,^P^a^tric^k^Wⁱ^ndha^m^,^D^a^{vid W}^.^Cheⁿ^e^y^{, “}^I^nnov^a^tioⁿ^Polic^y^T^oda^y^{in the}
^Uⁿ^ite^{d S}^t^a^t^e^s^{: T}^h^e^Ma^ins^t^r^e^a^m^C^ons^eⁿ^s^u^s^a^{nd O}^t^he^r^Vie^w^s^,^”^Te^c^h^nol^og^y^P^o^lic^y^Iⁿ^te^rⁿ^a^tiona^l^,^Ma^y²⁰⁰^{7, a}^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.te^c^hnop^oli.^ne^t/^I^nnov^a^tion^P^olic^y²⁰⁰^7.p^d^f^.
⁴⁶^Se^e^,^f^o^r^e^x^am^ple^,^te^s^tⁱ^m^ony^a^t^U^.^{S. C}^o^ng^r^e^s^s^,^H^ous^e^C^o^m^m^itte^e^{on Sc}^ie^nc^e^aⁿ^d^T^e^c^hnolog^y^,^The^G^l^ob^aliz^at^io^{n o}^f
^R^&^D^{and I}ⁿ^nov^a^tio^{n, P}^t^{. I}^V^:^I^m^p^lic^atio^ns^f^o^r^the^Sc^ie^nc^e^an^{d E}ⁿ^gⁱ^ne^e^r^{ing W}^o^r^k^for^c^e^,^h^earⁱⁿ^g,¹¹⁰^th^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,¹^st
^s^e^s^s^{., N}^o^v^e^m^b^e^r^{6, 2}⁰⁰⁷^a^t^h^ttp:^/^/^s^cⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^.^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^pu^blic^a^tⁱ^ons^/^h^e^a^r^ing^s^_m^a^r^k^ups^_de^ta^ils^.a^s^p^x^?^N^e^w^s^I^D⁼^2032.
⁴⁷^B^.^Lⁱ^nds^a^y^L^o^w^e^{ll a}^{nd H}^a^{l Sa}^lz^m^a^{n, “}^I^nto^the^Ey^e^of^the^Stor^m^:^A^s^s^e^s^sⁱ^ng^the^Ev^ideⁿ^c^e^on^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^{nd E}ⁿ^gⁱ^ne^e^r^ing
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

indicate that the quality and number of scientists and engineers in China and India are ⁴⁸
exaggerated.
Another set of issues focuses on the possible unintended side-effects of implementation. For ⁴⁹
example, will the act result in an oversupply of scientists and engineers? Can the doubling of
funding for some research programs be properly managed? Will the agencies who receive these ⁵⁰
funds face the same challenges as NIH faces today once the funding declines?
Assuming that policymakers’ concerns about U.S. competitiveness are sufficient for a response,
both direct (such as increased funding) and indirect measures (such as tax policy) are proposed by
proponents. The act focuses on direct measures while studying possible indirect measures that can
be taken. When looking at technology development, those favoring direct government assistance
contend that the government’s scarce resources should focus on technologies that have the
greatest promise, as determined by industry and indicated by industry’s willingness to match
funds. Those favoring indirect measures contend that the market is superior to government in
deciding which technologies are worthy of investment, and worry about potential political
interests’ influences on an agency’s decision to assist one technology in preference to another.
Indirect policy mechanism proponents instead support policies that enhance the market’s
opportunities and abilities to make such choices. Those who prefer direct measures contend that ⁵¹
indirect measures are wasteful, ineffective, and can compromise other public policy goals.
President Bush announced the American Competitiveness Initiative⁵² in January 2006 during his
State of the Union address. The America COMPETES Act and the ACI respond to the same
concern—that the United States may not be able to compete economically with other nations in
the future due to insufficient investment today in science and technology research and workforce
development. Many, but not all, of the provisions of ACI are part of the America COMPETES
Act. Provisions of ACI found in the America COMPETES Act include increased research funding
at the NSF, NIST laboratories, and the DOE Office of Science. Two STEM Education programs,
Math Now and the AP/IB program, are also in both ACI and the America COMPETES Act.
The Administration has continued to make a commitment to the research funding goals outlined
in ACI. The ACI would, if maintained, double the physical sciences and engineering research

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^Educ^a^tio^{n, Q}^u^a^lity^{, a}^{nd W}^o^rk^f^o^rc^e^De^m^a^nd”^(W^a^s^hing^{ton, D.C.:}^T^h^e^Urba^{n I}ⁿ^stit^ute^,^Oc^to^be^{r 2}⁰⁰⁷⁾^.
⁴⁸^{J. Bha}^g^w^a^{ti, T}^h^e^W^o^{rld is No}^{t Fl}^a^t^,^Wa^l^l^St^reet^Jo^u^r^na^l^{, A}^u^g^u^s^t⁴^,²⁰^05.^Viv^e^k^W^a^dh^w^a^,^G^a^r^y^G^e^r^e^f^f^{i, B}^e^{n R}ⁱ^s^sⁱ^ng^,
^R^y^an^On^g,^“S^eeiⁿ^g^t^h^rou^g^h^P^r^econ^cep^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^:^A^Deep^{er L}^o^o^k^at^Chⁱⁿ^{a an}^d^Iⁿ^di^a,^”^I^s^s^u^e^sⁱⁿ^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^nd^Te^c^hno^lo^gy^,
^Spring²⁰^{07 a}^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.issue^s^.^o^rg^/23.^3/^w^a^dh^w^a^.htm^l.
⁴⁹^Mic^h^a^e^l^T^e^ite^lba^u^m^,^“^D^{o W}^e^Ne^e^d^More^Sc^ie^ntists,”^P^ublic^Iⁿ^te^re^st^{, Fa}^ll²⁰^03,^p^p^.^40-^{53 a}^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.sloaⁿ^.org^/
^pr^og^r^a^m^s^/^doc^um^eⁿ^ts^/Pub^lic^Iⁿ^te^r^e^s^t^T^e^ite^lba^u^m²⁰⁰³^.p^df^.
⁵⁰^Elia^{s A}^.^Ze^rhou^{ni, “}^E^nha^nc^e^d^{: N}^I^{H in t}^h^e^P^o^st-D^ou^bliⁿ^g^Era^:^Re^a^litie^{s a}^{nd S}^t^ra^te^gⁱ^e^s^,”^Sc^ie^nc^e^{, (}³¹⁴^:5⁸⁰²⁾^,^pp.
¹⁰⁸^8-¹⁰^{90, N}^o^v^e^m^b^e^r^{17 20}⁰⁶^{, a}^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.s^cⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^m^a^g^.^org^/^c^g^i/^c^onteⁿ^t/^f^u^ll/31^/⁵⁸⁰^2/¹⁰⁸^8?^ijk^e^y⁼^R^/
^B^99J^F^P^ZA^J^g^A^&^key^t^y^p^e=^r^e^f^&^sⁱ^t^e^id=^s^cⁱ^.
⁵¹^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³³⁵²⁸^,^In^dustri^a^l^Compe^titiv^eⁿ^e^{ss a}ⁿ^d^Te^c^hⁿ^o^lo^gi^c^a^{l Adv}^anc^e^m^eⁿ^{t: De}^ba^te^Ov^e^r^Gov^e^r^nmeⁿ^t
^Polic^y^{, by}^W^e^ndy^H^.^Sc^ha^c^h^t.
⁵²^U^.^S.^P^r^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^{t (G}^.W^{. Bus}^h^),^Ame^r^ic^{an Compe}^tⁱ^tiv^eⁿ^e^{ss Initi}^ativ^e^,^D^o^m^e^s^tic^P^o^lic^y^Counc^il/O^f^fⁱ^c^e^of^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^nd
^T^e^c^hnolog^y^P^o^lic^y^,^Fe^brua^ry²⁰⁰^{6, p}^.¹⁹^{, a}^t^htt^p^://w^w^w^.os^t^p.g^o^v^/^p^d^f^/^a^cⁱ^book^le^t.p^d^f^.

funding of the three agencies, in aggregate, over ten years.⁵³ These funds were proposed in the
President’s FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009 budget submission.
Although President Bush signed the America COMPETES Act into law because it shares the
goals of ACI, he did not support all the provisions within it. At the time of its signing, the
Administration expressed concern that the act includes excessive authorizations and new
duplicative programs. The Administration stated,
^T^h^{e b}^{ill cr}^{eates o}^v^er³⁰ⁿ^e^w^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^t^h^{at ar}^e^m^o^stl^y^d^u^p^lic^ativ^{e o}^r^co^uⁿ^t^er^p^r^o^d^u^ctiv^e—
ⁱⁿ^cl^u^dⁱⁿ^g^aⁿ^e^w^Dep^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^En^er^g^y^ag^eⁿ^c^y^to^f^uⁿ^d^late^-^s^tag^e^tec^hⁿ^o^lo^g^y^d^e^v^e^lo^p^m^eⁿ^t
^m^o^{re appropriately}^le^f^t^{to th}^e^priv^{ate s}^ector—an^d^als^o^provⁱ^d^es^ex^ces^sⁱ^v^e^a^u^th^orizatioⁿ^f^o^r
^exⁱ^s^tⁱ^ng^prog^ra^m^s^.^A^ccordiⁿ^g^l^y^,^t^h^{e Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^wⁱ^l^l^requ^es^t^fuⁿ^dⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^hⁱ^{s 2009 bu}^dg^et^f^o^r
^th^os^{e au}^t^h^orizations^th^at^s^u^pp^{ort th}^{e f}^o^cu^s^e^{d priorities}^of^t^h^e^A^C^{I, bu}^t^w^illⁿ^o^{t propos}^e⁵⁴
^ex^ces^siv^e^o^r^d^u^p^licati^v^{e f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^b^a^sed^oⁿ^a^u^th^o^r^izatioⁿ^sⁱⁿ^t^h^{e b}^ill.
In STEM education, the Bush Administration criticized the inclusion of new STEM programs ⁵⁵
beyond Math Now and the AP/IB program in the American COMPETES Act. For existing
programs, the Administration is opposed to increasing funding beyond what was requested in the
President’s budget.
The America COMPETES Act authorizes increases in funding for the NSF, NIST laboratories,
and the DOE Office of Science, as well as two new research organizations: the Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) and the Discovery Science and Engineering
Innovation Institutes.
In addition, the act expresses a sense of the Congress that each executive agency that funds
research is requested to set a goal of allocating an “appropriate” percentage of its annual basic
research budget to fund high-risk, high-reward basic research projects. The act also expresses the
sense of the Congress that appropriately funding NASA at the authorized levels contained in the
NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155) would allow it to contribute significantly to U.S.
innovation and competitiveness.
The America COMPETES Act authorizes increases in funding for the NSF, NIST laboratories,⁵⁶
and the DOE Office of Science over FY2008-2010. If maintained beyond 2010, the increases

⁵³^I^b^id^{., T}^h^e^A^C^I^pr^op^os^e^s^to^do^ub^l^e^“ⁱ^nnov^a^tio^n-^eⁿ^a^b^lⁱ^ng^p^h^y^s^ic^a^l^sc^ie^nc^e^a^{nd e}ⁿ^gⁱ^ne^e^r^ing^r^e^s^e^a^r^c^h^”^a^t^the^thr^e^e
^agen^ci^{es o}^v^{er t}^eⁿ^y^ear^s,^an^d^st^at^{es t}^h^at^“i^ndⁱ^vⁱ^d^u^a^l^agen^c^y^al^l^o^catⁱ^oⁿ^s^rem^aⁱⁿ^t^o^b^e^d^e^t^e^rmⁱⁿ^ed^.^”
⁵⁴^U^.^S.^P^r^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^{t (}^G^.W^{. B}^u^s^h⁾^,^“^A^m^e^rⁱ^c^a^C^O^MP^ET^{ES A}^c^{t of}²⁰⁰⁷^,^”^Fa^c^t^She^e^t^{, A}^u^g^u^s^t^9,²⁰⁰⁷^a^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.^w^hite^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^ne^w^s^/r^e^l^e^a^s^e^s^/²⁰⁰^7/^08/²⁰⁰⁷⁰⁸^09-^6.^ht^m^l^.
⁵⁵^Ibid^.
⁵⁶^NIST^{is a}^non^-re^g^u^la^tory^fe^de^ra^{l a}^g^eⁿ^c^y^w^{ithin the}^U.S^.^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^C^o^m^m^e^r^c^e^,^w^hos^e^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^{on i}^s^{to “}^p^r^o^m^o^te
^U^.^{S. i}ⁿⁿ^o^v^a^{tion a}ⁿ^{d i}ⁿ^d^u^s^t^ria^l^c^o^m^p^e^titiv^eⁿ^e^s^s^b^y^a^dva^nc^ing^m^e^a^s^ure^m^eⁿ^{t s}^c^ie^nc^e^,^s^t^a^nda^rds^,^a^nd^t^e^c^hnol^og^y^{in w}^a^y^s
^tha^t^e^nha^nc^e^e^c^onom^ic^s^e^c^u^rity^{and im}^prov^e^o^u^{r q}^u^a^lity^of^lif^e^.^”^N^I^ST^la^bora^t^orie^s^c^o^nd^uc^{t “}^r^e^s^e^a^r^{ch tha}^t^a^d^v^a^nc^e^s^the
^na^tio^n’^s^te^c^hⁿ^o^log^y^inf^r^a^s^tr^uc^tur^e^a^{nd is}^ne^e^d^e^d^by^U^.^{S. in}^dus^tr^y^{to c}^onti^nua^lly^im^pr^ov^e^pr^oduc^ts^aⁿ^{d s}^e^r^v^ic^e^s^.”^Se^e
^http:^//www^.nist.g^o^v^/^pu^blic^_a^f^f^a^ir^s/g^eⁿ^e^ral2^.h^tm^f^o^r^m^o^{re in}^f^o^r^m^ati^oⁿ^.

would double funding for these agencies over seven years.⁵⁷ The Administration’s ACI also
proposed increases in funding, as exhibited in the FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009 budgets, but at
a rate that would provide a doubling path over 10 years instead of 7 years.
Many organizations have advocated increasing research funding for the physical sciences,
engineering, mathematics, and computer science. The specific rate of increase in the America ⁵⁸
COMPETES Act is based on the National Academies Rising Above the Gathering Storm ⁵⁹
report, which called for the federal government to increase its investment in long-term basic
research by 10% annually over the next seven years. The National Academies committee that
developed the report concluded that this rate of change was necessary, particularly in the physical
sciences, engineering, mathematics, and information sciences, because federal funding in these
fields has remained relatively flat for 15 years. According to the National Academies, agencies
are less likely to support high-potential high-risk research when funding is stagnant. In addition,
this type of research tends to be overlooked when there are inadequate funds to support all
proposals that independent external reviewers rate as very good or excellent. Corporations are
unlikely to fill this need, according to the National Academies; they fund little basic research, as it
typically offers greater benefits to society than its sponsor, and is riskier than shareholders are ⁶⁰
willing to tolerate.
The National Academies committee reviewed proposals from a wide variety of organizations
before determining that a 10% annual increase over a seven-year period would be most
appropriate. In particular, the NSF Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368) authorized doubling
NSF’s research budget over five years. The committee took this into account and expanded it to
other federal agencies. In sum, “The committee believes that this rate of growth strikes an
appropriate balance between the urgency of the issue being addressed and the ability of the ⁶¹
research community to apply new funds efficiently.”
The Administration has not indicated why it selected a 7% annual rate, that would provide a
doubling-path for these research activities over 10 years, as an appropriate rate of increase for
these agencies. The Administration has indicated, however, that the amount of funding available
is limited:
^{Wide con}^s^en^s^u^s^{... ex}^is^ts^on^t^h^{e i}^m^portan^{ce of}^f^e^derall^y^fun^d^{ed s}^c^ien^{ce to ou}^{r n}^a^tion’^s^loⁿ^g
^t^e^r^m^econ^o^mⁱ^{c co}^m^p^etⁱ^tⁱ^v^eⁿ^ess^....^T^h^{e Nat}ⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^A^cade^mⁱ^e^s’²⁰⁰⁵^rep^o^rt^“^Rⁱ^sⁱⁿ^g^A^b^o^v^e^t^h^e
^G^a^t^h^eriⁿ^g^S^t^or^m^…^”^w^a^s^anⁱ^m^port^aⁿ^t^ex^pres^sⁱ^on^of^t^hⁱ^s^vⁱ^e^w^{, an}^{d ech}^{oed f}ⁱⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^s^of^m^aⁿ^y
^ot^h^e^{r report}^s^{. N}^o^t^a^bl^{e am}^ongⁱ^t^s^recom^m^eⁿ^d^atⁱ^ons^w^a^sⁱⁿ^crea^s^e^{d f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r bas}ⁱ^{c res}^e^a^r^c^h
ⁱⁿ^t^h^{e p}^h^y^sⁱ^{cal sc}^ien^c^e^s^,^m^a^th^e^m^atic^{s, an}^d^eⁿ^gⁱⁿ^eerⁱⁿ^g^—^ar^ea^{s th}^a^t^h^a^d^sta^gⁿ^a^ted^w^h^ile^th^e

⁵⁷^For^a^dditi^ona^l^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^R^L³⁴⁰⁴⁸^,^F^e^d^e^ra^l^R^e^sea^r^ch^aⁿ^d^Devel^o^p^m^ent^F^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^:^F^Y²⁰⁰⁸^{, by}
^J^ohn^F.^Sa^r^g^eⁿ^{t J}^r^{. e}^t^a^l^{.; C}^R^{S R}^e^por^t^95-³⁰^7,^U^.^S.^N^a^ti^on^al^Sc^ie^nc^e^Fouⁿ^d^a^tio^n:^Aⁿ^O^v^e^r^vⁱ^e^w^{, by}^C^h^ris^tine^M.
^Ma^tthe^w^s^;^a^{nd C}^R^S^R^e^p^o^r^t^95-³⁰^,^The^N^a^ti^on^{al I}ⁿ^s^t^itute^of^Staⁿ^d^a^r^ds^an^{d Te}^c^h^nol^ogy^:^An^Ap^pr^oprⁱ^a^tio^ns^O^v^e^r^vⁱ^e^w^,
^by^W^e^ndy^H^.^Sc^ha^c^h^t.
⁵⁸^T^h^e^N^a^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^em^ie^s^inc^l^ude^the^N^a^tiona^l^A^c^a^d^em^y^of^Sc^ie^nc^es^{, N}^a^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^em^y^of^Engⁱ^ne^e^rⁱⁿ^g^,^a^nd^the
^Institute^of^Me^dicⁱ^ne^.
⁵⁹^T^h^e^Na^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^e^m^ie^s,^Risⁱ^ng^Abov^e^t^h^e^G^a^the^rⁱ^ng^St^or^m^:^Ene^r^gizⁱⁿ^g^aⁿ^d^Em^pl^oyⁱⁿ^{g Am}^e^r^ic^{a f}^o^r^{a Br}^ig^hte^r
^Ec^onom^ic^Fut^u^r^e⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton, D}^C^{: N}^a^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^em^y^P^r^e^s^s^,²⁰⁰⁷⁾^.^T^h^is^r^e^por^t^is^of^te^{n r}^e^f^e^r^r^e^{d to a}^s^the^“^G^a^t^he^rⁱ^ng
^Stor^m^r^e^por^t”^or^the^“^A^ug^us^tine^r^e^por^t,”^f^o^r^its^c^h^aⁱ^r^,^N^o^r^m^aⁿ^A^ugus^tine^,^r^e^tir^e^d^C^E^O^aⁿ^{d c}^h^aⁱ^r^m^aⁿ^of^L^o^c^k^he^e^d
^Ma^rtin.
⁶⁰^T^h^e^Na^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^e^m^ie^s,^Risⁱ^ng^Abov^e^t^h^e^G^a^the^rⁱ^ng^St^or^m^:^Ene^r^gizⁱⁿ^g^aⁿ^d^Em^pl^oyⁱⁿ^{g Am}^e^r^ic^{a f}^o^r^{a Br}^ig^hte^r
^Ec^onom^ic^Fut^u^r^e⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton, D}^C^{: N}^a^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^em^y^P^r^e^s^s^,²⁰⁰⁷⁾^,^p^p^.¹³^6-¹^38.
⁶¹^I^b^id^{., p. 14}^1.

^bu^dg^et^f^o^{r bio}^m^{edical res}^earc^h^s^o^{ared. T}^h^e^{report ev}^en^recom^m^eⁿ^d^{ed th}^at^inv^e^s^t^m^eⁿ^tⁱⁿ
^th^es^{e areas}^s^h^{ould in}^creas^e^“ⁱ^d^eall^y^t^h^rou^g^h^rea^llo^catioⁿ^o^f^e^x^istⁱⁿ^g^f^uⁿ^d^{s, b}^u^{t i}^fⁿ^ece^ssar^y
^vⁱ^aⁿ^e^w^fun^d^s^.^{” T}^h^at^s^t^ate^m^en^t^is^a^{rare recogn}^{ition of th}^e^f^act^th^at^f^e^{deral fun}^d^s^f^o^{r s}^c^ieⁿ^c^e
^ar^{e li}^m^ited^aⁿ^d^th^at^so^m^e^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^m^a^y^h^a^v^e^to^b^e^h^e^ld^coⁿ^s^taⁿ^t^o^r^r^e^d^u^ced^to^f^uⁿ^d
^p^r^io^r^ities.^T^h^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^ti^oⁿ^’^s^r^e^sp^oⁿ^{se to}^th^{is co}ⁿ^s^en^su^s^w^a^{s th}^e^Am^er^icaⁿ
^C^o^m^p^etiti^v^eⁿ^e^s^s^In^itiati^v^e^,^w^h^ich^a^m^oⁿ^g^oth^e^{r thing}^s^propos^{ed dou}^blin^g^bu^dg^ets^f^o^{r NSF,}⁶²
^NIST^an^{d th}^{e Departm}^eⁿ^t^of^En^ergy^’s^O^f^{fice of}^Scieⁿ^{ce over ten}^y^ears^.
The America COMPETES Act states that NASA should be a full participant in any interagency
effort to promote innovation and economic competitiveness through near-term and long-term
basic scientific and engineering research and development and in the promotion of STEM
education consistent with NASA’s mission. The act also expresses the sense of the Congress that
“robust” funding of NASA, at the levels authorized in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of

2005 (P.L. 109-55) and subsequent years, would allow NASA to contribute significantly to U.S.

innovation and competitiveness, enable a fair balance of funding among its science, aeronautics,
education, exploration, and human space flight programs, and allow full participation in any ⁶³
interagency efforts to promote innovation and economic competitiveness.
The Senate and House appropriations committees have expressed concern that the President’s
FY2008 budget is not appropriately balanced and that insufficient funds are requested for both the ⁶⁴
President’s Vision for Space Exploration and the other important initiatives at NASA.
Similarly, a National Research Council report indicated that “NASA is being asked to accomplish ⁶⁵
too much with too little.” The report recommended that “both the executive and the legislative
branches of the federal government need to seriously examine the mismatch between the tasks
assigned to NASA and the resources that the agency has been provided to accomplish them and
should identify actions that will make the agency’s portfolio of responsibilities sustainable.” ⁶⁶
Others also question if NASA has the right priorities.
Although the Administration has agreed that funding is challenging given NASA’s many tasks, it
also believes that NASA’s budget priorities as proposed in the President’s budget are

⁶²^J^o^hⁿ^Ma^r^b^ur^g^e^r^,^Dⁱ^r^e^c^t^or^{, W}^h^ite^H^ous^e^O^f^fⁱ^ce^of^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^{nd T}^e^chno^log^y^P^o^lic^y^,^“²⁰⁰^{7 A}^A^A^S^P^o^lⁱ^cy^For^u^m^,^”
^S^p^eech^at^t^h^e²⁰⁰⁷^Am^eri^c^an^A^s^s^o^ci^atⁱ^o^{n f}^o^{r t}^h^{e A}^d^van^c^e^m^en^t^o^f^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^{ce P}^o^lⁱ^c^y^F^o^ru^m^,^M^a^y²⁰⁰⁷^{, a}^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.os^t^p.g^o^v^/^pdf^/^j^hm^_2007_^aaas_^p^o^lⁱ^c^y^_^f^o^ru^m^_^fⁱⁿ^a^l^.^p^d^f^.
⁶³^Am^e^r^ic^a^COMP^ET^{ES A}^c^{t, P.L}^.¹¹⁰^-6^{9, Se}^c^tⁱ^on²⁰⁰¹^{. F}^o^r^m^o^re^disc^{ussion re}^g^a^rding^NA^SA^a^{nd its prior}^itie^{s, se}^e
^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^R^L³⁴⁶^23,^H^o^usⁱⁿ^{g a}^{nd Ec}^on^om^ic^Re^c^o^v^e^r^y^Ac^{t of}²⁰⁰⁸^{, by}^N^.^Eric^W^e^is^s^e^t^a^l^{., a}ⁿ^d^{CRS Re}^port
^R^S²²⁶²^5,^N^a^ti^on^{al Ae}^r^o^na^utic^s^a^nd^Sp^ac^e^Admⁱ^nis^t^r^a^ti^on:^O^v^e^r^vⁱ^ew^{, FY2}⁰⁰⁸^B^u^d^g^e^tⁱⁿ^Br^ie^f,^an^{d K}^e^y^I^s^s^u^e^s^for
^C^ongr^e^s^s^,^by^D^a^nie^l^Mor^g^aⁿ^a^nd^C^a^r^l^{E. B}^e^hr^eⁿ^s^.
⁶⁴^{U.S. C}^oⁿ^g^{ress, Ho}^u^s^{e Co}^m^m^itte^{e o}ⁿ^A^p^p^r^o^p^r^iati^oⁿ^s^,^rep^o^r^t^to^acco^m^p^an^y^{H.R. 3}⁰⁹³^,¹¹⁰^th^C^ong^.,¹^st^s^e^s^s^{., J}^u^ly^25,
²⁰⁰^{7, H}^.^R^e^pt.¹¹^0-²⁴^,^pa^r^t^{1 (}^W^a^s^hing^to^{n: G}^P^O^,²⁰⁰⁷⁾^p.¹^09;^U^.^S^.^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,^Se^na^te^C^o^m^m^itte^e^{on A}^ppr^opr^ia^ti^ons^,^th^st
^rep^o^r^t^t^o^acco^m^p^an^y^S^.¹⁷⁴⁵^,¹¹⁰^Cong^.,¹^s^e^s^s^{., J}^u^ne²⁹^,²⁰^07,^S.R^e^pt.¹¹^0-²⁴^,^pa^r^t^{1 (}^W^a^s^hing^{ton: G}^P^O^,²⁰⁰⁷⁾^,^p.
¹⁰¹^;^Natⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Research^Co^un^ci^l^,^S^p^{ace S}^t^udⁱ^e^{s Bo}^ard^,^An^As^s^e^s^s^m^eⁿ^{t of}^Bal^anc^eⁱⁿ^N^A^SA’^s^Sc^ie^nc^e^Pr^ogr^am^,
^W^a^s^h^ing^t^{on, D}^C^,²⁰⁰⁶^{, p}^.²^htt^p^:/^/w^w^w^.na^p^.e^du/^c^a^t^a^l^og^.php?^r^e^c^o^r^d_i^d=¹¹⁶⁴^4.
⁶⁵^Natⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Research^Couⁿ^cⁱ^l^,^S^p^ac^{e S}^t^u^dⁱ^e^{s Bo}^ard^,^Aⁿ^A^ssessmen^t^of^B^a^l^aⁿ^{ce i}ⁿ^NA^SA^{’s S}^cⁱ^eⁿ^{ce P}^r^og^ra^m^,
^W^a^s^h^ing^t^{on, D}^C^,²⁰⁰⁶^{, p}^.²^htt^p^:/^/w^w^w^.na^p^.e^du/^c^a^t^a^l^og^.php?^r^e^c^o^r^d_i^d=¹¹⁶⁴^4.
⁶⁶^Se^e^,^f^o^r^e^x^am^ple^,^G^r^e^g^g^Ea^s^t^e^r^br^ook^{, “}^H^ow^N^A^S^A^Sc^r^e^w^e^{d U}^p⁽^A^{nd Four}^W^a^y^s^{to Fix}^I^t⁾^,^”^Wi^red^{, Ma}^y^{22, 2}⁰⁰⁷^,
^{at h}^ttp^://w^ww^.^w^ir^ed^.co^m^/^s^cien^ce/sp^ace/ma^g^azin^e^/¹⁵^-⁰⁶^/^f^f^_^sp^ace_ⁿ^a^sa;^The^Ec^on^om^is^t^,^“S^p^ace^m^eⁿ^A^r^e^f^r^o^m^M^a^rs,^”
^Se^pte^m^be^{r 27, 2}⁰⁰⁷^{, a}^t^htt^p^://w^w^w^.ec^onom^is^t.c^o^m^/^opi^nioⁿ^/^d^is^pla^y^s^t^ory^.^cfm^?^s^t^or^y^_^id=⁹⁸⁶⁷²²⁴^.

appropriate.⁶⁷ Further, the Administration contends that rebalancing funding within NASA’s ⁶⁸
portfolio would disrupt funding for ongoing activities.
The America COMPETES Act also expresses the sense of the Congress that each executive
research agency should set a goal of allocating an appropriate percentage of its basic research
funding for high-risk, high reward (“transformative”) projects. Such transformative research, the
act states, should meet fundamental technological or scientific challenges, and involve ⁶⁹
multidisciplinary work and a high degree of novelty.
The America COMPETES Act high-risk research provision responds to some researchers’
concerns that current federal research funding review mechanisms are not as open as they could ⁷⁰
be to new, unproven ideas. The National Science Board (NSB) found that
^T^r^an^s^f^or^m^a^tⁱ^v^e^res^earch^f^r^equen^t^l^y^doesⁿ^o^t^fi^t^co^m^f^ort^a^bl^y^wⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^t^h^{e s}^c^{ope of}^pro^j^ect^-
^f^o^cus^e^{d, in}ⁿ^o^v^a^tiv^{e, s}^t^ep^-^b^y^-^s^t^{ep res}^earch^{or ev}^en^m^a^j^o^{r cen}^ters^{, n}^o^r^d^o^e^sⁱ^t^t^eⁿ^d^t^o^f^a^r^e^w^e^l^l
^w^h^e^r^e^v^e^r^a^r^e^vi^e^w^s^y^st^e^mⁱ^s^d^o^mi^na^t^e^d^b^y^e^x^p^e^r^t^s^hi^ghl^{y i}ⁿ^ve^st^e^dⁱⁿ^c^u^r^r^e^nt^p^a^r^a^dⁱ^g^m^{s o}^r⁷¹
^du^ri^ng^tⁱ^m^e^s^of^es^peci^al^l^y^lⁱ^mⁱ^t^e^{d bu}^dg^et^s^t^h^at^prom^ot^{e a}^v^ersi^on^t^o^ri^s^k^.
Further, “investigators are reluctant to submit radical or paradigm-challenging research ideas to
NSF given the low conventional success rate (over $2 billion of highly rated proposals were ⁷²
declined in FY2004).” The National Institutes of Health also has indicated that this issue is a ⁷³
concern and, in response, has developed the Pioneer’s Award to foster high-risk research.
The Administration believes this provision in the America COMPETES Act could have negative,
unintended consequences and impede the ability of federal research agencies to carry out their ⁷⁴
missions.

⁶⁷^T^e^stⁱ^m^oⁿ^y^o^f^Mⁱ^ch^ael^D.^G^rⁱ^f^fⁱⁿ^,^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^rat^o^r,^Natⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^A^e^roⁿ^a^utⁱ^c^{s an}^d^S^p^{ace A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^ratⁱ^oⁿ^b^e^f^o^{re t}^h^{e U.}^S^.
^H^ous^e^of^R^e^pr^e^s^eⁿ^ta^tiv^e^s^{, C}^o^m^m^itte^e^{on A}^ppr^opr^ia^ti^ons^{, S}^ubc^om^m^itte^e^{on C}^o^m^m^e^r^c^e^,^J^u^s^tic^e^,^Sc^ie^nc^e^,^a^{nd R}^e^la^te^d
^Ag^eⁿ^cⁱ^e^s^{, FY200}^{8 Bu}^dg^e^t^He^a^r^ing^,^Ma^rc^{h 13}^{, 2}⁰⁰⁷^{, a}^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.^c^q.c^o^m^/^disp^la^y^.^do?^doc^k^e^y⁼^/^c^qon^line^/^prod/^da^ta^/
^doc^s^/^htm^l^/^t^ra^ns^c^r^ipts^/^c^ong^re^s^sⁱ^on^a^l/11⁰^/^c^ong^re^s^sⁱ^ona^ltraⁿ^s^c^ripts¹¹⁰^-0⁰⁰⁰⁰²⁴⁶⁸⁸⁹²^.htm^l@^c^o^m^m^ittee^s^&m^e^t^a^pub=^CQ^-
^CON^G^T^R^ANSCRIP^T^S.
⁶⁸^U^.^S.^P^r^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^{t (G}^e^o^rg^e^W^.^Bus^h^{), “}^S^.7^61—A^m^e^r^ic^a^Cre^a^ting^O^pportu^nitie^s^t^o^Me^aⁿⁱⁿ^g^f^ully^P^r^om^ote^Ex^c^e^lle^nc^eⁱⁿ
^T^e^c^hnolog^y^,^Educ^a^tion,^aⁿ^d^Sc^ie^nc^e^A^c^t,”^Sta^t^em^eⁿ^{t of}^A^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^tion^Polic^y^,^A^p^r^{il 23,}²⁰⁰⁷^{, a}^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.^w^hite^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^om^b/le^gⁱ^s^l^a^tiv^e^/^s^a^p/11^0-^1/^s⁷⁶¹^s^a^p-^s^.^p^d^f^.
⁶⁹^A^m^e^r^ic^a^C^O^MP^ET^{ES A}^c^{t, Se}^c^tion¹⁰^08,^“^S^eⁿ^s^e^of^C^ong^r^e^s^s^oⁿ^I^nnov^a^tⁱ^{on A}^ccel^eratⁱ^oⁿ^Research^.^”
⁷⁰^T^h^e^Na^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^e^m^ie^s,^Risⁱ^ng^Abov^e^t^h^e^G^a^the^rⁱ^ng^St^or^m^:^Ene^r^gizⁱⁿ^g^aⁿ^d^Em^pl^oyⁱⁿ^{g Am}^e^r^ic^{a f}^o^r^{a Br}^ig^hte^r
^Ec^onom^ic^Fut^u^r^e⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton, D}^C^{: N}^a^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^em^y^P^r^e^s^s^,²⁰⁰⁷⁾^,^p.¹^{49; J}^e^f^f^Me^r^v^is^{, “}^R^isky^B^u^sine^s^s^:^C^a^{n the}
^{U.S. G}^o^v^e^rn^men^t^Do^{a Better Jo}^b^o^f^Bettin^g^oⁿ^L^oⁿ^g^Sh^o^t^{s i}ⁿ^Scieⁿ^{ce? NSF an}^d^{NIH H}^o^p^e^t^h^{e A}ⁿ^sw^{er Is Y}^e^s,”
^Sc^ie^nc^e^,^O^c^tobe^r^{8, 20}^04.
⁷¹^Na^tiona^l^Sc^ie^nc^e^Boa^r^d,^En^ha^nc^ing^Su^pp^or^{t f}^o^r^Tr^aⁿ^s^f^or^m^a^tio^nal^Re^s^e^ar^c^h^{at t}^h^e^N^a^ti^on^al^Sc^ie^nc^e^Fouⁿ^d^a^tioⁿ^,
²⁰⁰^{7, a}^t^htt^p^://^ns^f^.^g^o^v^/^ns^b/^doc^um^eⁿ^ts^/20^07/^tr^_r^e^p^or^t.^pdf^.
⁷²^Na^tiona^l^Sc^ie^nc^e^Boa^r^d,^Re^por^t^{of t}^h^e^N^a^ti^on^al^Sc^ie^nc^e^Bo^ar^d^on^the^N^a^ti^on^al^Sc^ie^nc^e^Fo^un^dat^io^n’^s^M^e^r^{it Re}^vⁱ^e^w
^Sy^s^t^e^m^{, 20}^05,^a^t^ht^tp:/^/w^w^w^.ns^f^.^gov^/ns^b^/^doc^um^eⁿ^ts^/20^05/⁰⁹³⁰^/^m^er^it_r^e^vⁱ^e^w^.pdf^.
⁷³^Natⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Iⁿ^stⁱ^t^u^t^{es o}^f^Heal^t^h^,^{“NIH Ro}^ad^m^a^p^f^o^{r M}^e^dⁱ^cal^Researc^h^,^Hi^gh^-Ri^s^{k Research}^”,^w^e^b^p^a^g^e^,^at
^http:^//ni^h^r^o^a^d^m^a^p.nih.g^o^v^/^hig^h^rⁱ^s^k^/.
⁷⁴^U^.^S.^P^r^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^{t (G}^e^o^rg^e^W^.^Bus^h^{), “}^S^{. 7}^61—A^m^e^r^ica^Cre^a^ting^O^pportu^nitie^s^t^o^Me^aⁿⁱⁿ^g^f^ully^P^r^om^ote^Ex^c^e^lle^nc^eⁱⁿ
^T^e^c^hnolog^y^,^Educ^a^tion,^aⁿ^d^Sc^ie^nc^e^A^c^t,”^Sta^t^em^eⁿ^{t of}^A^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^tion^Polic^y^,^A^p^r^{il 23,}²⁰⁰⁷^a^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.^w^hite^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^om^b/le^gⁱ^s^l^a^tiv^e^/^s^a^p/11^0-^1/^s⁷⁶^1s^a^p^-^s^.p^df^{. N}^o^a^ddi^tio^na^{l de}^ta^ils^w^e^r^e^gⁱ^ve^{n a}^s^{to t}^h^e
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) explanatory language states the
following regarding transformative research at NSF:
^T^r^an^s^f^or^m^a^ti^v^e^res^earch^is^cons^idered^{to be}^b^o^th^r^e^v^o^l^u^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^an^d^“^c^u^t^tⁱⁿ^g^e^d^g^e^.^”^W^hⁱ^l^e^t^h^e
^Fouⁿ^d^atioⁿ^cu^rrentl^y^coⁿ^d^u^c^t^s^res^earch^th^{at co}^u^l^{d be con}^s^id^{ered tran}^s^f^or^m^a^tⁱ^on^{al, s}^e^v^e^ral
^r^e^p^o^r^t^sⁱⁿ^c^l^udⁱⁿ^{g t}^h^e^N^a^tⁱ^o^na^l^Scⁱ^e^nc^e^B^o^a^r^d^’^{s (}^N^SB⁾^En^h^a^nciⁿ^g^Su^pport^of^Tran^s^f^or^m^a^tⁱ^v^e
^R^e^s^earch^{at t}^h^{e Nation}^a^{l Sc}^ieⁿ^{ce Foun}^dationⁿ^o^te^s^th^atⁿ^o^f^uⁿ^d^s^{are dedicated f}^o^{r th}^is
^ex^pres^s^pu^rpos^{e. T}^h^{e A}^ppropriation^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^ees^{direct t}^h^e^Fouⁿ^d^atioⁿ^{to rev}ⁱ^e^w^c^u^rren^t
^practⁱ^ces^su^pportⁱⁿ^g^t^h^e^s^o^lⁱ^cⁱ^t^atⁱ^oⁿ^of^,^an^d^t^h^e^su^pport^of^{, t}^r^an^sf^or^m^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^propos^al^s^.^T^h^e
^Fo^uⁿ^d^atioⁿ^s^h^{all p}^r^o^v^id^{e a r}^e^p^o^r^{t r}^e^g^a^r^dⁱⁿ^g^thⁱ^s^r^e^vⁱ^e^w^to^th^{e Co}^m^m^ittee^s^oⁿ^h^o^w^t^hⁱ^s
^e^m^ergⁱ^ng^{area can be addres}^s^e^{d, 90 day}^s^a^f^t^e^{r e}ⁿ^act^m^eⁿ^t^of^t^hⁱ^s^A^c^t^,^aⁿ^{d prov}ⁱ^d^{e s}^e^mⁱ^-
^anⁿ^u^{al r}^e^p^o^r^ts^wⁱ^t^h^an^y^u^p^d^a^te^{s th}^er^eaf^ter^.^T^h^{e in}^{itial r}^e^p^o^r^t^s^h^o^u^l^dⁱⁿ^c^l^u^d^e^t^h^e^F^o^uⁿ^d^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^’^s
^d^e^fⁱⁿⁱ^tioⁿ^o^f^tr^aⁿ^s^f^o^r^m^a^ti^v^e^r^e^sear^ch^.
The House Committee on Appropriations also indicated that $10 million of NSF’s budget should ⁷⁵
be for a “new and dedicated program emphasizing transformative research.”
The America COMPETES Act authorizes ARPA-E.⁷⁶ If fully funded, ARPA-E would be a new
federal organization in DOE. As outlined in the America COMPETES Act, the goal of ARPA-E is
to enhance the economic and energy security of the United States through the development of
technologies that reduce foreign energy imports, reduce energy-related greenhouse gas emissions,
improve energy efficiency in all economic sectors, and ensure the United States is a technical
leader in developing and deploying advanced energy technologies.
ARPA-E is intended to achieve this goal through energy technology projects by identifying and
promoting revolutionary advances in fundamental sciences, translating scientific discoveries and
cutting-edge inventions into technological innovations, and accelerating transformational
technological advances in areas that industry, by itself, is not likely to undertake because of
technical and financial uncertainty.
ARPA-E is based on the DARPA research management model used by the Department of
Defense. Currently, DARPA seeks to sponsor revolutionary, high-payoff research that “bridges ⁷⁷
the gap between fundamental discoveries and their military use.” Although the concept for
ARPA-E in the act was based on that in the National Academies report Rising Above the ⁷⁸
Gathering Storm, proposing the DARPA model for other parts of the U.S. federal research

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^poteⁿ^tia^{l c}^o^ns^e^que^nc^e^s^of^this^a^c^t^ion.
⁷⁵^{U.S. C}^oⁿ^g^{ress, Ho}^u^s^{e Co}^m^m^itte^{e o}ⁿ^A^p^p^r^o^p^r^iati^oⁿ^s^,^rep^o^r^t^to^acco^m^p^an^y^{H.R. 3}⁰⁹³^,¹¹⁰^th^C^ong^.,¹^st^s^e^s^s^{., J}^u^ly^25,
²⁰⁰^{7, H}^.^R^e^pt.¹¹^0-²⁴^,^pa^r^t^{1 (}^W^a^s^hing^to^{n: G}^P^O^,²⁰⁰⁷⁾^{, p}^.¹²⁴^.
⁷⁶^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^A^R^P^A^-^E^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^R^L³⁴⁴⁹⁷^,^A^d^v^anc^e^d^Re^se^arc^h^Proje^c^t^{s Age}ⁿ^c^y^{- Ene}^r^gy⁽^ARPA-
^E)^:^Bac^k^g^r^o^un^d,^St^atus^,^an^d^Se^le^c^t^e^d^I^s^s^u^e^s^for^C^o^ngr^e^s^s^,^by^D^e^b^o^r^a^{h D}^.^Stine^.
⁷⁷^T^e^stⁱ^m^oⁿ^y^o^f^Dr.^T^oⁿ^y^T^e^t^h^er,^Dⁱ^rect^o^r^,^Def^eⁿ^s^e^A^d^van^ced^Rese^a^r^ch^P^r^o^j^ect^{s A}^g^en^c^y^,ⁱⁿ^U.^S^.^C^o^ngress,^Ho^u^s^e
^Co^mmⁱ^t^t^{ee o}ⁿ^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^ce,^The^F^u^t^u^r^e^{of C}^o^m^pute^r^Sc^ie^nc^e^Re^s^e^ar^c^hⁱⁿ^the^Uⁿ^ite^d^St^ate^s^,^h^eariⁿ^g,¹⁰⁹^th^Cong^.,¹^st^sess.^,
^Ma^y^{12, 20}^05,^H^.^H^r^g^.¹^09-^{14 (W}^a^s^hing^ton^,^G^P^O^,²⁰⁰⁵⁾^a^t^htt^p^://s^cⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^.^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^c^o^m^m^doc^s^/^he^a^r^ing^s^/f^ull05/^m^a^y^12/
^te^the^r^.p^df^.
⁷⁸^T^h^e^Na^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^e^m^ie^s,^Risⁱ^ng^Abov^e^t^h^e^G^a^the^rⁱ^ng^St^or^m^:^Ene^r^gizⁱⁿ^g^aⁿ^d^Em^pl^oyⁱⁿ^{g Am}^e^r^ic^{a f}^o^r^{a Br}^ig^hte^r
^Ec^onom^ic^Fut^u^r^e⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton, D}^C^{: N}^a^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^em^y^P^r^e^s^s^,²⁰⁰⁷⁾^,^p.¹^54.

system has been explored before. Historically, a number of similar initiatives have been proposed.
For example, a number of initiatives including an advanced civilian technology agency were ^th^st⁷⁹
proposed in the 100 and 101 Congresses. In 1992, a National Academy of Sciences report
recommended that the government consider a civilian technology corporation or a civilian ⁸⁰
technology agency, in limited areas, including energy research. A similar action was proposed ⁸¹
by the Progressive Policy Institute in 1993. At the time presidential candidate Bill Clinton and
Senator Al Gore proposed the creation of a civilian advanced research agency to support research ⁸²
on renewable technologies and renewable fuels.
In congressional testimony, members of the committee that wrote the National Academies report
indicated ARPA-E should have four objectives:
¹^.^B^rⁱⁿ^g^{a f}^r^eshⁿ^es^{s, ex}^cite^m^eⁿ^t^{, an}^d^seⁿ^s^{e o}^f^mⁱ^s^s^ioⁿ^to^en^er^g^y^r^e^sear^ch^t^h^at^w^{ill attr}^act
^m^a^ny^of^ou^{r bes}^t^an^{d brig}^h^t^es^t^mⁱⁿ^d^s^—^th^o^s^{e of}^ex^perien^{ced s}^c^ien^t^is^t^s^an^{d en}^gⁱⁿ^eers^,^an^d,
^es^peci^al^l^y^{, t}^h^os^{e of}^s^t^u^d^en^t^s^aⁿ^d^y^oung^res^earch^ers^,ⁱⁿ^cl^u^dⁱⁿ^g^t^h^os^{e i}ⁿ^t^h^{e ent}^r^epren^e^u^rⁱ^a^l
^wo^r^l^d^.
^{2. F}^o^cu^s^{on creat}ⁱ^v^{e, o}^u^t^-^of-^t^h^e^-^box^{, pot}^eⁿ^tⁱ^a^l^l^y^t^r^aⁿ^sf^or^m^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^res^earc^h^t^h^atⁱⁿ^dus^t^r^y
^canⁿ^o^{t or}^w^{ill n}^o^{t s}^u^pport.
³^.^{Utilize an}^A^R^P^A^-^lⁱ^k^{e o}^r^g^aⁿⁱ^zatioⁿ^t^h^{at is}^f^l^at,ⁿⁱ^m^b^{le, a}ⁿ^d^sp^ar^se,^y^e^{t cap}^ab^{le o}^f^settiⁿ^g
^g^o^{als an}^d^m^a^kⁱⁿ^g^d^ecisioⁿ^s^t^h^at^w^{ill allo}^w^{it to}^s^u^s^t^ain^f^o^r^loⁿ^g^p^e^rⁱ^o^d^s^o^f^ti^m^e^t^h^o^s^e
^pro^j^ect^s^w^h^o^s^{e prom}ⁱ^s^{e i}^s^real^,^an^{d t}^o^ph^as^{e ou}^t^prog^ra^m^s^t^h^at^{do n}^o^t^pr^ov^{e t}^o^{be p}^r^odu^ctⁱ^v^e
^{or as}^promⁱ^sⁱⁿ^g^as^an^tⁱ^ci^pat^e^d.
^{4. C}^r^eat^{e a}ⁿ^e^w^t^ool^t^o^bri^d^g^e^t^h^{e t}^r^ou^blⁱⁿ^g^g^a^ps^bet^w^eeⁿ^basⁱ^c^en^er^gy^res^earc^h^,
^dev^e^lop^m^en^{t, a}ⁿ^{d in}^d^u^s^t^{rial i}ⁿⁿ^o^v^a^tioⁿ^.^{It can}^s^e^r^v^{e as}^a^m^o^d^e^{l f}^o^{r h}^o^w^{to i}^m^prov^{e s}^c^ien^c^e⁸³
^an^{d techn}^o^logy^traⁿ^s^f^{er in}^ot^{her areas}^th^at^{are es}^s^e^ntⁱ^a^l^t^o^{our f}^u^t^u^{re pros}^peri^t^y^.
The report proposed that funding for ARPA-E start at $300 million the first year and increase to
$1 billion per year over five to six years. At that point, the program’s effectiveness would be
evaluated and appropriate actions taken. Regarding the funding of ARPA-E, National Academies
committee members testified that it was critical that ARPA-E funding not jeopardize the basic
research supported by the DOE’s Office of Science.
The National Academies committee did not believe it appropriate to specify the organization and
mission of ARPA-E in great detail, but rather that those details should be “worked out by the

⁷⁹^Du^rin^g^t^h^{e 10}¹^st^Con^g^ress,²^nd^s^e^s^sⁱ^{on, t}^h^e^s^e^inc^l^u^d^e^d^S.¹⁹^78,^H^.^R^.³⁸³³^{, H}^.^R^.⁴⁷¹⁵^{, S}^.²⁷⁶⁵^{. U}^.^S.^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,^O^f^fⁱ^c^e
^of^T^e^c^hnol^og^y^A^s^s^e^s^s^m^e^nt,^M^a^kⁱ^ng^Thi^ngs^Be^tte^r^:^C^o^m^p^e^tⁱ^{ng i}ⁿ^M^anuf^ac^turⁱ^ng^{, O}^T^A^-^I^T^E-^{443 (}^W^a^s^hing^{ton, D}^C^:
^U^.^{S. G}^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^e^{nt Pr}^inti^ng^O^f^fⁱ^c^e⁾^{, Fe}^br^ua^r^y^1990.
⁸⁰^Na^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^e^m^y^of^Sc^ie^nc^e^s^{, Na}^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^e^m^y^o^f^Engⁱ^ne^e^rⁱⁿ^g^,^Institute^of^Me^dicⁱ^ne^,^T^h^{e G}^o^vern^m^en^t^R^o^l^eⁱⁿ
^Civ^ilian^Te^c^hⁿ^o^lo^gy^{: B}^u^ildⁱⁿ^{g a}^Ne^{w Allia}^nc^e⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton, D}^C^:^N^a^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^em^y^P^r^e^s^s^,¹⁹⁹²⁾^.
⁸¹^W^{ill Ma}^rsha^{ll a}ⁿ^{d Ma}^rtiⁿ^Sc^hra^m^,^M^andate^for^C^h^a^nge⁽^N^e^w^Y^o^r^k^{: B}^e^r^k^e^l^ey^B^ook^s^,¹⁹⁹³⁾^.
⁸²^{Bill Cli}ⁿ^to^{n a}ⁿ^{d A}^l^G^o^re^,^Putti^ng^Pe^ople^Fⁱ^r^s^t^:^H^o^w^W^e^C^a^{n All}^C^han^ge^Am^e^r^ic^a⁽^N^e^w^Y^o^r^k^{: R}^a^nd^om^H^ous^e^,
¹⁹⁹²⁾^.
⁸³^T^e^s^tⁱ^m^on^y^of^D^r^{. C}^h^a^r^le^s^M.^Ve^s^t^{, in U}^.^{S. C}^ong^r^e^s^s^,^Se^na^te^C^o^m^m^itte^e^{on Ene}^r^gy^a^{nd N}^a^tur^a^{l R}^e^s^our^c^e^s^,
^P^r^o^t^ectⁱⁿ^{g A}^m^eri^c^a^’^{s Co}^mp^etⁱ^tⁱ^{ve E}^d^g^e^—^Eⁿ^e^rg^y^{, he}^a^r^ing^s^,¹⁰⁹^th^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,²^nd^s^e^s^s^{., Fe}^br^ua^r^y^14,²⁰⁰^6,^S.H^r^g^.¹^09-
³⁵⁸⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton:^G^P^O^,²⁰⁰⁶⁾^a^t^http:^//e^ne^r^g^y^.^se^na^te^.g^ov^/^p^u^b^lic^/
^inde^x^.^c^f^m^?^Fus^e^A^c^tion=^H^e^a^r^ing^s^.^T^e^s^ti^m^oⁿ^y^&^H^e^a^r^ing^_^I^D⁼^1526&^W^itne^s^s^_^I^D⁼⁴³²⁰^{. T}^e^s^tim^on^y^of^D^r^{. Ste}^v^eⁿ^C^h^u^,ⁱⁿ
^U^.^{S. C}^o^ng^r^e^s^s^,^H^ous^e^C^o^m^m^{ittee on}^Sc^ie^nc^e^,^S^h^o^u^ld^Co^ngre^{ss Est}^ablis^{h “A}^RPA-E”^,^T^h^e^Adv^anc^e^d^Re^se^arc^h^Proje^c^t^s^th^nd
^A^g^en^{cy - E}ⁿ^erg^y^?^{, he}^a^r^ing^s^,¹⁰⁹^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,²^s^e^s^s^{., Ma}^r^c^{h 9,}²⁰⁰⁶^{, H}^.^H^r^g^.¹^09-³⁹⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton:^G^P^O^,²⁰⁰⁶⁾^.

Secretary of Energy and the Under Secretary for Science in rapid, but intense, consultation with ⁸⁴
experts from the scientific and engineering communities.”
What type of research would ARPA-E fund? A member of the National Academies committee has
provided two illustrations of what ARPA-E might fund. The first is a new class of inexpensive,
efficient, and long lasting solar cells created using novel materials manufactured with thin-film
technologies or nano-particle devices that convert sunlight. ARPA-E could also fund the creation
of new plants to be grown for energy by incorporating a number of genes introduced into plants,
or make plants self-fertilizing and drought- and pest-resistant so less energy is used in ⁸⁵
agriculture.
After final passage of the act, Raymond Orbach, DOE Under Secretary for Science, stated that
although the goal of the newly authorized agency is “laudable,” its structure needs to be
developed. He also indicated that although the act required that a director be named for ARPA-E, ⁸⁶
President Bush will not seek appropriations for the new agency.
Between the release of the Gathering Storm report and the passage of the America COMPETES ⁸⁷
Act, there were a number of congressional hearings on ARPA-E. Proponents of ARPA-E
indicate that additional science and technology would help respond to the nation’s need for clean,
affordable, and reliable energy. Others question whether ARPA-E is necessary to develop new
technologies, when existing energy technologies are not fully utilized due to a insufficient
policies to encourage their implementation.
Some witnesses also indicated that the problems ARPA-E is trying to solve are unclear. These
concerns addressed whether the challenge is a lack of private-sector investment in basic research
or federal funding for innovative, high-risk research, failure to effectively transfer new energy
technologies to the marketplace, or some combination of these. In particular, they question the
lack of a direct customer, as the energy market is a broad and diverse public and private market,
while DARPA has DOD as a primary customer to create demand.
Witnesses supporting ARPA-E testified that it will focus on breakthrough research, using
emerging basic research in areas such as nanotechnology to develop totally new technologies, as
opposed to existing programs that have already identified paths forward and tend to focus on
incremental advances. Further, it is designed to bridge the gap between basic research and
industrial development—not to get products to the marketplace, but to transform the marketplace
by accelerating research.

⁸⁴^Ibid^.
⁸⁵^T^e^s^tⁱ^m^on^y^of^D^r^{. Ste}^v^eⁿ^C^hu,ⁱⁿ^U^.^{S. C}^o^ng^r^e^s^s^,^H^ous^e^C^o^m^m^{ittee on}^Sc^ie^nc^e^,^S^h^o^u^ld^Co^ngre^{ss Est}^ablis^{h “A}^RPA-
^E^”^,^T^h^{e A}^d^v^aⁿ^ced^R^e^sea^r^ch^P^r^o^j^ect^{s A}^g^en^{cy - E}ⁿ^erg^y^?^{, he}^a^r^ing^s^,¹⁰⁹^th^Con^g^ress,²^nd^s^e^s^s^{., Ma}^rc^{h 9}^,²⁰⁰⁶^{, H}^.^H^r^g^.
¹⁰⁹^-3^{9 (W}^a^s^hing^ton:^G^P^O,²⁰⁰⁶⁾^a^t^htt^p^://scⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^.^h^ouse^.^g^o^v^/^c^o^m^m^doc^s/^he^a^r^ing^s^/f^ull06/^Ma^rc^h%²^09/^Chu.^pdf^.
⁸⁶^Am^e^r^ic^aⁿ^Institute^of^Phy^s^ic^{s, “}^R^a^y^Orba^c^h^{on FY}²⁰⁰⁸^F^uⁿ^d^ing^{Bill: ‘T}^he^Cloc^k^{is T}ⁱ^c^k^ing^,^’”^ne^w^s^le^tte^{r, FYI}
^Num^b^e^r^{97, Se}^p^t^e^m^be^{r 21, 2}⁰⁰⁷^,^a^t^http^://w^ww^.^a^ip.org^/fyⁱ^/²⁰^07/⁰⁹^7.htm^l^.
⁸⁷^U^.^{S. C}^ong^re^s^s^,^H^ous^e^Com^m^ittee^{on Sc}^ie^nc^e^a^{nd T}^e^c^hnol^og^y^Com^m^itte^e^,^“^E^s^t^a^b^lis^hing^the^A^d^v^a^nc^e^d^Re^s^e^a^r^c^h
^P^r^o^j^ect^{s A}^g^en^c^y^-Eⁿ^e^rg^y⁽^A^RP^A^-^E⁾^,^”^h^eariⁿ^g,¹¹⁰^th^Co^ng^.,¹^st^s^e^s^s^ion,^A^p^r^{il 2}⁶^,²⁰^07,^a^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.s^cⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^.^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^pu^blic^a^tio^ns^/^h^e^a^r^ing^s^_m^a^r^k^ups^_de^ta^ils^.a^s^p^x^?^N^e^w^s^I^D⁼^{1778; a}^{nd U}^.^S^.^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,^H^o^us^e
^Co^mmⁱ^t^t^{ee o}ⁿ^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^ce,^“S^h^o^u^l^d^Coⁿ^g^{ress E}^s^t^a^b^lⁱ^s^h^‘A^RP^A^-^E^,^{’ T}^h^{e A}^d^van^ced^Resear^ch^P^r^o^j^ect^{s Agen}^c^y^{- E}ⁿ^erg^y^?,^”^th^nd
^h^eariⁿ^gs,¹⁰⁹^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,²^s^e^s^s^{., Ma}^r^c^h^9,²⁰^06,⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton:^G^P^O^,²⁰⁰⁶⁾^a^t^h^ttp:^//w^w^w^.s^cⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^.^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/
^pub^lic^a^tio^ns^/^h^e^a^r^ing^s^_m^a^r^k^ups^_d^e^t^a^ils^.a^s^p^x^?^N^e^w^s^I^D⁼^1056.

Some testifying expressed concerns about a potential shift of funds from DOE’s Office of Science
to ARPA-E, while funding for the Office of Science is a goal of both ACI and the America
COMPETES Act. They also questioned if the authorized funding for ARPA-E is enough to
support the research necessary for ARPA-E to reach its goals, and expressed concern that a lack
of acceptance by DOE of ARPA-E might impede its success.
Supporters of ARPA-E testified that funds for ARPA-E should not be redirected from the DOE
Office of Science. They maintain that ARPA-E will also “create a freshness, excitement, and
sense of mission to attract the best scientific minds” so that its goals have a high potential of
being reached. Further, proponents argue, ARPA-E will address organizational problems at DOE,
by being sufficiently small and flexible to work across and around risk-averse, parochial
organizational stovepipes.
Some have proposed providing an advance appropriation supporting ARPA-E for several years,
rather than the usual one-year appropriation. Another option is to identify a dedicated revenue
source for ARPA-E. Some of the funding sources that have been proposed are
repeal of oil industry tax and other incentives;⁸⁸
gasoline tax;⁸⁹
oil company profit tax;⁹⁰
federal oil and gas royalties;⁹¹
climate change cap-and-trade program;⁹² and
Strategic Petroleum Reserve funds.⁹³
An analogous situation might be research supported through the Ultra-Deepwater and ⁹⁴
Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources Program, authorized by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), which receives funding of $50 million per year derived

⁸⁸^H^ous^e^C^o^m^m^itte^e^{on Sc}^ie^nc^e^a^{nd T}^e^c^hnolog^y^,^“^C^ha^ir^m^a^{n G}^o^r^d^oⁿ^P^r^e^s^s^e^s^Es^ta^blis^hm^eⁿ^{t of}^A^R^P^A^-^E^a^s^a^K^e^y^to
^Cle^aⁿ^Ene^r^g^y^Inde^pe^nde^nc^e^,^”^pre^s^s^re^le^a^s^e^,^May^{9, 200}^{8, a}^t^htt^p^://s^cⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^.^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^pre^s^s^/
^P^R^A^r^tic^le^.a^s^p^x^?^N^e^w^s^I^D⁼^2189.
⁸⁹^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^the^f^e^de^r^a^{l e}^x^cⁱ^s^e^tax^{on g}^a^s^o^line^,^s^e^e^C^R^{S R}^e^por^t^R^L³⁰³⁰⁴^,^T^h^{e F}^e^d^e^ra^l^E^xci^{se T}^a^{x o}ⁿ
^G^a^s^o^line^an^{d t}^h^e^Hⁱ^g^h^w^a^y^Tr^us^t^Fun^d^:^A^Sh^or^{t H}ⁱ^s^t^or^y^{, by}^P^a^m^e^l^a^J^.^J^a^c^k^s^on.
⁹⁰^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^us^e^of^{oil c}^o^m^p^aⁿ^y^pr^of^its^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³⁴⁰^44,^T^h^{e Use of}^P^r^o^fⁱ^t^b^y^t^h^{e F}ⁱ^{ve Ma}^j^o^r
^{Oil Comp}^anie^s^{, by}^R^obe^r^t^Pⁱ^r^o^g^.
⁹¹^T^e^s^tⁱ^m^on^y^of^Me^la^nie^K^e^nde^rdin^e^,^Vⁱ^c^e^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^{t, G}^a^s^T^e^c^hnol^og^y^Ins^titute^{in U}^.^S^.^Co^ng^re^s^s^,^H^o^u^s^e^Com^m^ittee^on
^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^ce,^“S^h^o^u^l^{d Con}^g^{ress E}^s^t^a^b^lⁱ^s^h^A^R^P^A^-E^,^T^h^{e A}^d^van^c^ed^Rese^arch^P^r^o^j^ect^{s A}^g^en^c^y^{- E}ⁿ^erg^y^?,^”^h^eariⁿ^gs,¹⁰⁹^th^nd
^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,²^se^{ssion, Ma}^rc^h^9,²⁰⁰⁶^{, H.Hrg}^.¹^09-³⁹^(W^a^s^hing^ton:^G^P^{O, 2}⁰⁰⁶^{), a}^t^htt^p^://scⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^.^h^o^u^s^e^.^g^o^v^/
^c^o^m^m^doc^s^/^he^a^r^ing^s^/f^ull06/^Ma^rc^h^%^209/^K^e^nde^rdiⁿ^e^.^p^d^f^.^{For a}ⁿ^e^x^am^ple^of^{oil a}^{nd g}^a^s^roy^a^ltie^s^,^s^e^e^{CRS Re}^port
^R^S²²⁵⁶^7,^R^o^y^a^lty^Re^lie^{f for U}^.^S.^De^e^p^wate^{r Oil a}^{nd G}^a^{s Le}^ase^s^{, b}^y^Ma^r^c^H^u^m^phrie^s^.
⁹²^T^e^s^tⁱ^m^on^y^of^Me^la^nie^K^e^nde^rdin^e^,^Vⁱ^c^e^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^{t, G}^a^s^T^e^c^hnol^og^y^Ins^titute^{in U}^.^S^.^Co^ng^re^s^s^,^H^o^u^s^e^Com^m^ittee^on
^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^ce,^“S^h^o^u^l^{d Con}^g^{ress E}^s^t^a^b^lⁱ^s^h^A^R^P^A^-E^,^T^h^{e A}^d^van^c^ed^Rese^arch^P^r^o^j^ect^{s A}^g^en^c^y^{- E}ⁿ^erg^y^?,^”^h^eariⁿ^gs,¹⁰⁹^th^nd
^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,²^se^{ssion, Ma}^rc^h^9,²⁰⁰⁶^{, H.Hrg}^.¹^09-³⁹^(W^a^s^hing^ton:^G^P^{O, 2}⁰⁰⁶^{), a}^t^htt^p^://scⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^.^h^o^u^s^e^.^g^o^v^/
^c^o^m^m^doc^s^/^he^a^r^ing^s^/f^ull06/^Ma^r^c^h^%^209/^K^e^nde^r^dⁱⁿ^e^.^p^d^f^.^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^c^a^p^-^aⁿ^d^-^t^r^a^de^pr^og^r^a^m^s^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^th
^R^e^por^{t R}^L³³⁸⁴^6,^Gre^eⁿ^h^ouse^Ga^{s Re}^duc^tio^{n: C}^ap-^an^d-Tra^d^e^Bills^{in t}^h^e¹¹⁰^C^o^ngr^e^s^s^{, by}^L^a^rr^y^P^a^rk^e^r^{, Bre}ⁿ^{t D}^.
^Yaco^b^u^cci^,^and^Jon^a^t^h^an^L^.^Ramseu^r.
⁹³^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^the^s^t^r^a^t^e^gⁱ^c^pe^tr^ole^u^m^r^e^s^e^r^v^e^,^s^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³³³⁴^1,^T^h^{e St}^ra^t^e^gⁱ^c^P^e^t^r^o^l^eu^m
^Re^s^e^r^v^e^:^Hⁱ^s^t^or^y^,^Pe^r^s^p^e^c^tiv^es^{, and I}^s^s^u^e^s^,^by^R^obe^r^t^B^a^m^b^e^r^g^e^r^.
⁹⁴^{For m}^o^re^inf^o^rm^a^{tion, se}^e^htt^p^://^www^.^f^ossil.eⁿ^e^r^gy^.^g^ov^/^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^/^oilg^a^s^/ultr^a^_^aⁿ^d_^unc^oⁿ^v^e^ntio^na^l/^inde^x^.^htm^l^.

from royalties, rents, and bonuses from federal onshore and offshore oil and gas leases.⁹⁵ Based
on past experience, however, all of these proposals would face challenges in Congress.
The America COMPETES Act directs DOE to establish multidisciplinary Discovery Science and
Engineering Innovation Institutes at DOE National Laboratories to apply fundamental science
and engineering discoveries to technological innovations. The institutes, along with their higher-
education and private industry partners, would support science and engineering research on
emerging technologies determined by the Secretary of Energy to be critical to global
competitiveness. In addition, the Institutes are intended to train undergraduate and graduate
science and engineering students, develop innovative undergraduate and graduate educational
curricula, conduct research with higher-education partners, and develop innovative technologies ⁹⁶
with industrial partners.
In the discussions leading up to the America COMPETES Act, the Administration opposed the
Institutes, stating,
^T^h^e^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^o^{n st}^r^oⁿ^g^l^y^o^b^j^e^c^t^{s t}^o^usiⁿ^{g D}^O^E^f^u^nd^s^t^o^s^u^pport^S^t^at^e^an^d^l^o^cal^econ^o^mⁱ^c
^d^e^v^e^lo^p^m^en^{t acti}^v^itie^{s. I}ⁿ^ad^d^itioⁿ^to^dⁱ^v^e^r^tin^g^f^uⁿ^d^{s f}^r^o^m^p^r^io^r^ity^r^e^sear^ch^ar^{eas, su}^c^h^a
^f^o^cu^{s o}ⁿ^co^m^m^e^r^c^ializatioⁿ^isⁿ^o^{t a p}^r^io^r^ity^o^f^th^e^Fed^e^r^a^{l g}^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^an^d^co^u^l^d^r^e^s^u^{lt i}ⁿ
^p^u^ttin^g^t^h^{e g}^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^tⁱⁿ^th^{e p}^o^s^itioⁿ^o^f^co^m^p^etiⁿ^g^wⁱ^t^h^p^r^iv^{ate in}^v^e^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^an^dⁱⁿ^f^l^u^eⁿ^cⁱⁿ^g⁹⁷
^m^a^rk^{et decis}ⁱ^on^sⁱⁿ^poten^tial^l^yⁱⁿ^e^f^fⁱ^cieⁿ^{t an}^{d i}ⁿ^e^f^f^ect^iv^e^wa^y^s^.
Those supporting the institutes believe it will provide an opportunity for DOE National
Laboratories to work with universities to train engineers in such areas as nanoscience and ⁹⁸
microsystems. The training of those engineers and the tasks they perform, proponents indicate,
require a reshaping of the nation’s engineering research, education, and practices to respond to
challenges in global markets, national security, energy sustainability, and public health. They
contend that the changes are not only technological, but also cultural, and they will affect the
structure of organizations and relationships between institutional sectors of the country. This task,

⁹⁵^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³³⁴⁹^3,^O^u^te^{r Con}^tineⁿ^tal^She^{lf: De}^b^a^te^Ov^e^r^{Oil a}^{nd G}^a^{s Le}^asi^ng^an^d
^Re^v^e^nue^Sh^arⁱⁿ^g^,^by^Ma^r^c^H^u^m^phr^ie^s^.
⁹⁶^A^sⁱ^m^ila^r^c^onc^e^p^{t, D}ⁱ^s^c^ov^e^r^y^-^I^nnov^a^{tion I}ⁿ^s^tit^ute^s^pr^op^os^e^dⁱⁿ^a^N^a^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^em^y^of^Engⁱ^ne^e^r^ing^r^e^por^{t, w}^a^s^the
^st^artⁱⁿ^{g p}^oⁱⁿ^t^f^o^{r t}^h^{e Di}^sco^v^er^y^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^{ce an}^d^Eⁿ^giⁿ^eeriⁿ^{g In}^no^vatⁱ^oⁿ^In^stⁱ^t^u^t^{es con}^cep^t^.^T^h^{e pu}^rpo^s^e^o^f^t^h^{e i}ⁿ^stⁱ^t^u^t^es,
^loc^a^t^e^d^oⁿ^t^h^e^c^a^m^pus^e^s^of^re^s^e^a^r^c^h^un^iv^e^r^s^itie^s^,^w^a^s^{to “}^link^f^undam^e^nta^l^s^c^ie^ntif^ic^dis^c^ov^e^r^ie^s^wⁱ^t^h^te^c^hⁿ^o^logⁱ^c^a^l
ⁱⁿⁿ^o^v^a^{tions t}^o^c^r^e^a^t^e^pro^duc^ts,^pr^oc^e^sse^{s, se}^rvⁱ^c^e^s^to^m^e^e^t^the^ne^e^d^{s of}^socⁱ^e^t^y^.^”^T^h^e^N^A^{E c}^o^m^m^itte^e^re^c^o^m^m^e^nde^d
^th^{at th}^{ese i}ⁿ^stitu^{tes p}^l^ay^{a ro}^{le sim}^{ilar to}^th^{at o}^f^acad^e^m^ic^m^e^dⁱ^cal^cen^{ters an}^d^ag^ricu^ltu^{ral ex}^p^e^rim^eⁿ^t^statioⁿ^s^t^h^at
^co^m^bⁱⁿ^{e research}^,^ed^u^catⁱ^oⁿ^,^an^d^p^r^o^f^essi^oⁿ^a^l^p^r^actⁱ^{ce t}^o^d^rⁱ^v^{e t}^r^ansf^o^r^m^a^tⁱ^v^{e ch}^an^{ge an}^d^stⁱ^m^u^l^at^{e s}ⁱ^gnⁱ^fⁱ^can^t
^r^e^gⁱ^ona^{l e}^c^onom^ic^a^c^tiv^it^y^,^s^u^c^h^a^s^the^loc^a^tioⁿ^ne^a^r^by^of^c^l^us^te^r^s^of^s^t^a^r^t-^{up f}ⁱ^r^m^s^,^pr^iv^a^t^e^r^e^se^a^r^c^h^or^g^a^niz^a^tions^,
^s^uppl^ie^r^s^{, a}ⁿ^d^ot^he^r^c^o^m^p^le^m^e^nta^r^y^g^r^oups^aⁿ^{d b}^u^sⁱ^ne^s^s^e^s^.^N^a^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^em^y^of^Engⁱ^ne^e^r^ing^,^Engiⁿ^e^e^r^{ing Re}^s^e^ar^c^h
^and^Am^e^r^ic^a’^s^Fu^tur^e^:^M^e^e^{ting t}^h^e^C^h^a^lle^nge^s^{of a}^G^l^o^b^a^l^Ec^oⁿ^o^m^y⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton, D}^C^{: N}^a^tio^na^{l A}^c^a^d^em^y^P^r^e^s^s^,
²⁰⁰⁵⁾^,^a^t^htt^p^://^bo^ok^s^.^na^p.e^du/^c^a^t^a^l^og^.ph^p^?^r^e^c^o^r^d_i^d=¹¹³^93.
⁹⁷^U^.^S.^P^r^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^{t (G}^e^o^rg^e^W^.^Bus^h^{), “}^S^{. 7}^61—A^m^e^r^ica^Cre^a^ting^O^pportu^nitie^s^t^o^Me^aⁿⁱⁿ^g^f^ully^P^r^om^ote^Ex^c^e^lle^nc^eⁱⁿ
^T^e^c^hnolog^y^,^Educ^a^tion,^aⁿ^d^Sc^ie^nc^e^A^c^t,”^Sta^t^em^eⁿ^{t of}^A^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^tion^Polic^y^,^A^p^r^{il 23,}²⁰⁰⁷^a^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.^w^hite^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^om^b/le^gⁱ^s^l^a^tiv^e^/^s^a^p/11^0-^1/^s⁷⁶^1s^a^p^-^s^.p^df^.
⁹⁸^Se^na^tor^P^e^te^Dom^e^nicⁱ^,^Ne^{w M}^e^xⁱ^c^o^Seⁿ^a^{tors’ “}^A^me^ric^a^COM^{PETES Ac}^t^”^Passe^d^by^Se^nate^,⁸⁸^-8^,^p^r^{ess rel}^ease,
^A^p^r^{il 25,}²⁰⁰⁷^.

proponents indicate, cannot be accomplished by any one sector of society but must involve the ⁹⁹
federal government, states, industry, foundations, and academia.
The America COMPETES Act authorizes many new STEM education programs focused on
recruiting more STEM teachers and enhancing the knowledge and skills of current STEM
teachers. The act also encourages and supports students at all levels to undertake STEM
education through a variety of initiatives that include not only traditional education, but also
summer institutes and research internships at national labs. Many of the programs in the act place
an emphasis on outreach and mentoring for women and minorities and inclusion of students and ¹⁰⁰
teachers from high-need schools.
The STEM education programs in the America COMPETES Act include
a pilot program of grants to states to help establish or expand statewide specialty
high schools in STEM education;
experiential-based learning opportunities, internships for middle and high-school ¹⁰¹
students including hands-on learning at the DOE national labs;
centers of excellence in STEM education in at least one high-need, public ¹⁰²
secondary school in each DOE National lab region, in order to develop and
disseminate best practices in STEM education;
summer institutes at the DOE national labs and partner universities, in order to ^th
improve the STEM content knowledge of kindergarten through 12 grade
teachers throughout the country;
a newly appointed Director for STEM Education at the Department of Energy,
who would also serve as an interagency liaison for K-12 STEM education;
a graduate research fellowship program for outstanding graduate students, called
Protecting America’s Competitive Edge (PACE), in fields of interest to the DOE
plus imagination, creativity, and excellent written and oral communication skills;

⁹⁹^N^a^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^em^y^of^Engⁱ^ne^e^r^ing^,^Engi^ne^e^r^{ing Re}^s^e^ar^c^h^a^{nd Am}^e^r^ic^a’^s^Futur^e^:^M^e^e^ting^the^C^hal^l^e^nge^s^of^{a G}^l^ob^al
^Ec^onom^y^,^p.²⁴⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton,^D^C^{: N}^a^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^e^m^y^P^r^e^s^s^,²⁰⁰⁵⁾^,^a^t^htt^p^://^bo^ok^s^.^na^p.e^d^u/
^c^a^t^a^l^og^.php?^r^e^c^o^r^d^_i^d=¹¹³⁹^3.
¹⁰⁰^T^h^e^de^fⁱ^nition^of^“^h^ig^h-ne^e^d^”^v^a^rie^s^thro^ug^ho^{ut t}^h^e^a^c^t^{. Se}^e^f^ootn^o^te^{s 11}^aⁿ^d¹²^f^o^{r the}^de^fⁱ^nitio^{n o}^f^hig^h^-ne^e^d^f^o^{r a}
^pa^r^tic^ula^r^pr^og^r^a^m^.
¹⁰¹^P^r^iorⁱ^ty^is^gⁱ^ve^{n to s}^t^ude^nts^f^r^om^s^c^hools^{in w}^h^ic^h^not^le^s^s^thaⁿ³⁰^%^of^the^c^h^ildr^eⁿ^eⁿ^r^o^lle^{d i}ⁿ^t^h^e^s^c^hool^a^r^e^f^r^o^m
^low^-^inc^o^m^e^f^a^m^ilies^,^{or tha}^t^a^r^e^d^e^sⁱ^gⁿ^a^t^e^d^w^{ith a}^s^c^{hool l}^o^c^a^l^e^c^o^de^of^41,⁴²^,^{or 4}³^{, a}^s^de^te^rm^ine^d^by^the^Se^c^r^e^t^a^r^y
^o^f^E^d^u^catⁱ^oⁿ^;^and^f^o^{r w}^hⁱ^c^h^t^h^ereⁱ^s^{a h}ⁱ^gh^p^e^rcen^t^a^{ge o}^f^t^each^ers^w^h^o^{are n}^o^t^t^eachⁱⁿ^{g i}ⁿ^t^h^{e acad}^emⁱ^c^su^b^j^ect^{areas o}^r
^grad^{e l}^e^vel^sⁱⁿ^w^hⁱ^c^h^t^h^{e t}^each^{ers w}^e^{re t}^r^aiⁿ^e^d^t^o^t^each^,^{a hi}^gh^t^each^{er t}^u^rⁿ^o^v^{er rat}^e^,^o^r^a^hⁱ^gh^p^e^rcen^t^a^{ge o}^f^t^e^a^c^h^e^rs
^w^{ith em}^e^r^g^e^ncy^,^pr^ov^is^iona^l,^or^t^e^m^por^a^r^y^ce^r^tif^ica^{tion or}^lic^eⁿ^s^e^s^.
¹⁰²^For^t^h^is^pr^og^r^a^m^,^a^“^h^ig^h-^ne^e^d^p^ublic^s^e^c^oⁿ^d^a^r^y^s^c^hool”^is^de^fⁱ^ne^{d in}^the^A^m^e^r^ic^a^C^O^MP^ET^{ES A}^c^{t (}⁴²^U^.^S.C^.
⁷³⁸^1l)^a^s^a^s^e^c^oⁿ^d^a^r^y^s^c^{hool w}^{ith “}⁽¹⁾^w^{ith a}^hig^h^c^onc^eⁿ^tr^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^of^low^-^inc^o^m^e^indivⁱ^dua^ls⁽^a^s^de^fⁱ^ne^{d in}^s^e^c^tion¹⁷⁰⁷
^of^the^Ele^m^eⁿ^ta^r^y^a^{nd Se}^c^onda^r^y^Educ^a^tio^{n A}^c^{t of}¹⁹⁶^{5 (}^{20 U}^.^S.C^.⁶⁵³⁷⁾⁾^;^or⁽²⁾^de^sⁱ^gⁿ^a^t^e^d^w^{ith a}^s^c^hool^loc^a^l^e^c^o^de
^of^41,⁴²^{, or}⁴³^{, a}^s^de^te^r^m^ine^d^by^the^Se^c^r^e^t^a^r^y^o^f^Educ^a^tio^n.”

two new competitive grant programs at the Department of Education (ED), called
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow, that would enable partnerships to
implement, in STEM fields, courses of study that lead to a baccalaureate degree
with concurrent teacher certification, and at the graduate level, a two- or three-
year, part-time, master’s degree program for current teachers to improve their
content knowledge and pedagogical skills in these areas;
a program called Math Now would improve instruction in mathematics by
providing teachers with research-based tools and professional development to
enhance elementary and middle school students’ achievement in math;
a new program called the Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate
(AP/IB) Program would expand low-income students’ access to AP/IB
coursework by training more high school teachers to lead AP/IB courses in math, ¹⁰³
science, and critical foreign languages in high-need schools;
increased support for a number of existing NSF programs including the
–Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program, which seeks to encourage talented
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors and professionals to become
K-12 mathematics and science teachers;
–Math and Science Partnerships program, which develops and implements ways of
advancing mathematics and science education for students;
–STEM talent expansion program (STEP), whose goal is increasing the number of
students receiving associate or baccalaureate STEM degrees;
–Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program, which promotes improvement in
the education of science and engineering technicians at the undergraduate and
secondary school levels;
–Graduate Research Fellowships (GRF), which provide three years of support for
graduate study in STEM fields; and
–Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program, which
seeks to catalyze a cultural change in graduate education by establishing innovative
new models.
The issues for Congress related to these provisions are discussed below.
A number of the America COMPETES Act programs are to be managed by the DOE and its
National Laboratories, which have not previously played a major role in K-12 STEM education.
The Administration has opposed several of the DOE-Managed STEM initiatives, including the
Specialty Schools in Math and Science, Experiential-based Learning Opportunities, Summer
Institutes, and the National Laboratories Centers of Excellence, indicating such programs should

¹⁰³^A^“hⁱ^g^h^-ⁿ^eed^sch^o^o^l^”ⁱ^s^d^e^fⁱⁿ^e^dⁱⁿ^t^h^{e act}^{as o}ⁿ^e^wⁱ^t^h^{a p}^e^rvasi^v^{e n}^eed^f^o^{r A}^d^van^ced^P^l^acem^en^t^o^r^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l
^Baccalau^reat^{e co}^u^r^{ses in}^m^a^th^e^m^{atics, scie}ⁿ^{ce, o}^r^{critical f}^o^reigⁿ^lan^g^u^a^g^e^{s, o}^r^f^o^{r ad}^d^iti^oⁿ^a^{l A}^d^v^aⁿ^ced^Place^m^eⁿ^t^o^r
^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Baccal^au^reat^{e co}^u^r^{ses i}ⁿ^su^ch^{a s}^u^b^j^ect^;^aⁿ^d^wⁱ^t^h^a^hⁱ^gh^coⁿ^cen^t^r^atⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^l^o^w^-ⁱⁿ^co^m^e^s^t^u^d^e^nt^s;^o^rⁱ^s
^d^e^si^gn^at^ed^wⁱ^t^h^{a sch}^o^o^l^l^o^cal^{e c}^o^d^e^o^f⁴¹^,⁴²^,^o^r⁴³^,^{as d}^e^t^e^rmⁱⁿ^ed^b^y^t^h^{e S}^ecret^ar^y^o^f^E^d^u^catⁱ^o^n.

not be a DOE responsibility.¹⁰⁴ Proponents counter that the biggest challenge in K-12 STEM
education is inspiring children to learn math and science, and that the best way to inspire teachers
and students is by providing them with an opportunity to interact with DOE scientists and ¹⁰⁵
engineers actively conducting research.
The DOE specialty schools for math and science are to be public secondary schools whose
students reside in the state where the school is located. These schools are intended to offer
students a high-quality, comprehensive STEM curriculum designed to improve the academic
achievement of students in science and mathematics. The Administration contends that ¹⁰⁶
establishing or expanding K-12 schools should not be a DOE responsibility. Supporters state
that such schools will be important because states that have similar specialty schools have been a
“nucleus of excellence” in math and science, that attracts and inspires the best students and ¹⁰⁷
teachers.
The America COMPETES Act authorizes summer internship programs at DOE national
laboratories for middle and secondary school students to provide them with experiential, hands-
on learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The Administration advocates
that resources instead should be focused on identifying what works and improving the
effectiveness of existing efforts before starting a new program for which the Administration ¹⁰⁸
believes that there is no clear and compelling need. Proponents counter that the few weeks ¹⁰⁹
students spend in such programs makes a “remarkable” difference in the quality of education.
DOE National Laboratory Centers of Excellence in STEM education are designed to assist
teachers and allow them to use national laboratory equipment to teach courses located in at least
one high-need public secondary school in the region served by a DOE national laboratory, in
partnership with local higher education institution. The Administration believes that establishing
school-based centers is not a proper role for DOE and would divert national laboratory resources ¹¹⁰
that currently benefit their surrounding communities. Proponents counter that such programs ¹¹¹
inspire teachers and students, and provide them with necessary resources.

¹⁰⁴^U^.^S.^P^r^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^{t (G}^e^o^rg^e^W^.^Bus^h^{), “}^S^{. 7}^61—A^m^e^r^ica^Cr^e^a^ting^O^pportu^nitie^s^t^o^Me^aⁿⁱⁿ^g^f^ully^P^r^om^ote^Ex^c^e^lle^nc^e
^{in T}^e^c^hnol^og^y^,^Educ^a^tion,^aⁿ^d^Sc^ie^nc^e^A^c^t,”^Sta^t^em^eⁿ^{t of}^A^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^tion^Polⁱ^c^y^,^A^p^r^{il 23,}²⁰⁰⁷^{, a}^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.^w^hite^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^om^b/le^gⁱ^s^l^a^tiv^e^/^s^a^p/11^0-^1/^s⁷⁶¹^s^a^p-^s^.^p^d^f^.
¹⁰⁵^Se^na^{tor L}^a^m^a^r^A^l^e^x^a^nde^{r, “}^A^m^e^ric^a^’^{s Com}^p^e^titiv^eⁿ^e^ss,”^re^m^a^{rks in t}^h^e^Se^na^te^,^C^o^ng^ressioⁿ^a^{l Reco}^rd^{, A}^p^ril^24,
²⁰⁰^{7, p. S5}⁰¹^1.
¹⁰⁶^U^.^S.^P^r^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^{t (G}^e^o^rg^e^W^.^Bus^h^{), “}^S^{. 7}^61—A^m^e^r^ica^Cr^e^a^ting^O^pportu^nitie^s^t^o^Me^aⁿⁱⁿ^g^f^ully^P^r^om^ote^Ex^c^e^lle^nc^e
^{in T}^e^c^hnol^og^y^,^Educ^a^tion,^aⁿ^d^Sc^ie^nc^e^A^c^t,”^Sta^t^em^eⁿ^{t of}^A^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^tion^Polⁱ^c^y^,^A^p^r^{il 23,}²⁰⁰⁷^a^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.^w^hite^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^om^b/le^gⁱ^s^l^a^tiv^e^/^s^a^p/11^0-^1/^s⁷⁶¹^s^a^p-^s^.^p^d^f^.
¹⁰⁷^Se^na^{tor L}^a^m^a^r^A^l^e^x^a^nde^{r, “}^A^m^e^ric^a^’^{s Com}^p^e^titiv^eⁿ^e^ss,”^re^m^a^{rks in t}^h^e^Se^na^te^,^C^o^ng^ressioⁿ^a^{l Reco}^rd^{, A}^p^ril^24,
²⁰⁰^{7, p. S5}⁰¹^1.
¹⁰⁸^U^.^S.^P^r^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^{t (G}^e^o^rg^e^W^.^Bus^h^{), “}^S^{. 7}^61—A^m^e^r^ica^Cr^e^a^ting^O^pportu^nitie^s^t^o^Me^aⁿⁱⁿ^g^f^ully^P^r^om^ote^Ex^c^e^lle^nc^e
^{in T}^e^c^hnol^og^y^,^Educ^a^tion,^aⁿ^d^Sc^ie^nc^e^A^c^t,”^Sta^t^em^eⁿ^{t of}^A^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^tion^Polⁱ^c^y^,^A^p^r^{il 23,}²⁰⁰⁷^a^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.^w^hite^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^om^b/le^gⁱ^s^l^a^tiv^e^/^s^a^p/11^0-^1/^s⁷⁶¹^s^a^p-^s^.^p^d^f^.
¹⁰⁹^Se^na^{tor L}^a^m^a^r^A^l^e^x^a^nde^{r, “}^A^m^e^ric^a^’^{s Com}^p^e^titiv^eⁿ^e^ss,”^re^m^a^{rks in t}^h^e^Se^na^te^,^C^o^ng^ressioⁿ^a^{l Reco}^rd^{, A}^p^ril^24,
²⁰⁰^{7, p. S5}⁰¹^1.
¹¹⁰^U^.^S.^P^r^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^{t (G}^e^o^rg^e^W^.^Bus^h^{), “}^S^{. 7}^61—A^m^e^r^ica^Cr^e^a^ting^O^pportu^nitie^s^t^o^Me^aⁿⁱⁿ^g^f^ully^P^r^om^ote^Ex^c^e^lle^nc^e
^{in T}^e^c^hnol^og^y^,^Educ^a^tion,^aⁿ^d^Sc^ie^nc^e^A^c^t,”^Sta^t^em^eⁿ^{t of}^A^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^tion^Polⁱ^c^y^,^A^p^r^{il 23,}²⁰⁰⁷^a^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.^w^hite^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^om^b/le^gⁱ^s^l^a^tiv^e^/^s^a^p/11^0-^1/^s⁷⁶¹^s^a^p-^s^.^p^d^f^.
¹¹¹^Se^na^{tor L}^a^m^a^r^A^l^e^x^a^nde^{r, “}^A^m^e^ric^a^’^{s Com}^p^e^titiv^eⁿ^e^ss,”^re^m^a^{rks in t}^h^e^Se^na^te^,^C^o^ng^ressioⁿ^a^{l Reco}^rd^{, A}^p^ril^24,
²⁰⁰^{7, p. S5}⁰¹^1.

The America COMPETES Act reauthorizes a number of existing STEM education programs at
the NSF and authorizes one new program. The Administration has opposed two provisions in the
act: increasing funding for an existing program, the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program,
and establishing funding for a new program, the Laboratory Science Pilot program.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 explanatory language states the following regarding
NSF STEM education programs and the Noyce Program:
^{NSF n}^o^{t onl}^yⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^es^res^earc^h^{, bu}^{t als}^o^s^h^aresⁱⁿ^t^h^{e res}^pon^sⁱ^bili^t^y^f^o^{r prom}^otiⁿ^g^q^u^alit^y
^m^a^t^h^an^d^s^c^ieⁿ^{ce edu}^catioⁿ^asⁱⁿ^tert^wⁱⁿⁱ^ng^obj^ectiv^es^{at all}^l^e^v^e^ls^o^f^edu^cat^ion^acros^s^th^e
^Un^ited^State^s^{. Math}^an^d^scieⁿ^c^{e ed}^u^cato^r^{s p}^l^ay^a^m^a^j^o^r^r^o^{le in}^k^eepⁱⁿ^g^t^h^{e U.S. co}^m^p^etiti^v^e^st
ⁱⁿ^th^{e 2}¹^c^eⁿ^t^u^r^y^.^Iⁿ^c^r^e^a^sⁱ^{ng t}^h^eⁿ^u^m^b^e^r^o^f^hi^g^h^l^y^q^u^a^lⁱ^fⁱ^e^d^K^-^{12 m}^a^t^h^an^d^s^cⁱ^eⁿ^ce^t^eac^h^e^r^s
^{is cr}^{itical to}^th^{e cr}^eatioⁿ^o^f^{a n}^e^w^g^eⁿ^e^r^a^tioⁿ^o^fⁱⁿⁿ^o^v^a^to^r^s^{. Reco}^m^m^eⁿ^d^atioⁿ^sⁱⁿ^clu^d^edⁱⁿ
^t^h^e^N^a^tⁱ^o^na^l^A^c^a^d^e^mⁱ^e^s^’^Ri^siⁿ^g^A^b^o^v^e^t^h^e^G^a^t^h^e^rⁱⁿ^{g St}^o^r^m^r^e^port^di^s^c^u^s^s^e^d^t^h^eⁱ^m^port^aⁿ^c^e
^of^ex^paⁿ^d^ing^prog^ra^m^s^{to enhan}^{ce t}^h^e^un^derg^radu^{ate ed}^u^cat^ion^{of t}^h^e^f^u^tu^re^s^c^ieⁿ^{ce a}ⁿ^d
^eⁿ^gⁱⁿ^e^e^rⁱⁿ^g^wo^r^k^f^o^r^c^e^.^Wⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^t^h^e^a^m^o^uⁿ^t^s^p^r^o^vⁱ^d^e^d^,^aⁿ^ad^d^itioⁿ^a^l^$⁵^,⁰⁰⁰^,0⁰⁰^,^f^o^r^a^to^tal^o^f
^$15,0^00,^000,^s^h^al^l^{be prov}ⁱ^d^e^d^f^o^{r t}^h^{e R}^obert^Noy^{ce S}^c^h^o^l^a^rs^hⁱ^{p prog}^ra^m^{.... T}^h^{e R}^obert
^No^y^{ce Sch}^o^lars^hⁱ^{p prog}^ra^m^en^cou^r^ag^e^s^{talented Scien}^{ce, Tech}ⁿ^o^logy^{, Eng}ⁱⁿ^eering^,^an^d
^Mat^h^e^m^atⁱ^c^s⁽^S^T^E^{M) u}ⁿ^d^erg^r^adu^a^t^e^s^t^u^d^en^t^s^an^{d pos}^t^g^raduat^e^prof^es^sⁱ^on^a^l^s^t^o^beco^m^e^K^-
^{12 m}^a^t^h^e^m^atics^aⁿ^{d s}^c^ieⁿ^{ce te}^ach^ers^.
The Noyce program awards grants to higher education institutions to recruit and prepare
undergraduate students majoring in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to become
elementary and secondary mathematics and science teachers. Students receive scholarships and
stipends in exchange for 2-6 years of service as a mathematics or science teacher in a high-need ¹¹²
K-12 school district. This program is related to another activity in the America COMPETES
Act, the ED Baccalaureate Degrees in STEM/Foreign Languages with Concurrent Teacher
Certification program, that provides funds to institutions of higher education to manage these
programs.
The program is considered by some to be radical because academic research institutions have
traditionally trained science and mathematics teachers in education departments rather than in
science and mathematics departments. In addition, many of the current programs use master K-12
classroom teachers to educate students in the program and serve as role models, rather than
relying solely upon the education department faculty. Further, universities involved with the
program have had to change their traditional viewpoint that they are preparing students just for
research careers, but also for education careers, and that these students are not “washouts,” but ¹¹³
some of their best science, engineering, and mathematics undergraduates.

¹¹²^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^th^is^pr^o^g^r^am^{, s}^e^e^http://w^w^w^.ns^f^.^g^ov^/pub^s^/²⁰⁰^7/^ns^f⁰⁷⁵²^9/^ns^f⁰⁷⁵²^9.^htm^{and N}^a^ti^ona^l
^Sc^ie^nc^e^Fou^nda^ti^on^,^C^u^l^tiv^atiⁿ^g^M^a^{th a}ⁿ^d^Sc^ie^nc^e^Te^ac^he^r^s^for^Hⁱ^gh-^ne^e^d^Sc^ho^{ol D}ⁱ^s^t^rⁱ^c^t^s^,^p^r^{ess rel}^ease,^at
^http:^//w^w^w^.ns^f^.g^ov^/ⁿ^e^w^s^/^ne^w^s^_sum^m^.^js^p?^cⁿ^tn_id=¹¹⁰⁴⁸¹^&^o^r^g⁼^N^SF&^f^r^o^m⁼ⁿ^ew^s^.^A^s^of^O^c^tobe^r²⁰⁰^7,⁹¹^a^w^a^r^ds^to
^institu^tio^{ns in}³²^sta^t^e^s^ha^v^e^be^eⁿ^m^a^de^{. T}^h^e^s^e^instituti^ons^t^h^eⁿ^pro^vⁱ^de^sc^hola^r^ships^{to st}^ude^{nts. T}^h^e^re^{sults of}^aⁿ
^ong^oi^ng^prog^ra^m^e^v^a^l^ua^tion,^w^h^ic^{h w}^{ill prov}^ide^aⁿ^aⁿ^a^l^y^s^is^of^the^prog^ra^m^sinc^e^{it orig}^ina^t^e^dⁱⁿ²⁰⁰²^{, w}^{ill be}
^a^v^a^ila^ble^{in 20}⁰⁸^.
¹¹³^Jeff^re^{y M}^e^rvi^s^,^“^A^Ne^w^T^wⁱ^s^t^oⁿ^T^r^aiⁿⁱⁿ^g^T^each^ers,^”^Sc^ie^nc^e^{, J}^une^1,²⁰⁰⁷^{, 3}¹⁶^:⁵⁸²⁹^,^pp.¹²⁷⁰^-¹²⁷^{7 a}^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.s^cⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^m^a^g^.^or^g^/^c^g^i/conteⁿ^t/^f^u^ll/316/⁵⁸^29/¹²⁷⁰^.

The Administration has expressed concerns that additional evaluation of the Noyce program is
needed to determine its impact on improving the efficacy or retention of teachers who are
program graduates, and that the program is too new to conduct this evaluation. Therefore, the
Administration maintains that it is unreasonable to increase the funding at the pace and magnitude ¹¹⁴
called for in the America COMPETES Act. Proponents contend that both the UTeach and ¹¹⁵
California Teach programs, which use the same model as the Noyce program, have been ¹¹⁶
successful in better preparing teachers for the classroom.
The NSF Laboratory Science Pilot program will award grants to partnerships of higher education
institutions, high-need local educational agencies, businesses, eligible nonprofit organization, and
others to improve school laboratories and instrumentation as part of a comprehensive program to
enhance the quality of STEM instruction. The program would provide professional development
and training for teachers; purchase, rental, or leasing of equipment, instrumentation, and other
scientific educational materials; develop instructional programs to integrate laboratory
experiences with classroom instruction; and design and implement hands-on laboratory
experiences.
The Administration has stated that supporting the acquisition of laboratory equipment when that
equipment is linked to the development and implementation of novel curricula, professional
development, or teaching methods is already part of an existing NSF program. Further, routine
purchase of consumable supplies and construction, renovation, or maintenance of physical
facilities should remain the responsibility of the recipient institution or state and local education ¹¹⁷
agencies, according to the President. Proponents counter that a National Research Council ¹¹⁸
report on the state of America’s high school labs found that the current quality of laboratory
experiences is poor for most students, and schools with higher concentrations of non-Asian
minorities and schools with higher concentrations of poor students are less likely to have ¹¹⁹
adequate laboratory facilities than other schools.
Math Now is one of two ED programs that are in both the America COMPETES Act and the
Administration’s ACI proposal. The goal of Math Now is to improve instruction in mathematics
by providing teachers with research-based tools and professional development to improve
elementary and middle school students’ achievement in math.

¹¹⁴^F^o^{r m}^o^{re i}ⁿ^f^o^rm^atⁱ^oⁿ^,^{see h}^t^t^p^:^/^/^www^.^u^t^each^.^u^t^e^xas.^ed^u^/^.
¹¹⁵^F^o^{r m}^o^{re i}ⁿ^f^o^rm^atⁱ^oⁿ^,^{see h}^t^t^p^:^/^/^www^.^uⁿⁱ^versi^t^y^o^f^calⁱ^f^o^rⁿⁱ^a.^ed^u^/^acad^e^mⁱ^c^s/¹⁰⁰⁰^t^each^ers/^.
¹¹⁶^Re^{p. G}^e^org^e^Mille^{r, “}^C^onf^e^r^eⁿ^c^e^Re^port^on^H.R.²²^72,^Am^e^r^ic^a^COMPET^{ES A}^c^t,”^re^m^a^r^k^{s in the}^House^,
^C^ongr^e^s^sⁱ^o^nal^Re^c^o^r^d^,^A^u^g^u^s^t^2,²⁰⁰^7,^{p. H}⁹⁵⁹²^.
¹¹⁷^U.^S^.^P^r^esi^d^en^t^(G^eo^{rge W}^.^Bu^sh^),^“H.^R^.³⁶²^—¹⁰^,⁰⁰⁰^T^each^ers,¹⁰^Mⁱ^l^lⁱ^oⁿ^Mⁱⁿ^d^s^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^{ce an}^d^M^a^t^h^S^c^ho^l^a^rshⁱ^p
^A^c^t,”^Sta^t^e^m^eⁿ^{t of}^A^d^mⁱ^nistra^tion^Polic^y^,^A^p^{ril 23}^{, 2}⁰⁰⁷^.
¹¹⁸^Na^tiona^{l Re}^se^a^r^c^h^Co^unc^il,^Am^e^r^ic^a’^s^La^{b Re}^p^o^r^t^:^Iⁿ^v^e^s^tig^ati^ons^{in H}ⁱ^g^h^Sc^ho^ol^Sc^ie^nc^e⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton,^D^C^:
^Na^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^e^m^y^P^r^e^{ss, 200}^{5) a}^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.na^p^.e^du/^c^a^t^a^l^og^.php^?^r^e^c^o^rd_id=¹¹³¹^1.
¹¹⁹^T^e^s^tⁱ^m^on^y^of^R^e^{p. R}^ubéⁿ^Hⁱⁿ^o^jo^s^a^{, Subc}^om^m^itte^e^{on R}^e^s^e^a^r^c^h^a^{nd Sc}^ie^nc^e^Ed^uc^a^tio^{n, H}^ous^e^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^nd
^T^e^c^hnolog^y^Co^m^m^itte^e^,^I^m^pr^ov^{ing the}^La^bor^a^t^or^y^Ex^pe^rⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^for^Am^e^r^ic^a’^s^Hⁱ^gh^Sc^ho^ol^Stu^d^eⁿ^ts^,¹¹⁰^th^Co^ng^.,¹^st
^s^e^s^s^{., H}^.^H^r^g^.^110-^9,^Ma^rc^{h 8}^,²⁰⁰⁷^{, a}^t^http^://de^m^oc^ra^ts^.s^cⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^.^hou^s^e^.g^ov^/^M^e^d^ia^/^F^ile^/Com^m^doc^s^/^he^a^r^ing^s^/200^7/
^r^e^s^e^a^r^c^h^/^08m^a^r^/hin^ojos^a^_^te^s^tim^ony^.pdf^.

Math Now originated in the ACI, so it has been part of congressional discussions since 2006.
Congress has not so far supported appropriations for the Math Now program. Both the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations indicated in their reports on the ED appropriations bills
that existing programs are sufficient, specifically the Math and Science Partnership program and
the Institute for Education Sciences program, both already at the Department of Education. ¹²⁰
Therefore, the committees did not believe that additional programs are needed.

Table 2 summarizes the America COMPETES Act programs and authorizations for FY2008,
FY2009, and FY2010; the FY2008 appropriation; and, Senate and House activities regarding ¹²¹
these programs in the FY2009 budget process. For FY2009, federal government operations are ¹²²
funded through an interim continuing resolution (H.R. 2638; P.L. 110-329). The resolution
funds federal programs from October 1, 2008, until March 6, 2009, at the FY2008 level, but does
not include funding from the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252) in ¹²³
determining the level of funding during this time.
The table includes programs for which the America COMPETES Act authorized funding. Not all
the programs addressed by the America COMPETES Act had an enumerated authorization of
appropriation level. Further, not all of the authorized programs will necessarily be at a sufficient
programmatic level to have a line item within their agency’s budget in the President’s request, the
appropriations bills, or the agency budgets. Therefore, a lack of an enumerated appropriation does
not necessarily mean that a given program is not funded.

¹²⁰^{U.S. C}^oⁿ^g^{ress, Ho}^u^s^{e Co}^m^m^itte^{e o}ⁿ^A^p^p^r^o^p^r^iati^oⁿ^s^,^rep^o^r^t^to^acco^m^p^an^yⁱⁿ^g^{H.R. 3}⁰⁴³^{, 1}¹⁰^th^Coⁿ^g^{., 1}^st^sess.^,^Ju^ly
^13,²⁰⁰⁷^{, H}^.^R^e^pt^{. 1}^10-²³^{1 (}^W^a^s^hing^ton:^G^P^O^,²⁰⁰⁷⁾^,^p.²^26;^U^.^S.^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,^Se^na^te^C^o^m^m^itte^e^on^A^ppr^opr^ia^ti^ons^,^th^st
^rep^o^r^t^t^o^acco^m^p^an^y^S^.¹⁷¹⁰^,¹¹⁰^Cong^.,¹^s^e^s^s^{., J}^u^ne²⁷^,²⁰^07,^S.R^e^pt.¹¹^0-¹⁰⁷⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton:^G^P^O^,²⁰⁰⁷⁾^,^p.²²^0.
¹²¹^For^a^dditi^ona^l^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^t^h^e^A^m^e^r^ic^a^C^O^MP^ET^{ES A}^c^{t in the}^FY²⁰⁰⁹^bu^dg^e^t^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^R^L³⁴³⁹^6,^Th^e
^Ame^r^ic^{a COM}^{PETES Ac}^t^an^{d t}^h^e^FY2⁰⁰⁹^B^u^d^g^e^t^{, by}^D^e^bor^a^h^D^.^Stine^.^C^R^{S R}^e^por^{t R}^L³⁴⁴⁴^8,^Fe^d^e^r^a^{l Re}^s^e^ar^c^h^a^nd
^Devel^o^p^m^en^t^F^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^:^F^Y²⁰⁰⁹^,^by^J^{ohn F.}^Sa^r^g^eⁿ^{t J}^r^{. e}^t^a^l^.^,^pr^ov^ide^s^de^ta^ile^{d a}ⁿ^a^l^y^s^is^{on a}ⁿ^a^g^eⁿ^c^y^-^s^pe^cⁱ^fⁱ^c^ba^sⁱ^s^f^o^r
^DOE,^NS^F^,^and^NIS^T^.
¹²²^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³⁴⁷⁰^0,^Iⁿ^te^{rim Co}^ntin^uin^g^Re^sol^u^ti^{ons (}^C^{Rs): Pote}ⁿ^tial^Impac^ts^on
^A^g^en^{cy Op}^era^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^,^by^Clinto^{n T}^.^Bra^ss.
¹²³^For^a^dditi^ona^l^de^ta^ils^{, s}^e^e^O^f^fⁱ^ce^of^Ma^na^g^e^m^e^{nt a}^{nd B}^udg^e^t^,^A^p^p^o^rtio^nmeⁿ^t^{of t}^h^e^Co^ntin^ui^{ng Re}^s^o^luti^on(^{s) for}
^Fis^c^{al Ye}^ar²⁰⁰⁹^{, O}^M^{B B}^u^lle^tin^N^o^{. 0}⁸^-0^2,^Se^pte^m^be^{r 30,}²⁰⁰⁸^a^t^htt^p^://w^w^w^.^w^hite^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^om^b/bulle^tⁱ^ns^/^f^y^2008/
^b08^-⁰^2.p^d^f^.

Table 2. Comparison of America COMPETES Act Programs, the FY2008 Appropriation, and the President’s FY2009 Budget
Request, the House of Representatives FY2009 Appropriations, the Senate FY2009 Appropriations, and the America
COMPETES Act FY2008, FY2009, and FY2010 Authorization
^{(in millions of}^doll^ars)
^FY20^{08 FY20}⁰⁹^FY20¹⁰
^Appr^opriation(^Cons^olidated^House
^{Authorization}^Appr^{opriations Act,}²⁰⁰⁸^{Authorization}^Request^Appr^opriation^{Authorization}
^(America^{(P.L. 11}^0-1^61);^(America^(President^’s^{(as repo}^rted*^{Senate Approp}^{riation (as re}^{ported* or in}^(America
^COMPETES^Supplemental^COMPETES^Budget)^{or in d}^{raft bill}^{draft bill or}^report**)^COMPETES
^Act)^Appr^{opriations Act,}²⁰⁰⁸^Act)^{or rep}^ort**)^Act)
^{(P.L. 11}^0-2⁵²⁾
^{nt of}

ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34328}^d
^g/w^gy
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki^nd^$50^{2.1 $44}^0.5^$54^1.9^$53^5.0^a^{** $500.7}^{* $48}^9.5^$58^4.8
^h^ttp⁾
^nce^150.⁹^160.⁵^86.4^99.0^{** 129.0}^{* 149.0}^49.7
^100.^{0 65.2}^b^131.⁵^0.0^{** 65.2}^{* 65.0}^140.⁵
³⁰¹²⁾
^ring
^{hip (MEP)}^110.^{0 89.6 122.}⁰^4.0^**^89.6^*^110.0^131.⁸

³⁰⁰³⁾

^FY20^{08 FY20}⁰⁹^FY20¹⁰
^Appr^opriation(^Cons^olidated^House
^{Authorization}^Appr^{opriations Act,}²⁰⁰⁸^{Authorization}^Request^Appr^opriation^{Authorization}
^(America^{(P.L. 11}^0-1^61);^(America^{(President’s}^{(as repo}^rted*^{Senate Approp}^{riation (as re}^{ported* or in}^(America
^COMPETES^Supplemental^COMPETES^Budget)^{or in d}^{raft bill}^{draft bill or}^report**)^COMPETES
^Act)^Appr^{opriations Act,}²⁰⁰⁸^Act)^{or rep}^ort**)^Act)
^{(P.L. 11}^0-2⁵²⁾
^{nt of}

ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34328}^to
^g/w^14.0^{Not Included}^22.5^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^30.0
^s^.or
^le^ak^EW]
^://wiki
^h^ttp^7.5^{Not Included}^7.5^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^7.5
^15.0^{Not Included}^20.0^6.4^**6.4^{* 6.4}^25.0
^EW]^c
^{0.5 Not}^Included^{Such s}^{ums as}^necessar^y^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^{Such s}^{ums as}^necessar^y

^FY20^{08 FY20}⁰⁹^FY20¹⁰
^Appr^opriation(^Cons^olidated^House
^{Authorization}^Appr^{opriations Act,}²⁰⁰⁸^{Authorization}^Request^Appr^opriation^{Authorization}
^(America^{(P.L. 11}^0-1^61);^(America^{(President’s}^{(as repo}^rted*^{Senate Approp}^{riation (as re}^{ported* or in}^(America
^COMPETES^Supplemental^COMPETES^Budget)^{or in d}^{raft bill}^{draft bill or}^report**)^COMPETES
^Act)^Appr^{opriations Act,}²⁰⁰⁸^Act)^{or rep}^ort**)^Act)
^{(P.L. 11}^0-2⁵²⁾
^rants^3.5^{Not Included}^6.5^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^9.5
^ucation
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34328}
^g/w^3.0^{Not Included}^5.5^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^8.0
^s^.or^ucation
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp
^or
^25.0^{Not Included}^25.0^10.0^**10.0^{* 10.0}^25.0

^EW]^c
^f
^(Sec.
^4,48^6.0^e^4,03^5.6(3,97^{3.1 con}^solidated^{+62.5 su}^pplemental)^5,20^0.0^e^4,72^1.9^**4,861.7^*^4,640.5^5,81^4.0

^FY20^{08 FY20}⁰⁹^FY20¹⁰
^Appr^opriation(^Cons^olidated^House
^{Authorization}^Appr^{opriations Act,}²⁰⁰⁸^{Authorization}^Request^Appr^opriation^{Authorization}
^(America^{(P.L. 11}^0-1^61);^(America^{(President’s}^{(as repo}^rted*^{Senate Approp}^{riation (as re}^{ported* or in}^(America
^COMPETES^Supplemental^COMPETES^Budget)^{or in d}^{raft bill}^{draft bill or}^report**)^COMPETES
^Act)^Appr^{opriations Act,}²⁰⁰⁸^Act)^{or rep}^ort**)^Act)
^{(P.L. 11}^0-2⁵²⁾
^10.0-3^0.0^f^Not^Included^10.0-3^0.0^f^182.²^**182.2^*^82.2^g^10.0-3^0.0^f
^(Sec.^c
^EW]
^ge
^7.5^{Not Included}^12.0^19.0^**19.0^{* 19.0}^20.0
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34328}
^g/w^(Sec.^c
^s^.or^EW]
^le^ak
^://wiki^(Sec.^15.0^{Not Included}^20.0^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^30.0
^h^ttp^EW]
^{300 Not}^Included^{Such s}^{ums as}^{are neces}^sary^{Not Included}^**15.0^{Not Included}^{Such s}^{ums as}^{are neces}^sary
^ARPA-
¹²⁾
^{nt of}

ⁿ

^(Sec.
⁶⁾

^FY20^{08 FY20}⁰⁹^FY20¹⁰
^Appr^opriation(^Cons^olidated^House
^{Authorization}^Appr^{opriations Act,}²⁰⁰⁸^{Authorization}^Request^Appr^opriation^{Authorization}
^(America^{(P.L. 11}^0-1^61);^(America^{(President’s}^{(as repo}^rted*^{Senate Approp}^{riation (as re}^{ported* or in}^(America
^COMPETES^Supplemental^COMPETES^Budget)^{or in d}^{raft bill}^{draft bill or}^report**)^COMPETES
^Act)^Appr^{opriations Act,}²⁰⁰⁸^Act)^{or rep}^ort**)^Act)
^{(P.L. 11}^0-2⁵²⁾
^{Such s}^{ums as}^h^h^h^{Such s}^{ums as}
^reate^{75.0 Not}^Included^{may be}^70.0/4^7.0^**^43.5/0.0^*43.5/2^0.5^{may be}
^(Sec.^h^necessar^y^necessar^y
³⁾
^(Sec.^{Such s}^{ums as}ⁱⁱ^{Such s}^{ums as}
^EW]^95.0^*0.0^{may be}^{95.0 **0.0}^{* 0.0}^{may be}
^necessar^y^necessar^y
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34328}
^g/w^{Such s}^{ums as}^{Such s}^{ums as}^{Such s}^{ums as}
^s^.or^(Sec.^{may be}^{Not Included}^{may be}^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^{may be}
^le^ak^EW]^necessar^y^necessar^y^necessar^y
^://wiki^{lls for}
^h^ttp
^(Sec.^95.0^{Not Included}^95.0^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^95.0
^g
^{Such s}^{ums as}^{Such s}^{ums as}
^{28.0 Not}^Included^{may be}^{24.0 **0.0}^*^0.0^{may be}
^necessar^y^necessar^y

^(Sec.
⁴⁾

^FY20^{08 FY20}⁰⁹^FY20¹⁰
^Appr^opriation(^Cons^olidated^House
^{Authorization}^Appr^{opriations Act,}²⁰⁰⁸^{Authorization}^Request^Appr^opriation^{Authorization}
^(America^{(P.L. 11}^0-1^61);^(America^{(President’s}^{(as repo}^rted*^{Senate Approp}^{riation (as re}^{ported* or in}^(America
^COMPETES^Supplemental^COMPETES^Budget)^{or in d}^{raft bill}^{draft bill or}^report**)^COMPETES
^Act)^Appr^{opriations Act,}²⁰⁰⁸^Act)^{or rep}^ort**)^Act)
^{(P.L. 11}^0-2⁵²⁾
^dary
^{Such s}^{ums as}^{Such s}^{ums as}
^tury^120.^{0 Not}^Included^{may be}^necessar^y^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^{may be}^necessar^y
^nd
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34328}^P-16
^g/w
^s^.or^EW]
^le^ak
^://wiki^{Such s}^{ums as}^{Such s}^{ums as}^{Such s}^{ums as}
^h^ttp^nts^{may be}^necessar^y^{Not Included}^{may be}^necessar^y^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^{may be}^necessar^y
^ie^nce^6,12^{7.5 (6,0}^{65.0 co}^nsolidated
^ion⁽^Sec.^6,60^0.0^{+62.5 su}^pplemental)^7,32^6.0^6,85^4.1^{** 6,854.1}^{* 6,854.1}^8,13^2.0
^d^4,84^4.0^k^(4,8^{21.5 co}^nsolidated
^5,15^6.0^{+22.5 su}^pplemental)^5,74^{2.3 5,59}^4.0^**5,544.1^*^5,594.0^6,40^1.0
^es
^115.⁰^{Not Included}^123.¹^115.⁰^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^131.⁷

⁰³⁶⁾

^FY20^{08 FY20}⁰⁹^FY20¹⁰
^Appr^opriation(^Cons^olidated^House
^{Authorization}^Appr^{opriations Act,}²⁰⁰⁸^{Authorization}^Request^Appr^opriation^{Authorization}
^(America^{(P.L. 11}^0-1^61);^(America^{(President’s}^{(as repo}^rted*^{Senate Approp}^{riation (as re}^{ported* or in}^(America
^COMPETES^Supplemental^COMPETES^Budget)^{or in d}^{raft bill}^{draft bill or}^report**)^COMPETES
^Act)^Appr^{opriations Act,}²⁰⁰⁸^Act)^{or rep}^ort**)^Act)
^{(P.L. 11}^0-2⁵²⁾
^165.⁴^{Not Included}^183.⁶^181.⁹^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^203.⁸
^for^61.6^{Not Included}^68.4^61.6^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^75.9
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34328}
^g/w
^s^.or^120.⁰^{*120.0 (}¹¹^{5.0 consolidated+5.0}^l^133.^{2 113.}⁵^**133.0^*^125.0^147.⁸
^le^ak^sup^plemental)
^://wiki
^h^ttp
^47.3^{Not Included}^52.5^38.8^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^58.3
^m
^9.0^{Not Included}^10.0^8.1^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^11.1

^FY20^{08 FY20}⁰⁹^FY20¹⁰
^Appr^opriation(^Cons^olidated^House
^{Authorization}^Appr^{opriations Act,}²⁰⁰⁸^{Authorization}^Request^Appr^opriation^{Authorization}
^(America^{(P.L. 11}^0-1^61);^(America^{(President’s}^{(as repo}^rted*^{Senate Approp}^{riation (as re}^{ported* or in}^(America
^COMPETES^Supplemental^COMPETES^Budget)^{or in d}^{raft bill}^{draft bill or}^report**)^COMPETES
^Act)^Appr^{opriations Act,}²⁰⁰⁸^Act)^{or rep}^ort**)^Act)
^{(P.L. 11}^0-2⁵²⁾
^10.0^{Not Included}^12.0^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^15.0
⁷⁰³⁴⁾
^765.^{6 (72}^{5.6 con}^{solidated +40.0}
^896.⁰^sup^plemental)^995.⁰^790.⁴^{** 840.3}^{* 790.4}^1,10^4.0
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34328}^100.⁰^{Not Included}^111.⁰^51.0^**61.0^{Not Included}^123.²
^g/w^{hip (MSP)}
^s^.or⁷⁰²⁸⁾
^le^ak
^://wiki^89.8^{* 55.0(1}^{5.0 consolidated +40.0}^115.^{0 11.6}^**^50.0^j^{* 55.0}ⁿ^140.⁵
^h^ttp^sup^plemental)
⁷⁰³⁰⁾
^{ng, and}^40.0^{Not Included}^50.0^29.7^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^55.0
⁷⁰²⁵⁾
^52.0^{Not Included}^57.7^51.6^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^64.0

^FY20^{08 FY20}⁰⁹^FY20¹⁰
^Appr^opriation(^Cons^olidated^House
^{Authorization}^Appr^{opriations Act,}²⁰⁰⁸^{Authorization}^Request^Appr^opriation^{Authorization}
^(America^{(P.L. 11}^0-1^61);^(America^{(President’s}^{(as repo}^rted*^{Senate Approp}^{riation (as re}^{ported* or in}^(America
^COMPETES^Supplemental^COMPETES^Budget)^{or in d}^{raft bill}^{draft bill or}^report**)^COMPETES
^Act)^Appr^{opriations Act,}²⁰⁰⁸^Act)^{or rep}^ort**)^Act)
^{(P.L. 11}^0-2⁵²⁾
^27.1^{Not Included}^30.1^25.0^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^33.4
^HR
^m
^96.6^{Not Included}^107.²^116.⁷^**107.0^{Not Included}^119.⁰
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34328}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak^245.⁰^220.⁷^262.⁰^147.⁵^{** 147.5}^{* 152.0}^280.⁰
^ction
^://wiki
^h^ttp
^d
^285.^{6 281.}⁸^309.⁷⁶^305.¹^**305.1^*^300.6^329.⁴⁵

^{4.05 3.97}^4.19^4.0^**4.0^*^4.0^4.34
^12.3^{5 11.4}^12.7⁵^13.1^**13.1^*^13.1^13.2¹
^ry^{Such s}^{ums as}^{Such s}^{ums as}
^(Sec.^{5.0 Not}^Included^{may be}^necessar^y^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^{Not Included}^{may be}^necessar^y

^EW]

^Sources:^{America CO}^MPETES^{Act (P.L. 110-6}^{9); For FY200}^{8, inf}^{ormation is from the Consolidated Approp}^{riations Act, 200}^{8 (P.L. 110-}¹⁶^{1) an}^{d joint ex}^{planatory st}^atement;
^{Congressional Record, December 17,}²⁰^{07; Su}^ppleme^{ntal App}^rop^{riations Act, 200}^{8 (P.L. 110-}²⁵^{2); H.Rept. 11}^0-24^{0; S.Rept. 110-}¹²⁴^{; H.Rept. 11}^0-2^{31; a}^{nd S.Rept. 110-1}^07.
^{The FY200}^{9 re}^qu^{est information}^{is based on FY20}^{09 Cong}^ression^{al Budget Request docume}^{nts f}^{rom the Depa}^rtment^{of E}^{nergy a}ⁿ^d^the^{National Science Foundation}^{. The}
^Department^{of Education FY2}⁰⁰^{9 information is based on}^{its Bud}^{get Summary. The}^{NIST FY200}⁹^reque^{st information is from t}^{he F}^isc^{al Year 200}^{9 Budget of t}^{he U.S.}
^Governme^{nt. Senate Committee}^{on App}^{ropriations FY200}^{9 infor}^{mation is from the Senate}^{Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Ag}^{encies Ap}^{propriations Committee (S.}
³¹⁸^{2; S.Rept. 11}^0-39^{7), the Senat}^{e Ene}^{rgy and Wate}^{r Developmen}^{t Appro}^{priations Committee (S.}³²⁵^{8; S.Rept. 11}^0-41^{6), and the}^Se^{nate La}^{bor, Health and}^Humaⁿ^Services,
^{Education, and Related Agencies}^{(S. 3230; S.Rept. 11}^0-4^{10), as re}^p^{orted to the full Senate. House C}^{ommittee on Appro}^{priations i}^{nformation is based on draft}^{bills an}^d
^{subcommittee r}^{eports as}^{provided on the Congres}^{sional Quarterl}^{y website as of J}^{uly 1}^{8, 2}⁰⁰^8.
^Notes:^Secti^{on numb}^{ers r}^{efer to}^{the America CO}^{MPETES Act. “[}^{NEW]” mea}^{ns a}^{program t}^{hat w}^{as not aut}^{horized prior to the A}^{merica COMPETE}^{S Act. “}^{Not In}^cluded”
^{means t}^{hat thes}^{e progra}^{ms were}^{not specifically identified in the b}^{udget req}^{uest, bill, act, or report. * = as re}^{ported. ** = a}^{s in draft}^{bill or report language. All other}
^approp^{riations are n}^umbe^{rs f}^{rom bill language.}
^a.^{The President’s budget}^req^{uest f}^{or STRS}^{includes almost $8 millio}^{n for th}^{e Baldrige National Quality Award Program. The TIP/ATP}^{program Senate a}^p^p^ropriation
^{does not include the $}^30.8^millio^{n directed away from t}^{he ATP ap}^{propriation for u}^{se by}^other^non-^{NIST related programs.}
^b.^{The following statement is in the}^Consolidate^{d Appropriations Act}^{joint explanatory stateme}^{nt: “Of}^{the amou}^nts^{provided to ITS}^{[Industrial Technology Services],}
^$65,2^00,0⁰⁰^{is for the}^{Technology In}^{novation Program as aut}^{horized by Pu}^{blic Law 11}^0-6^{9 [the}^Am^{erica COMPETES Act]. TIP is str}^u^ctur^{ed to fu}^{nd high-}^{risk, high}
^{reward resea}^rch^{focused on}^broa^{d national needs suc}^{h as adva}^nce^{d automotive batteries, aquac}^ultu^{re, novel lightweight materials}^{, and other emerging te}^ch^nologies.
^{The fu}^{nding provided for TIP will}^{address mortgage obligations relating to projects created}^{under t}^{he Advanced Tec}^{hnology Progr}^{am (ATP). The amended bill also}
^{includes language to allow the TI}^{P immediate access to an additio}^{nal $5,0}^00,0⁰⁰^{from deobligations and p}^{rior-year recoveries f}^r^{om ATP.”}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34328}^c.^{According to an email communic}^{ation between CRS and t}^{he Of}^{fice of Manageme}^{nt a}^{nd Budget and}^{the Of}^{fice of Science and Tec}^hn^olog^{y P}^{olicy received on October}
^g/w^{14, 2}⁰⁰^{8, OMB contends}^{that t}^{he following DOE p}^{rograms corre}^{spond to p}^{rograms aut}^{horized by the A}^{merica COMPETES Act:}
^s^.or
^le^ak•^{DOE S}^ummer^Institute^{s (§50}⁰³^{) corresponds to th}^{e p}^re-existing^{DOE Academies Creating Teac}^h^{er Scientists program}^{(DOE ACTS);}
•^DOE^{Early Caree}^{r Awards (§50}^{06) corres}^{ponds to p}^re-existing^{High E}^{nergy Ph}^{ysics Ou}^tstanding^{Junior I}^{nvestigator, Nuclear P}^hysi^{cs Outsta}^{nding J}^{unior In}^vestigator,
^://wiki^{Fusion Ene}^{rgy Sciences Plasma Ph}^{ysics Ju}^{nior Faculty Development}^{; Advanced Scientific Computing}^Research^{Early Career}^Principle^I^{nvestigator; and the}^{Office of}
^h^ttp^{Science Early Caree}^{r Scientist an}^{d Engineer}^{Award p}^rograms;
•^{Discovery Science a}^{nd Engin}^eer^{ing Innovation I}^{nstitutes (§5}⁰⁰⁸⁾^{correspond with}^pre-e^{xisting Bio}^{energy Resea}^{rch Ce}^{nters, SciDA}^{C Institutes, and t}^he^proposed
^Energ^{y Frontier Researc}^{h Ce}^nter^{s; and the}
•^{Protecting America’s Competitive Edge (PACE) Fellowship progr}^{am (§500}^{9) corres}^{ponds to pre-e}^{xisting Computer}^{Science G}^radu^ate^{Fellowships; Graduate}
^Research^Environme^{ntal Fellowships; American M}^{eteorological}^Soc^{iety/Industry/}^Govern^ment^Gradu^{ate Fellowships; Spallati}^{on Neutr}^o^{n Source In}^stru^mentation
^{Fellowships, and the Fusion E}^ner^{gy Sciences G}^{raduate Fellowships}^.

^{Note that t}^{he information above}^{is not included in DOE’s FY20}⁰⁹^{budget re}^que^{st as, according to}^{OMB, DOE did not reorganize its}^{budget st}^ruct^{ure to mat}^{ch t}^he
^{America COMPETES Act}^categor^{ies. The FY2009}^b^{udget req}^{uest i}^{nformation provided in the}^table^{is from Attachme}^{nt 4}^{in Testimony}^{of Dr. John}^Mar^bu^{rger, III,}
^{Director, White House Office of}^{Science and Tech}^{nology Pol}^icy,^{House Committee on Science a}ⁿ^d^{Technology, Funding for the A}^meri^{ca COMPETES Act}^{in the}
^FY2009^{Administration Budget Request,}^{hearing, 1}¹⁰^th^Congress,²^nd^{session, Februa}^{ry 1}^{4, 2}⁰⁰^{8, at}
^{[http://democrats.science.house.g}^ov/Media/Fi^{le/Commdocs/hearings/20}^08/Full/14^feb/^Marb^urger_Tes^timony.pdf].
^d.^{The committee recommends}^this^{action as part of its co}^ngressiona^{lly directed science projects stating $3}^{million should be app}^r^opria^{ted for the Ce}^{nter for Adva}^nced
^Energ^{y Studies at Idaho National}^{Laboratory in Ida}^{ho Falls “to conduct a pilot program to demonst}^{rate the}^{Nuclear Scien}^{ce Talen}^{t Expa}^nsion^Program.”
^e.^{The America COMP}^{ETES Act am}^{ends the}^Ene^{rgy Policy Act of 20}^{05 (}^P^.^L^.¹⁰^9-⁵⁸^{), Section 971(}^{b), for FY201}^0.^{The FY20}⁰⁸^{and FY2}⁰⁰⁹^aut^{horization numbe}^r
^{provided here are}^{from t}^{he E}^ner^{gy Policy Act.}

^f.^{The Secretary of}^Ene^{rgy ca}^{n decide to establish up}^{to three}^institu^{tes per}^{fiscal year. Eac}^{h institute}^{could receive $1}^{0 millio}^{n per yea}^{r for th}^{ree fiscal years.}
^g.^{The Senate re}^{port did not specify}^{an ap}^prop^{riation for the E}^nergy^{Frontier Research Ce}^nters^{(ERFCs). The report did specify a}^r^{eduction in the}^{Office of Science Ba}^sic
^Energ^{y Sciences f}^{unding of}^$1^52.^{8 million. Of this decrease, the S}^{enate directs $}^59.4^{million to mo}^{ve from the}^{Office of Scienc}^e^{to another office within}^DOE.
^{According to OMB, DOE does n}^{ot plan to fu}^{nd the}^{ERFCs in res}^p^{onse to the re}^{maining redu}^{ction of $93.3}^{million. (}^{Source: Persona}^{l communication betwee}^{n CRS}
^and^OMB^{on October 15, 20}^08.)
^h.^{There is a similarly-named existin}^{g ED program}^{called the Advance}^{d Placement Ince}^{ntive Program (}^{API), authorized under Title I,}^{Part G of t}^{he Eleme}^{ntary a}^nd
^{Secondary Education Act (}^{ESEA). In its FY20}⁰⁹^{congressional b}^udg^{et justification, the Departmen}^{t of Education}^{proposes me}^rging^th^e^{ESEA API a}^{nd the Ame}^rica
^{COMPETES Advanced Placeme}^nt^{and Inte}^{rnational Bacc}^alaureate^{Program(AP/IB) to provide a new “vision” for API. The req}^{uest sta}^{tes that, “Of t}^{he re}^que^sted
^{amount [$}⁷⁰^milli^{on], roughly $1}^{2 million would be required to fu}^{nd State applications for the}^Test^{Fees Program and a}^ppro^ximat^{ely $1}^{1 million would fund API}
^{continuation grant}^{s u}^{nder t}^{he ES}^{EA program, leaving a}ⁿ^estimated^$4^{7 million for new grants}^u^{nder the CO}^{MPETES Act a}^uthority.^F^{unds available for new a}^{wards w}^ill
^sup^{port p}^{rojects expa}^{nding AP of}^{ferings and}^{participation in mat}^he^{matics, science, and critical languages.” This is represe}^nted^{in t}^{he t}^{able as “7}^0.0/4^{7.0,” with the}^first
^num^{ber in t}^{he ta}^{ble providing the}^{total for both the e}^{xisting Advan}^{ced Placement Inc}^{entive Program}^{(API), and if funded, the}^ne^{w Am}^{erica COMPETES Act Adva}^nced
^{Placement/Inter}^{national Baccalaureate (AP/IB) program; the}^secon^{d num}^{ber is th}^{e Administration e}^{stimated portion of the total t}^hat^{would be used for}^{the AP/IB}
^{program. A similar notation is us}^{ed for the cong}^{ressional recomm}^{endations and estimates. The Sen}^{ate committee and House}^su^bcomm^{ittee both re}^{commended $}⁴³^.5
^mill^{ion for this program, b}^{ut t}^he^{Senate committee recomme}^{nded $2}^{0.5 million for the AP/IB prog}^{ram, while the House}^su^bcommitte^{e recommended}^{not fu}^{nding th}^e
^{COMPETES Act}^{program stating}^{that the “}²^{to 1}^match^from^{non-Federal sources would precl}^{ude low-income schools from particip}^ati^ng.”
^i.^{The House a}^{nd Senate Committe}^{es on Ap}^{propriations eac}^{h re}^por^{ted they did not wish to ap}^propri^{ate funds}^{for this}^program.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34328}^j.^{The title for this program}^{in the}^{America COMPETES Act}^{is the F}^{oreign Language}^Partne^{rship Prog}^{ram. The table u}^{ses th}^{e title fo}^{r this program}^{from the}^{ED FY2}⁰⁰⁹^{congressional budget justification}^{to help distinguish it from oth}^er^{ED foreign language}^program^{s su}^{ch as t}^{he existing Foreign}^Lang^ua^{ge Assistance}^program.
^g/w^k.^{The following statement is in the}^Consolidate^{d Appropriations Act}^{joint explanatory stateme}^{nt: “Th}^{e Appro}^{priations Committees s}^tr^{ongly sup}^{port increase}^{s for t}^he
^s^.or^{math and}^phy^{sical sciences, comp}^{uter scien}^{ces, and e}^{ngineering dir}^{ectorates in fiscal year}²⁰⁰⁸^{for r}^{esearch a}^{nd related activi}^{ties (R&RA). However, the Committees}
^le^ak^{also believe the Foundation shoul}^{d maintain compara}^{ble growth in}^{fiscal year 2}⁰⁰^{8, to the ext}^ent^p^{ossible, for the biologica}^{l s}^{ciences and social, behavioral and}
^{economic sciences directorates.}^{Each of t}^{he scien}^{ce disciplines is valuable in maintaining U.S. competitiveness. The Committees}^urg^{e NSF to provide each directorat}^e
^://wiki^{with fu}^{nding levels that are}^{consistent with t}^{he goals of the Ame}^{rica COMPETES Act a}^{nd look forward to the Foundation’s operati}^{ng plan in}^{addressing th}^ese
^h^ttp^concerns.”
^l.^{Although included in t}^{he FY20}⁰⁸^sup^{plemental ap}^{propriation, the a}^{ct specifies a section in}^{the Ame}^r^{ica COMPETES Act au}^thorizing^f^{unding for t}^{he FY2}⁰⁰^{9 EPSCoR}
^program.
^m.^{Two directorates of the National Science Foundation manage t}^{he I}^{ntegrative G}^raduate^{Education an}^{d Research Trainees}^{hip (I}^GERT)^{program—the}^Edu^{cation and}
^Human^{Resources Directorate (}^E^{HR) and the Resear}^{ch a}^{nd Related Activities (R&RA}^{) directorate.}^{The America COMP}^{ETES Act an}^{d the}^{NSF b}^{udget re}^quest^both
^{identify the allocations for each d}^irectorate.
^n.^{The House s}^u^b^{committee recom}^{mends $}^{20 million and the Senat}^{e committee recommends}^$4^{5 m}^ill^{ion of the app}^{ropriated fu}^nding^{for t}^he^{Noyce progra}^{m be}^used
^{for the “}^{National Science Foundation Teaching Fellowships and Ma}^{ster Teaching Fellowships” portio}^{n of the Robe}^{rt Noyce Teac}^her^S^{cholarship p}^{rogram. A}
^{description of this p}^{rogram is pr}^{ovided in the America COMPET}^{ES Act Section 70}^{30, w}^{hich ame}ⁿ^{ds the National Science Foundati}^on^{Authorization Act of 2}⁰⁰²⁽^P.^L^.
¹⁰⁷^-³⁶⁸^{), providing a new Sectio}^{n 1}^0A.

Should Congress decide to appropriate funds for the actions authorized in the America
COMPETES Act, how will the nation know if it is successful? The purpose of the act is “to invest
in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the
United States.” (See the earlier discussion on issues related to the definition of competitiveness.)
Many policy actions and other factors influence these indicators beyond the act, so cause and
effect is difficult to analyze, but such indicators can provide some understanding of how the
overall U.S. economy is faring relative to other countries. The United States currently ranks first
on the international competitiveness rankings available. As stated in the legislation, the goal of
the act is to maintain this ranking even as other nations increase their science and technology
investments and activities.
There are evaluation mechanisms within the act as well as longitudinal analysis conducted by
international organizations that assess competitiveness by ranking the ability of the United States
to compete compared with other countries. These mechanisms use a combination of inputs,
outputs, and outcomes to make their assessments.
In assessing the nation’s competitiveness and the evaluation mechanisms discussed in more depth
below, it is important to keep the following caveats in mind.
There are no direct measures of innovation or competitiveness: numerous
indicators of innovation activity are available. These indicators are quantitative
assessments of actions that play a role in the innovation process, but adding these
indicators together is not necessarily an accurate assessment of innovation or a
nation’s competitiveness. Other factors such as necessity or serendipity may also
play a critical role.
The ability to evaluate the quality of an innovation, its contribution to improved
quality of life, and its value to economic growth is limited and can differ
depending on a company or individual’s perspective.
There is no guarantee that inputs, such as increased spending for research and
development, will lead to new or enhanced technologies. And, should
technologies result or improve, there is no guarantee that they will be
“innovative” or used in the marketplace or by society. Further, innovation may
occur regardless of research and development due to market demand, perceived
need, or minor alterations in existing products and processes.
The federal government, the industrial sector, and universities all play a major
role in funding R&D and innovation. Innovation measures often focus on
research and development funding without differentiating between the two.
While federal funding of basic research is the primary focus of the America
COMPETES Act, the industrial sector also plays a critical development role in
technological innovation and advancement in both the public and private sector.
University-industry cooperation is also a critical component serving as a liaison
between basic research and industry through the education and training of
scientists, engineers, and managers.

In relating R&D funding to gross domestic product, it is important to keep in
mind that while much of U.S. R&D funding is for defense-related research, that
is not the case in other countries. Analyzing non-defense R&D may provide a
different picture than all of R&D.
In examining industry R&D, the nature of the investment may be an important
factor such as the degree of funding spent on research versus development, and
the degree of funding spent in particular industrial sectors. For example, more
industry funding might be spent on electronic equipment research in one country,
while another may spend more of its industrial R&D funding on transportation.
Although patent data can be an indicator of the state of innovation, not all that
results from R&D, such as new ideas, are able to be patented and some
companies and individuals choose not to patent in order to prevent disclosure of
an idea or plans for an activity, or because of the time needed to obtain a timely
patent relative to marketplace needs.
The number of scientists and engineers may or may not reflect a nation’s
innovative capacity as new industries have been developed by individuals with
and without college degrees.
In sum, there are no guarantees that any particular action will result in innovation or enhanced
competitiveness. Instead, the focus of government policy is on creating an environment where
innovation has an opportunity to flourish with the result that the United States is competitive with
the other nations who are also taking steps to increase their innovation environment. Both
international and U.S. government monitoring and assessments of the effect of U.S. policies is
important so that policy adjustments can be made as these other nations take policy actions of
their own.
A number of mechanisms within the act are designed to measure its effectiveness at both the
general and program specific level. For example, the act calls for a President’s Council on
Innovation and Competitiveness whose members include the Secretary or head of departments of
independent agencies linked to science and innovation. The Council is to monitor implementation
of public laws and initiatives for promoting innovation, provide advice to the President with
respect to global trends in competitiveness and innovation, identify opportunities and make
recommendations to improve innovation including monitoring and reporting on the
implementation of the recommendations, and develop metrics for measuring the progress of the
federal government in improving conditions for innovation, including through talent
development, investment, and infrastructure improvements.
In addition, there are provisions to evaluate specific research and education programs. For
example, in research, ARPA-E is to be evaluated after it has been in operation for four years by
the National Academy of Sciences to determine how well ARPA-E is achieving its goals and
mission. A similar provision is in place for the Discovery Science and Engineering Innovation
Institutes. Current White House guidelines also require federal research programs to be evaluated
using the criteria of quality, relevance, and performance in response to the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-62). A merit-based, competitive process is used
by agencies in an attempt to determine which research activities, graduate students, distinguished
scientists, etc. to fund.

In education, the DOE summer institutes are to submit an annual report to Congress as part of the
annual budget submission as to the degree to which the summer institutes improve STEM
teaching skills of participating teachers, increase the number of STEM teachers who participate,
and improve student academic achievement on State STEM assessments.
Similarly, the recipients of grants in the ED STEM baccalaureate degree with concurrent teacher
certification and the Master’s program in STEM education are to evaluate their programs and
provide information on their ability to increase the number and percentage of new STEM teachers
in schools deemed to be most in need, increase the number of underrepresented groups teaching
STEM, bring professionals in STEM into the field of teaching, and retain teachers who participate
in the program. In addition, the act authorizes conducting an annual independent evaluation to
assess the impact of the activities on student academic achievement with a report to the Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, the House Committee on Education and
Labor, and the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations.
Mechanisms are also available to monitor and evaluate the status of U.S. competitiveness outside
of the act’s provisions. These include inputs, outputs, and outcomes.
In terms of outcomes, overall indicators such as the annual World Economic Forum’s (WEF) ¹²⁴
Global Competitiveness Report and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and ¹²⁵
Development’s (OECD) annual Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard might be useful.
The WEF Global Competitiveness Report rankings are based on publicly available data and an
executive opinion survey of over 11,000 business leaders in 131 countries. An illustrative country
profile for the United States from the 2007-2008 Global Competitiveness report is shown in
Figure 5. The OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard report provides information
on innovation by regions and industries, innovation strategies by companies, and patterns in trade
competitiveness and productivity. These analyses are both based on a variety of input and output
indicators.
The nation’s economic trade balance, foreign direct investment, employment, and wages are
examples of output indicators. As discussed earlier in the section discussing the definition of
competitiveness, different audiences are interested in different output indicators. The Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the U.S. Census Bureau, and
the National Science Foundation monitor output indicators on a regular basis. The NSF releases a

¹²⁴^W^o^r^l^{d Ec}^o^nom^ic^For^m^,^Globa^l^Compe^titiv^eⁿ^e^{ss Re}^p^o^{rt 2}⁰⁰⁷^-2⁰⁰⁸^{, a}^t^http^://w^ww^.^w^e^f^orum^.org^/^e^n/^initia^tiv^e^s^/g^c^p^/
^G^l^oba^l%^20Com^pe^titiv^eⁿ^e^ss%^20Re^port/^inde^x^.^htm^.
¹²⁵^O^r^g^a^nis^a^{tion f}^o^r^Ec^o^nom^ic^C^o^-^o^pe^r^a^tion^a^{nd D}^e^v^e^lopm^eⁿ^t,^O^E^C^D^Sc^ie^nc^e^,^Te^c^hⁿ^o^lo^gy^aⁿ^d^Iⁿ^dus^tr^y^Sc^or^e^b^o^a^r^d
²⁰⁰⁷^{, a}^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.oe^c^d^.org^/doc^um^eⁿ^t/10/^0,3³⁴³^,eⁿ^_²⁶⁴⁹^_³³⁷⁰³^_39⁴⁹³⁹⁶²^_1^_1^_1^_1^,0^0.h^t^m^l^#we^b^.

biannual Science and Engineering Indicators report¹²⁶ that monitors the health of the science and
engineering enterprise that compiles much of this information. The BEA, on behalf of NSF, is
currently conducting an experimental analysis that examines the contribution of R&D to GDP
growth.
The quality of education, the availability of a STEM workforce, and the nation’s quality and
capacity for innovation are examples of input indicators. All of the reports described above
monitor input indicators to some extent. These can provide a useful indicator of policy areas on
which the United States needs to focus relative to its competitors, and many of these are more
directly linked to the act.
For example, although the United States is ranked number one overall in the WEF
competitiveness analysis, it does not currently rank number one on each of these input/output
indicators in the WEF analysis. Provided below is a list of some of the key sub-indicators related
to the America COMPETES Act programs and the U.S. ranking in each of these sub-indicators
out of 131 countries (see Figure 5):
quality of primary education (28^th)
quality of math and science education in higher education (45^th)
capacity for innovation (9^th)
quality of scientific research institutions (2^nd)
availability of scientists and engineers (12^th).¹²⁷

¹²⁶^N^a^tiona^l^Sc^ie^nc^e^B^o^a^r^d,^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^{nd E}ⁿ^gⁱ^ne^e^r^ing^Iⁿ^dic^a^t^or^s²⁰⁰⁸⁽^A^r^ling^t^on,^VA^{: N}^a^tiona^{l Sc}^ie^nc^e^Fo^un^da^tioⁿ⁾^a^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.ns^f^.g^ov^/^s^ta^tis^tic^s^/^s^e^ind08^.
¹²⁷^W^o^{rld Ec}^o^nom^ic^Form^{, G}^l^oba^{l Com}^p^e^titiv^eⁿ^e^{ss Re}^{port 20}^07-²⁰^{08, a}^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.^w^e^f^oru^m^.org^/e^n/^initia^tiv^e^s^/g^c^p^/
^G^l^oba^l%^20Com^pe^titiv^eⁿ^e^ss%^20Re^port/^inde^x^.^htm^.

Figure 5. World Economic Forum Analysis of U.S. Competitiveness

^Source:^{World Economic Form,}^{Global Competitiveness}^{Report 200}^7-2008^{, at http://www.weforum.org/en/}
^initiatives/^gcp/^{Global%20Competitiveness%2}^0Report/^index.htm.

Analysis of state-level competitiveness—relative to other states, not internationally—is also
available. Some of the input/output indicators in these analyses are factors that would be
influenced by the America COMPETES Act. For example, the Information Technology and
Innovation Institute uses factors such as the number of high-tech jobs and scientists and engineers ¹²⁸
in the workforce and workforce educational attainment. Alera uses factors such as R&D ¹²⁹
expenditures, human capital, and public education. Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute ¹³⁰
uses factors such as academic R&D funding and STEM degrees.

An issue for Congress is whether to fund America COMPETES Act programs at authorized
funding levels. FY2008 appropriations did not. For FY2009, the federal agencies that manage
America COMPETES Act programs are funded through an interim continuing resolution until
March 6, 2009, at the FY2008 level. Funding for the remainder of FY2009 and all of FY2010
remains to be determined.
Should Congress decide to fund the America COMPETES Act programs, many policymakers will
be observing its impact to determine if the act truly addresses concerns about U.S.
competitiveness and the role of the United States in the global economy. For many, this will be
the test as to whether U.S. policies can truly enhance the U.S. competitive position in this vital
area of science and technology.

¹²⁸^Iⁿ^f^o^r^m^a^{tion T}^e^c^hnolog^y^a^{nd I}ⁿⁿ^o^v^a^{tion I}ⁿ^s^tit^ute^,^“^T^he²⁰⁰⁷^Sta^t^e^N^e^w^Ec^onom^y^I^nde^x^:^B^e^nc^h^m^a^r^kⁱ^ng^Ec^onom^ic
^T^r^aⁿ^s^f^or^m^a^{tion in}^the^Sta^t^e^s^,”^Fe^brua^ry²⁰⁰⁷^a^t^h^ttp:/^/w^w^w^.itif^.org/f^ile^s^/²⁰⁰⁷^_Sta^te^_N^e^w^_Ec^onom^y^_^In^de^x^_^Sm^a^ll.pdf^.
¹²⁹^A^l^e^r^a^,^“^S^ta^te^K^now^le^dge^Ec^ono^m^y^Inde^x^,²⁰^07”^a^t^htt^p^://m^ig^ht^y^d^e^c^k^.c^om^/^public^/^m^ig^ht^y^s^ha^re^/^A^e^l^e^r^a^S^K^E^I.pdf^.
¹³⁰^Beacoⁿ^{Hill I}ⁿ^stitu^{te, “Sta}^{te Co}^m^p^etitiv^en^{ess R}^e^p^o^r^{t 2}⁰⁰⁶^{,” at}^h^t^tp^://w^ww^.b^eac^onhill.org^/^Com^p^e^t^e^06/
^06Sta^te^Com^p^e^t^e^F^ina^l^.^pdf^.

The America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) originated as the 21^st Century Competitiveness Act
of 2007 (H.R. 2272/Gordon) and the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote ^th
Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act (S. 761/Reid), in the 110 Congress. The
Senate passed S. 761 by 88-8 on April 25, 2007. The House passed H.R. 2272 by voice vote on
May 21, 2007. On July 19, 2007, the Senate agreed to incorporate S. 761 into H.R. 2272 as an
amendment and passed this bill by unanimous consent. A conference committee negotiated the
final version of the America COMPETES Act (H.R. 2272) and filed its report on August 1, 2007.
The House, by a 367-57 vote, and the Senate, by unanimous consent, both passed the bill on
August 2, 2007. The President signed the bill into law (P.L. 110-69) on August 9, 2007.
The act incorporated several House bills that had been introduced, and in some cases passed, ^th
earlier in the 110 Congress, including the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math
Scholarship Act (H.R. 362/Gordon); the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering
Research Act (H.R. 363/Gordon); an act to amend the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991
(H.R. 1068/Baird); the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007 (H.R.

1867/Baird); the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007 (H.R.

1868/Wu); and an act to provide for the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy (H.R. 364/Gordon). All of these bills were reported by the House Committee on ¹³¹
Science and Technology.
In the 109^th Congress, the major House bills addressing these issues were the 10,000 Teachers, 10
Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act (H.R. 4434/ Gordon); an act to provide for the
establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (H.R. 4435/Gordon), the
Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act (H.R. 4596/Gordon), the Early
Career Research Act (H.R. 5356/McCaul), and the Science and Mathematics Education for
Competitiveness Act (H.R. 5358/Schwarz). H.R. 5356 and H.R. 5358 were reported by the House ¹³²
Committee on Science.
On the Senate side in the 110^th Congress, S. 761 was a reintroduction of a similar bill introduced ^th
at the end of the 109 Congress, the National Competitiveness Investment Act [NCIA] (S.

3936/Frist). Senators Frist and Reid, then the majority and minority leaders, respectively, in the ^th

109 Congress, cosponsored S. 3936. Similarly, Senators Reid and McConnell, the Senate ^th¹³³

majority and minority leaders, respectively, in the 110 Congress introduced S. 761.
The NCIA was based on two bills that were introduced and reported by the relevant Senate ^th
committees earlier in the 109 Congress: Protecting America’s Competitive Edge Through
Energy Act of 2006 [PACE-Energy] (S. 2197/Domenici), reported by the Senate Committee on

¹³¹^T^h^{e f}^o^llo^wⁱⁿ^g^{are th}^{e rep}^o^r^{ts f}^o^r^each^o^f^th^{e relev}^aⁿ^t^b^{ills i}ⁿ^t^h^{e 1}¹⁰^th^C^ong^r^e^s^s^:^H^.^R^.²²⁷²⁽^H^.R^e^p^t^.¹¹⁰^-²⁸⁹⁾^,^H^.^R^.
³⁶²⁽^H^.R^e^p^t.¹^10-⁸⁵⁾^,^H^.^R^.³⁶^{3 (}^H^.R^e^p^{t. 1}^10-³⁹⁾^{, H}^.^R^.³⁶^{4 (}^o^r^d^e^r^e^d^to^be^r^e^p^o^r^t^e^d⁾^,^H^.^R^.¹⁰⁶⁸⁽^H^.^R^e^p^{t. 1}^10-⁴⁰⁾^{, H}^.^R^.
¹⁸⁶^{7 (}^H^.R^e^p^t.¹¹^0-¹¹⁴⁾^,^aⁿ^d^H^.^R^.¹⁸⁶⁸⁽^H^.R^e^p^t.¹^10-¹¹⁵⁾^.
¹³²^Se^e^H^.^R^e^pt.¹⁰^9-⁵^{25 (}^H^.R^{. 5}³⁵⁶⁾^a^{nd H}^.^R^e^p^t^.¹⁰^9-⁵^{24 (}^H^.R^{. 5}³⁵⁸⁾ⁱⁿ^the¹⁰⁹^th^Coⁿ^g^{ress. In}^t^h^{e 1}¹⁰^th^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,^the
^H^ous^e^C^o^m^m^itte^e^{on Sc}^ie^nc^e^w^a^s^r^e^na^m^e^{d the}^H^o^us^e^C^o^m^m^itte^e^on^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^{nd T}^e^c^hnol^og^y^.
¹³³^B^o^th^S.⁷⁶^{1 i}ⁿ^t^h^e¹¹⁰^th^C^ong^r^e^s^s^a^{nd S}^.³⁹³⁶ⁱⁿ^t^h^e¹⁰⁹^th^C^ong^r^e^s^s^w^e^{nt on}^the^Se^na^te^c^a^l^e^nda^r^w^{ith n}^o^c^o^m^m^itte^e
^r^e^por^t.

Energy and Natural Resources and the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (S. ¹³⁴

2802/Ensign), reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

In the 110^th Congress, the provisions of S. 761, S. 2197, H.R. 2272, H.R. 362, H.R. 363, and H.R. ^th

364 and in the 109 Congress, the PACE-Energy bill (S. 2197/Domenici), PACE-Education (S.

2198/Domenici), and PACE-Finance (S. 2199/Domenici) were based largely on the ¹³⁵

recommendations of the National Academies report Rising Above the Gathering Storm, also ¹³⁶
known as the “Gathering Storm Report” or “Augustine Report.” This report was written in
response to a request from Senator Lamar Alexander, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Congressman
Sherwood Boehlert, and Congressman Bart Gordon. The American Innovation and
Competitiveness Act bill (S. 2802/Ensign) was in response to both the Council of ¹³⁷¹³⁸
Competitiveness report Innovate America and the Gathering Storm report.

¹³⁴^Se^e^{S. 2}¹⁹⁷⁽^S^.R^e^p^t.¹^09-²⁴⁹⁾^aⁿ^{d S.}²⁸⁰²⁽^S^.R^e^p^t.¹⁰^9-²⁸⁵⁾^f^o^r^a^dditi^ona^l^inf^o^r^m^a^tion.
¹³⁵^T^h^e^Na^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^e^m^ie^s,^Risⁱ^ng^Abov^e^t^h^e^G^a^the^rⁱ^ng^St^or^m^:^Ene^r^gizⁱⁿ^g^aⁿ^d^Em^pl^oyⁱⁿ^{g Am}^e^r^ic^{a f}^o^r^{a Br}^ig^hte^r
^Ec^onom^ic^Fut^u^r^e^(W^a^s^hing^{ton, D}^C^{: Na}^tiona^{l A}^c^a^d^e^m^y^P^r^e^{ss, 20}⁰⁷^{). T}^h^e^re^{port w}^a^{s de}^v^e^lope^{d by}^a^c^o^m^m^itte^e^c^h^aⁱ^re^d
^by^N^o^r^m^aⁿ^A^u^g^u^s^tine^.^A^pre^publ^ic^a^{tion v}^e^rs^ion^of^the^re^p^o^{rt w}^a^s^re^le^a^s^e^d^{in O}^c^tobe^r²⁰^05.^Ma^ny^ot^he^{r bills}^w^e^re^a^l^s^o^th
^ba^s^e^{d on}^the^r^e^por^t⁽^e^.g^{., S.}²³⁹⁸^/^B^a^u^c^u^s^a^nd^S.²¹^96/C^l^int^oⁿⁱⁿ^th^e¹⁰⁹^C^o^ng^r^e^s^s⁾^{. T}^h^e^one^s^lis^te^d^he^r^e^a^r^e^only
^thos^e^w^h^ic^{h w}^e^r^e^r^e^por^te^{d by}^a^c^o^m^m^itte^e^f^o^r^dis^c^us^sⁱ^on^on^the^Se^na^te^or^H^o^us^e^Fl^oor^.
¹³⁶^Offⁱ^{ce o}^f^Sen^a^to^{r Harry}^Reid^,^Re^{id W}^o^rk^{s to Ke}^e^p^Ame^r^ic^{a Compe}^titiv^e^,^p^r^{ess rel}^ease,^M^a^rch⁵^,²⁰⁰⁷^,^at
^http:^//r^eⁱ^d.s^e^na^te^.g^ov^/ⁿ^e^w^s^r^oo^m^/^r^e^c^o^r^d^.c^f^m^?ⁱ^d=²⁷⁰¹^19&^{; O}^f^fⁱ^c^e^o^f^Se^na^tor^P^e^te^D^o^m^e^nicⁱ^,^D^o^m^eⁿⁱ^cⁱ^{, Bin}^gam^{an &}
^Partne^{rs Unv}^e^{il “}^P^rote^c^tin^{g Ame}^r^ic^{a’s Compe}^titiv^e^E^dge^”^Le^gisl^a^tion^{, pr}^e^s^s^r^e^le^a^s^e^,^J^a^nua^r^y^{25, 2}⁰^{06; H}^ous^e
^Com^m^itte^e^{on Sc}^ie^nc^e^a^{nd T}^e^c^hⁿ^o^log^y^{, L}^e^gⁱ^sla^tive^Hig^h^lig^{hts, H.}^{R. 22}⁷²^{, T}^h^e^Am^e^r^ic^a^Cre^a^ting^O^ppo^rtuⁿ^itie^{s t}^o
^Me^aⁿ^ing^f^ully^P^r^om^ote^Ex^c^e^lle^nce^{in T}^e^c^hnol^og^y^,^Educ^a^tion,^a^nd^Sc^ie^nc^e^A^c^{t (}^C^O^M^P^E^T^E^S)^{, J}^u^ly^31,²⁰⁰⁷^{, a}^t
^http:^//s^cⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^.^ho^us^e^.^g^o^v^/le^gⁱ^s^l^a^tion/^le^g^_hig^h^lig^hts^_de^ta^il^.a^s^p^x^?^N^e^w^s^I^D⁼¹⁹³⁸^{; H}^.^R^.³⁶^{2, “}^10,⁰⁰^{0 T}^each^{ers, 1}⁰^M^illi^oⁿ
^Minds^.”^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^nd^Ma^th^Sc^ho^la^{rship A}^c^{t, Ja}^nua^ry^{10, 2}⁰⁰⁷^{, a}^t^htt^p^://scⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^.^h^ouse^.^g^o^v^/le^gⁱ^sla^tion/
^le^g^_hig^h^lig^hts^_^de^ta^il.a^s^px^?^N^e^w^s^I^D⁼¹²³^{3; H}^.^R^.³⁶^3,^Sowⁱ^ng^the^S^e^e^d^s^T^h^r^oug^{h Sc}^ie^nc^e^aⁿ^{d E}ⁿ^gⁱ^ne^e^r^ing^R^e^s^e^a^r^c^h
^A^c^{t, J}^a^nua^r^y^{10, 2}⁰⁰⁷^{, a}^t^htt^p^://s^cⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^.^ho^us^e^.^g^o^v^/le^gⁱ^s^l^a^tion/^le^g^_hig^h^lig^hts^_de^ta^il^.a^s^p^x^?^N^e^w^s^ID⁼^{1284; H}^.^R^.³⁶⁴^,
^Es^ta^blis^hi^ng^the^A^d^v^a^nc^e^d^R^e^s^e^ar^c^h^P^r^oje^c^t^s^A^g^eⁿ^cy^-^Ene^r^gy⁽^A^R^P^A^-^E)^A^c^{t, J}^a^nua^r^y^{10, 20}^07,^a^t
^http:^//s^cⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^.^ho^us^e^.^g^o^v^/le^gⁱ^s^l^a^tion/^le^g^_hig^h^lig^hts^_de^ta^il^.a^s^p^x^?^N^e^w^s^I^D⁼¹²³⁵^.
¹³⁷^Couⁿ^c^{il o}ⁿ^C^o^m^p^e^titiv^eⁿ^e^ss,^In^no^va^t^e^A^m^eri^c^a^,²⁰^04,^a^t^ht^tp:/^/w^w^w^.innov^a^t^e^a^m^e^rⁱ^ca^.or^g^/w^e^b^s^c^r^/
^NII_EXEC_SUM^.p^df^.
¹³⁸^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^Co^mmⁱ^t^t^{ee o}ⁿ^Co^m^m^erce^,^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^ce,^an^{d T}^r^an^sp^o^r^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^,^S^e^na^t^e^Co^{mmerce Co}^mmi^t^t^{ee A}^p^p^r^o^{ves A}^m^eri^c^aⁿ
^Inn^o^v^a^ti^{on an}^d^Com^p^e^titiv^eⁿ^e^{ss Ac}^t^{, pre}^{ss re}^le^a^s^e^,^Ma^y^18,²⁰⁰⁶^a^t^http^://c^om^m^e^rc^e^.^s^e^na^te^.g^ov^/^p^u^b^lic^/
^inde^x^.^c^f^m^?^Fus^e^A^c^tion=^P^r^e^s^s^R^e^l^e^a^s^e^s^.P^rⁱ^nt&^P^r^e^s^s^R^e^l^e^a^s^e^_^id=²⁴⁸^614&^S^u^p^p^r^e^s^s^L^ay^outs⁼^T^r^ue^.

America COMPETES Act or America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote
Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act
(Sec. 1001) Directs the President to: (1) convene a National Science and Technology Summit to
examine the health and direction of the United States’ science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics enterprises; and (2) issue a report on Summit results. Requires, beginning with the
President’s budget submission for the fiscal year following the conclusion of the Summit and for
each of the following four budget submissions, the analytical perspectives component of the
budget that describes the research and development (R&D) priorities to include a description of
how those priorities relate to the conclusions and recommendations of the Summit.
(Sec. 1002) Requires the: (1) Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to
contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct and complete a study to
identify, and review methods to mitigate, new forms of risk for businesses beyond conventional
operational and financial risk that affect the ability to innovate; and (2) NAS to report study
results to Congress. Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 1003) Amends the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to rename the
National Technology Medal established under such Act the National Technology and Innovation
Medal.
(Sec. 1004) Expresses the sense of Congress that the OSTP Director should: (1) encourage all
elementary and middle schools to observe a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Day twice in every school year; (2) initiate a program to encourage federal employees with
scientific, technological, engineering, or mathematical skills to interact with school children on
such Days; and (3) promote involvement in such Days by appropriate private sector and
institution of higher education employees.
(Sec. 1005) Expresses the sense of Congress that the federal government should better understand
and respond strategically to the emerging management and learning discipline known as service
science. Requires the OSTP Director to study and report to Congress on ways the federal
government could support service science through research, education, and training.
(Sec. 1006) Directs the President to establish a President’s Council on Innovation and
Competitiveness to undertake various activities for promoting innovation and competitiveness in
the United States, measure progress in such promotion, and report annually to the President and
Congress on such progress. Requires the NAS to submit to the President a list of 50
recommended advisors to such Council.
(Sec. 1007) Requires the Director of OSTP, through the National Science and Technology
Council, to: (1) identify and prioritize the deficiencies in research facilities and major

instrumentation at federal laboratories and national user facilities at academic institutions that are
widely accessible for use by researchers in the United States; and (2) coordinate the planning by
federal agencies for the acquisition, refurbishment, and maintenance of research facilities and
major instrumentation to address the deficiencies identified. Requires submission annually to
Congress of reports: (1) describing the deficiencies in research infrastructure identified; (2) listing
projects and budget proposals of federal research facilities for major instrumentation acquisitions
that are included in the President’s budget proposal; and (3) explaining how the projects and
instrumentation acquisitions relate to the identified deficiencies and priorities.
(Sec. 1008) Expresses the sense of Congress that (1) each federal research agency should strive to
support and promote innovation in the United States through high-risk, high-reward basic
research projects; and (2) each executive agency that funds research in science, technology,
engineering, or mathematics should set a goal of allocating an appropriate percentage of the
annual basic research budget of that agency to funding such projects. Requires each such
executive agency to report annually with respect to its funding goals.
(Sec. 1009) Requires the OSTP Director to develop and issue a set of principles to ensure the
communication and open exchange of data and results to other agencies, policymakers, and the
public of research conducted by a scientist employed by a federal civilian agency and to prevent
the intentional or unintentional suppression or distortion of such research findings. Requires such
principles to take into consideration the policies of peer-reviewed scientific journals in which
federal scientists may currently publish results.
(Sec. 2001) Requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) be a full
participant in any interagency effort to promote innovation and economic competitiveness
through near- and long-term basic scientific R&D and the promotion of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics education. Requires an annual report from the NASA
Administrator to Congress and the President on promotional activities conducted.
Requires the NASA Administrator to submit to Congress a report on its plan for instituting
assessments of the effectiveness of NASA’s science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education programs in improving student achievement, including with regard to challenging state
achievement standards.
(Sec. 2002) Requires the Administrator to coordinate, as appropriate, NASA’s aeronautics
activities with relevant programs in the Department of Transportation, the Department of Defense
(DOD), the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
including the activities of the Joint Planning and Development Office established under the
Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act.
(Sec. 2003) Requires the NASA Administrator, the Director of the National Science Foundation
(NSF), and the Secretaries of Energy, Defense, and Commerce to coordinate basic research
activities related to physical sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
(Sec. 2004) Expresses the sense of Congress that the NASA Administrator should implement a
program to address aging workforce issues in aerospace that (1) documents technical and
management experiences before senior people leave NASA; (2) provides incentives for retirees to
return and teaches new employees about career lessons and experiences; and (3) provides for

development of an award to recognize outstanding senior employees for their contributions to
knowledge sharing.
(Sec. 2005) Expresses the sense of Congress that the NASA Administrator should utilize the
existing Undergraduate Student Research Program to support basic research projects on subjects
of relevance to NASA that (1) are to be carried out primarily by undergraduate students; and (2)
combine undergraduate research with other research supported by NASA.
(Sec. 2006) Requires the NASA Administrator to develop: (1) a plan for implementation of at
least one education project that utilizes the resources offered by the International Space Station,
and in developing any such plan, make use of the findings and recommendations of the
International Space Station National Laboratory Education Concept Development Task Force;
and (2) a plan for identification and support of research to be conducted aboard the Space Station,
which offers the potential for enhancement of U.S. competitiveness in science, technology, and
engineering.
(Sec. 3001) Authorizes appropriations to the Secretary of Commerce (the Secretary) for the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for FY2008-FY2010 for: (1) scientific
and technical research and services laboratory activities; (2) construction and maintenance of
facilities; and (3) Industrial Technology Services activities.
(Sec. 3002) Amends the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to repeal
provisions regarding the establishment of the Technology Administration within the Department
of Commerce. Makes technical and conforming amendments with respect to the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology.
Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to provide for the Director of the
NIST to report directly to the Secretary.
(Sec. 3003) Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to generally revise
provisions concerning eligible contributions for the financial support of regional centers
responsible for implementing the objectives of the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Program.
Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to require that a Manufacturing
Center that has not received a positive evaluation shall be notified of the deficiencies in its
performance and placed on probation for one year, after which an evaluation panel shall
reevaluate such Center. Authorizes the acceptance of funds from other federal departments and
agencies and the private sector for the purpose of strengthening U.S. manufacturing. Requires the
NIST Director to determine whether funds accepted from other federal departments or agencies
shall be counted in calculating the federal share of capital and annual operating and maintenance
costs required to create and maintain such Centers.
Establishes within NIST a Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Advisory Board.
Requires such Board to provide to the Director advice on: (1) MEP programs, plans, and policies;
(2) assessments of the soundness of MEP plans and strategies; and (3) assessments of current
performance against MEP program plans. Requires such Board to transmit annual reports to the
Secretary for transmittal to Congress within 30 days after the submission to Congress of the

President’s annual budget request which shall address the status of the MEP program and
comment on the relevant sections of the programmatic planning document and updates thereto
transmitted to Congress by the NIST Director pursuant to this title.
Requires the Director to establish within the MEP program a program to award competitive
grants among the Centers, or a consortium of such Centers, for the development of projects to
solve new or emerging manufacturing problems.
Permits one or more themes for the competition to be identified, which may vary from year to
year, depending on the needs of manufacturers and the success of previous competitions. Bars
recipients of such grant awards from being required to provide a matching contribution.
(Sec. 3004) Requires the NIST Director, concurrent with submission to Congress of the
President’s annual budget request, to transmit a three-year programmatic planning report for
NIST, including programs under the Scientific and Technical Research and Services, Industrial
Technology Services, and Construction of Research Facilities functions, and subsequent updates.
(Sec. 3005) Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to provide that
annual reports to the Secretary and Congress be submitted by the Visiting Committee on
Advanced Technology not later than 30 days (under current law, on or before January 31 in each
year) after the submittal to Congress of the President’s annual budget request. Requires that such
report also comment on the programmatic planning document and updates thereto submitted to
Congress by the Director.
(Sec. 3006) Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to provide for the
Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology to meet at least twice each year (under current law
at least quarterly) at the call of the chairman of the Committee or whenever one-third of the
Committee’s members so request in writing.
(Sec. 3007) Requires the Director to establish a manufacturing research pilot grants program to
make awards to partnerships to foster cost-shared collaborations among firms, educational and
research institutions, state agencies, and nonprofit organizations in the development of
innovative, multidisciplinary manufacturing technologies. Requires such partnerships to include
at least one manufacturing industry partner and one nonindustry partner.
Requires partnerships receiving awards to conduct applied research to develop new
manufacturing processes, techniques, or materials that would contribute to improved
performance, productivity, and competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing, and build lasting alliances
among collaborators. Bars: (1) awards from providing for not more than one-third of the costs of
a partnership; and (2) not more than an additional one-third of such costs from being obtained
directly or indirectly from other federal sources.
Instructs the Director, in selecting applications, to ensure, a distribution of overall awards among
a variety of manufacturing industry sectors and a range of firm sizes.
Requires the Director to run a single pilot competition to solicit and make awards. Limits each
award to a three-year period.
(Sec. 3008) Requires the Director, in order to promote the development of a robust research
community working at the leading edge of manufacturing sciences, to establish a program to
award: (1) postdoctoral research fellowships at NIST for research activities related to

manufacturing sciences; and (2) senior research fellowships to establish researchers in industry or
at institutions of higher education who wish to pursue studies related to the manufacturing
sciences at NIST. Requires the Director to provide stipends for post-doctoral research fellowships
at a level consistent with the National Institute of Standards and Technology Postdoctoral
Research Fellowship Program, and senior research fellowships at levels consistent with support
for a faculty member in a sabbatical position.
(Sec. 3009) Allows the Director, through September 30, 2010, to annually procure the temporary
or intermittent services of up to 200 experts or consultants to assist with urgent or short-term
projects.
Directs the Comptroller General to report on whether additional safeguards would be needed with
respect to the use of such authority if it were to be made permanent.
(Sec. 3010) Amends the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to revise the
limitation on the number of Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards that may be made in any
year by permitting not more than 18 awards to be made in any year to recipients who have not
previously received such an award. Prohibits any award from being made within any category in
which such an award may be given if there are no qualifying enterprises in that category.
(Sec. 3011) Requires the NIST Director to submit a report on efforts to recruit and retain young
scientists and engineers at the early stages of their careers at the NIST laboratories and joint
institutes.
(Sec. 3012) Abolishes the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and replaces it with the
Technology Innovation Program (TIP), while continuing support originally awarded under ATP.
Provides for TIP to assist U.S. businesses and institutions of higher education or other
organizations, such as national laboratories and nonprofit research institutions, to support,
promote, and accelerate innovation in the United States through high-risk, high-reward research
in areas of critical national need.
Requires the Director to award competitive, merit-reviewed grants, cooperative agreements, or
contracts to: (1) eligible companies that are small or medium-sized businesses; or (2) joint
ventures. Sets forth limitations on single company and joint venture awards. Limits the federal
share of a project funded by an award under TIP to not more than half of total project costs. Bars
any business that is not a small or medium-sized business from receiving any funding under TIP.
Requires the Director to solicit proposals at least annually to address areas of critical national
need for high-risk, high-reward projects.
Requires: (1) the NIST Director to submit annually reports on TIP’s activities; and (2) the first
annual report to include best practices for management of programs to stimulate high-risk, high-
reward research.
Requires the Director, in carrying out TIP, as appropriate, to coordinate with other senior state and
federal officials to ensure cooperation and coordination in state and federal technology programs
and to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts. Requires that funds accepted from other federal
agencies be included as part of the federal cost share of any project funded under TIP.
Establishes within NIST a TIP Advisory Board. Requires such Board to provide to the Director:
(1) advice on programs, plans, and policies of TIP; (2) reviews of Tip’s efforts to accelerate the

R&D of challenging, high-risk, high-reward technologies in areas of critical national need; (3)
reports on the general health of the program and its effectiveness in achieving its legislatively
mandated mission; and (4) guidance on investment areas that are appropriate for TIP funding.
Requires such Board to transmit annual reports to the Secretary for transmittal to Congress not
later than 30 days after the submission to Congress of the President’s annual budget request
which shall address the status of TIP and comment on the relevant sections of the programmatic
planning document and updates thereto transmitted to Congress by the Director.
Defines “high-risk, high-reward research” to mean research that (1) has the potential for yielding
transformational results with far-ranging or wide-ranging implications; (2) addresses critical
national needs within NIST’s areas of technical competence; and (3) is too novel or spans too
diverse a range of disciplines to fare well in the traditional peer review process.
Requires the NIST Director to carry out ATP as it was in effect before the enactment of this act
with respect to applications for grants under ATP submitted before such date, until the earlier of:
(1) the date that the Director promulgates the regulations required by this act for the operation of
TIP required under this act; or (2) December 31, 2007.
(Sec. 3013) Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to: (1) increase
funding for research fellowships and other financial assistance to students at institutions of higher
education within the United States and to U.S. citizens for research and technical activities on
NIST programs; (2) add as a function of the Secretary and NIST, the authority to enter into
contracts which include grants and cooperative agreements to further the purposes of NIST; (3)
repeal the act of July 21, 1950 (relating to the legal units of electrical and photometric
measurement in the United States and relating to the establishment of the values of the primary
electric and photometric units in absolute measure and the legal values for these units); and (4)
repeal the non-energy inventions program.
(Sec. 3014) Authorizes the Director to retain all building use and depreciation surcharge fees
collected pursuant to OMB Circular A-25 (relating to fees assessed for government services and
for sale or use of government goods or resources). Requires such fees to be collected and credited
to the construction of research facilities appropriation account for use in maintenance and repair
of NIST’s existing facilities.
(Sec. 3015) Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to double the number
of fellows per fiscal year to be included in the postdoctoral fellowship program.
(Sec. 4001) Directs the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) to establish a program of ocean, coastal, Great Lakes, and atmospheric R&D, in
collaboration with academic institutions and other nongovernmental entities, to focus on the
development of advanced technologies and methods to promote U.S. leadership in ocean and
atmospheric science as well as competitiveness in applied uses of such R&D.
(Sec. 4002) Requires the NOAA Administrator to: (1) conduct, develop, support, promote, and
coordinate educational activities to enhance public awareness and understanding of ocean,
coastal, Great Lakes, and atmospheric science and stewardship by the general public and other

coastal stakeholders; and (2) develop a 20-year ocean, coastal, and atmospheric science education
plan.
(Sec. 4003) Requires that NOAA be a full participant in any interagency effort to promote
innovation and economic competitiveness through basic scientific R&D and the promotion of
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education.
(Sec. 5003) Amends the Department of Energy Science Education Enhancement Act (Act) to
require the Secretary of Energy (Secretary in this title), acting through the Under Secretary for
Science, to: (1) appoint a Director of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education
(Director) to administer science, engineering, and mathematics education programs across all
functions of the Department of Energy (DOE); and (2) offer to contract with the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) to assess the performance of such programs.
Directs the Secretary to establish a Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education Fund.
Requires the Secretary, acting through the Director, to: (1) award competitive grants to states in a
pilot program to assist them in establishing or expanding public, statewide specialty secondary
schools that provide comprehensive science and mathematics; and (2) establish a summer
internship program for middle school and secondary school students to provide experiential-based
learning opportunities at the National Laboratories.
Directs the Secretary to establish at each of the National Laboratories: (1) a program to support a
Center of Excellence in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics in at least one high-
need public secondary school; (2) programs of summer institutes to provide additional training to
strengthen the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics teaching skills of teachers
employed at public schools for kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12); and (3) a program to
coordinate and make available to teachers and students web-based kindergarten through high
school science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education resources relating to the
DOE science and energy mission.
Instructs the Director to establish a recruiting and mentoring program for women and
underrepresented minorities to pursue careers in science, engineering, and mathematics.
Directs the Secretary to award each fiscal year to institutions of higher education: (1) up to three
competitive grants for new academic degree programs in nuclear science; (2) up to five
competitive grants for existing academic degree programs that produce graduates in nuclear
science; (3) up to three competitive grants for new academic degree programs in hydrocarbon
systems science; (4) up to five competitive grants for existing academic degree programs that
produce graduates in hydrocarbon systems science. Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-
FY2010.
(Sec. 5006) Instructs the Director of the DOE Office of Science to: (1) award grants to scientists
and engineers at an early career stage at certain institutions of higher education, organizations, or
National Laboratories to conduct research in fields relevant to the DOE mission; and (2) report to

certain congressional committees on the Director’s efforts to recruit and retain young scientists
and engineers at early career stages at the National Laboratories.
(Sec. 5007) Amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to authorize FY2010 appropriations for
research, development, demonstration, and commercial application activities of the Office of
Science.
(Sec. 5008) Directs the Secretary to establish: (1) distributed, multidisciplinary institutes centered
at National Laboratories to apply fundamental scientific and engineering discoveries to
technological innovations relating to the DOE mission and the global competitiveness of the
United States; and (2) a Protecting America’s Competitive Edge (PACE) graduate fellowship
program for students pursuing a doctoral degree in a DOE mission area. Authorizes
appropriations for FY2008-FY2010.
(Sec. 5010) Expresses the sense of Congress that (1) DOE should implement the
recommendations contained in the report of the Government Accountability Office numbered 04-
639; and (2) the Secretary should conduct annual reviews in accordance with title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972 of at least two DOE grant recipients.
(Sec. 5011) Instructs the Secretary to establish a program to support the joint appointment of
distinguished scientists by institutions of higher education and by the National Laboratories.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2010.
(Sec. 5012) Establishes within DOE the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)
to overcome long-term and high-risk technological barriers in the development of energy
technologies.
Directs the Secretary after four years to offer to contract with the NAS to evaluate how well
ARPA-E is achieving its goals and mission.
Establishes in the Treasury the Energy Transformation Acceleration Fund to implement the
ARPA-E program.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2010.
Part I: Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow—(Sec. 6113) Authorizes the Secretary of Education
(Secretary, for purposes of this Title) to award competitive matching grants to enable educational
partnerships to develop and implement programs to provide courses of study in science,
technology, engineering, mathematics, or critical foreign languages that (1) are integrated with
teacher education; and (2) lead to a baccalaureate degree with concurrent teacher certification.
(Sec. 6114) Authorizes the Secretary to award competitive matching grants to educational
partnerships to develop and implement: (1) two- or three-year part-time master’s degree programs
in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or critical foreign language education for
teachers in order to enhance the teachers’ content knowledge and teaching skills; or (2) programs

for professionals in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or a critical foreign language
that lead to a one-year master’s degree in teaching that results in teacher certification.
(Sec. 6115) Directs the Secretary to award each of the above grants for up to five years. Requires

50% nonfederal matching funds.

(Sec. 6116) Authorizes appropriations.
Part II: Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Programs—(Sec. 6123) Authorizes
the Secretary to award competitive matching grants for up to five-year periods to enable
educational agencies or partnerships to carry out activities designed to increase the number of: (1)
qualified teachers serving high-need (low-income or rural area) schools who are teaching
advanced placement or international baccalaureate courses in mathematics, science, or critical
foreign languages; and (2) students attending such schools who enroll in and pass the
examinations for such courses.
Requires 200% nonfederal matching funds, but requires no more than 100% from high-need local
educational agencies (LEAs). Permits the Secretary to waive the match for educational agencies if
it would cause them serious hardship or prevent them from carrying out the program.
Part III: Promising Practices in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Teaching—
(Sec. 6131) Requires the Secretary to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to
convene an expert panel to identify promising practices for, and synthesize the scientific evidence
pertaining to, improving the teaching and learning of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics in kindergarten through grade 12. Requires the dissemination of the panel’s findings
and recommendations to the public and state and local educational agencies. Authorizes
appropriations.
(Sec. 6201) Authorizes the Secretary to award competitive three-year matching grants to states
and, through them, subgrants to high-need LEAs to: (1) implement mathematics programs or
initiatives that are research-based; (2) provide professional development and instructional
leadership activities for teachers and administrators on the implementation of mathematics
initiatives; and (3) conduct student mathematics progress monitoring and identify areas in which
students need help in learning mathematics. Applies the program to students and teachers in
kindergarten through grade 9. Requires state grantees to contribute 50% of program costs.
Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 6202) Directs the Secretary to carry out a demonstration program under which the Secretary
awards up to five grants each fiscal year to states for the provision of summer learning grants to
disadvantaged students. Requires the summer programs to emphasize mathematics, technology,
engineering, and problem-solving through experiential learning opportunities. Limits to 50% the
federal share of such grants. Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 6203) Requires the Secretary to establish a program that provides competitive three-year
matching grants to states and, through them, subgrants to eligible LEAs to establish new services
and activities to improve the overall mathematics performance of secondary school students.
Provides: (1) a minimum grant amount of $500,000; and (2) a state matching funds requirement
of 50% of program costs. Authorizes appropriations.

(Sec. 6204) Directs the Secretary to establish peer review panels to review state applications for
the mathematics grant programs, excluding the demonstration grant program.
(Sec. 6303) Authorizes the Secretary to award grants to enable partnerships of institutions of
higher education and LEAs to establish programs of study in critical foreign languages that will
enable students to advance successfully from elementary school through postsecondary education
and achieve higher levels of proficiency in such languages. Makes such grants for five-year
periods, authorizing the Secretary to renew them for up to two additional five-year periods.
Outlines matching funds requirements.
(Sec. 6304) Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 6401) Authorizes the Secretary to award competitive grants to enable states to work with
statewide partnerships to: (1) promote better alignment of content knowledge requirements of
secondary school graduation with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in postsecondary ^st
education, the 21 century workforce, or the Armed Forces; or (2) establish or improve statewide
P-16 (preschool through baccalaureate degree) education data systems. Requires each state to
match grant fund amounts. Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 6501) Directs the Secretary to award grants, during school years 2007-2008 through 2010-
2011, to each of the three elementary and three secondary schools with a high concentration of
low-income students in each state whose students demonstrate the most improvement in
mathematics and science, respectively.
(Sec. 6502) Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 7002) Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2010 to the National Science Foundation
(NSF) for: (1) research and related activities; (2) education and human resources; (3) major
research equipment and facilities construction; (4) agency operations and award management; (5)
the Office of the National Science Board; and (6) the Office of Inspector General.
(Sec. 7003) Prohibits anything in this title or title I from being construed to alter or modify the
NSF merit-review system or peer-review process.
(Sec. 7004) Expresses the sense of Congress that the Director of the NSF and the Secretary of
Education should have ongoing collaboration to ensure that their respective mathematics and
science partnership programs continue to work in concert (and not duplicatively) for the benefit
of states and local practitioners.

(Sec. 7005) Prohibits anything in this title from being construed to limit the authority of state
governments or local school boards to determine the curricula of their students.
(Sec. 7006) Requires the continuation of 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 (relating to the establishment of such Centers).
Amends the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 to provide for the awarding
of grants to eligible nonprofit organizations and their consortia to establish such Centers.
(Sec. 7007) Directs the National Science Board to evaluate: (1) the role of NSF in supporting
interdisciplinary research, including through the Major Research Instrumentation program, the
effectiveness of NSF’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; and (2) the effectiveness of NSF’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. Requires the Board to provide the results of its evaluation, including a
recommendation for the proportion of the NSF’s research and related activities funding that
should be allocated for interdisciplinary research.
(Sec. 7008) Instructs the Director to: (1) require that all grant applications that include funding to
support postdoctoral researchers include a description of mentoring activities; and (2) ensure that
this part of the application is evaluated under NSF’s broader impacts merit review criterion.
Instructs the Director to 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. 7009) Instructs the Director to require that each institution that applies for financial
assistance from NSF 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 participating undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdoctoral
researchers.
(Sec. 7010) Instructs the Director to ensure that all final project reports and citations of published
research documents resulting from research funded, in whole or in part, by the NSF are made
available to the public in a timely manner and through NSF’s website.
(Sec. 7011) Makes an investigator supported under a NSF award, whom the Director determines
has failed to comply with the provisions of section 734 (concerning the dissemination and sharing
of research results) of the Foundation Grant Policy Manual, ineligible for a future award under
any NSF supported program or activity. Allows the Director to restore the eligibility of such an
investigator on the basis of the investigator’s subsequent compliance with such provisions and
with such other terms and conditions as the Director may impose.
(Sec. 7012) Requires the Director to annually evaluate all NSF’s grants that are scheduled to
expire within one year and that primarily: (1) meet the objectives of the Science and Engineering
Equal Opportunity Act; or (2) provide teacher professional development. Allows the Director, for
grants that are identified and that are deemed by the Director to be successful in meeting the
objectives of the initial grant solicitation, to extend those grants for not more than three additional

years beyond their scheduled expiration without the requirement for a recompetition. Requires the
Director to annually submit a report that (1) lists the grants extended; and (2) provides
recommendations regarding the extension of such authority to programs other than those
specified in this section.
(Sec. 7013) Requires the National Science Board to: (1) evaluate certain impacts of its policy to
eliminate cost sharing for research grants and cooperative agreements for existing and new
programs involving industry participation; and (2) report the results of such evaluation.
(Sec. 7014) Requires the National Science Board to evaluate the appropriateness of: (1) 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 from the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account;
and (2) NSF’s policies for allocation of costs for, and oversight of, maintenance and operation of
major research equipment and facilities.
Requires the Board to report on the results of such evaluations and on any recommendations for
modifying the current policies related to allocation of funding for such equipment and facilities.
Requires that plans for proposed construction, repair, and upgrades to national research facilities
include estimates of the total project cost and the source of funds for major upgrades of facilities
in support of Antarctic research programs.
Requires the Director to transmit: (1) a specified report cataloging all elementary and secondary
school, informal, and undergraduate educational programs and activities supported through
appropriations for research and related activities; and (2) as part of the President’s FY2011 budget
submission, a report listing the funding success rates and distribution of awards for the Research
in Undergraduate Institutions program.
Requires the Director, not later than 60 days after enactment of legislation providing for the
annual appropriation of funds for NSF, to submit a plan for the allocation of education and human
resources funds authorized by this title for the corresponding fiscal year, including any funds
from within the research and related activities account used to support activities that primarily
improve education or broaden participation.
(Sec. 7015) Amends the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 to require: (1)
the Inspector General of NSF to conduct triennial audits (currently, annual audits) of the
compliance by the National Science Board with the requirements specified under the act for open
meetings; (2) the Board to maintain the General Counsel’s certificate, the presiding officer’s
statement, and a transcript or recording of any closed meeting for at least three years after such
meeting; and (3) appointment of 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 (currently, such clerical staff members) as may be necessary.
Amends the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1976 to limit the number of Alan
T. Waterman Awards that may be made in any one fiscal year to not more than three (under
current law, to no more than one).
(Sec. 7016) Requires rendering of National Science Board reports to the President and Congress
(under current law, rendered to the President for submission to Congress).

(Sec. 7017) Amends the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 to include the NSF as an
authority with respect to the provisions of such Act relating to administrative remedies for false
claims and statements.
(Sec. 7018) Requires the NSF Director to: (1) consider the degree to which NSF-eligible awards
and research activities may assist in meeting critical national needs in innovation,
competitiveness, safety and security, the physical and natural sciences, technology, engineering,
social sciences, and mathematics; and (2) give priority in the selection of NSF awards, research
resources, and grants to entities that can be expected to make contributions in physical or natural
science, technology, engineering, social sciences, or mathematics, or that enhance
competitiveness, innovation, or safety and security.
(Sec. 7019) Permits the NSF, in carrying out its research programs on science policy and on the
science of learning, to support research on the process of innovation and the teaching of
inventiveness.
(Sec. 7020) Requires the NSF Director to develop and publish a plan describing the current status
for broadband access for scientific research purposes at institutions in EPSCoR (Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research) eligible states, at institutions in rural areas, and at
minority serving institutions and outlines actions to ensure that such connections are available to
participate in NSF programs that rely heavily on high-speed networking and collaborations across
institutions and regions.
(Sec. 7021) Requires the NSF Director to carry out a pilot program to award one-year grants to
individuals to assist them in improving research proposals that were previously submitted to NSF
but not selected for funding. Requires that such grants be used to enable individuals to resubmit
updated research proposals for review by NSF through NSF’s competitive merit review process.
Requires the Director to make awards under this section based on the advice of program officers
of the NSF.
Permits using funds made available under this section for the generation of new data and the
performance of additional analysis.
Allows the Director to carry out this section through the Small Grants for Exploratory Research
program.
Directs the National Science Board to conduct a review and assessment of the pilot program.
(Sec. 7022) States that, among the types of activities that the NSF shall consider as appropriate
for meeting the requirements of its broader impacts criterion for the evaluation of research
proposals are partnerships between academic researchers and industrial scientists and engineers
that address research areas identified as having high importance for future national economic
competitiveness, such as nanotechnology. Requires the Director to report on the impact of the
broader impacts grant criterion used by NSF.
(Sec. 7023) Amends the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 to permit NSF to receive and
use funds donated to NSF for specific prize competitions for “basic research” as defined in the
Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-11 (Preparation, Submission, and Execution of
the Budget).

(Sec. 7024) Amends the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 to revise program
requirements for the National High-Performance Computing Program.
Requires the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to: (1) establish the goals
and priorities for federal high-performance computing research, development, networking, and
other activities; (2) establish Program Component Areas that implement such goals and identify
the Grand Challenges (i.e., fundamental problems in science or engineering, with broad economic
and scientific impact, whose solutions will require the application of high-performance
computing resources and, as amended by this section, multidisciplinary teams of researchers) that
the Program should address; and (3) develop and maintain a research, development, and
deployment road map covering all states and regions for the provision of high-performance
computing and networking systems.
Revises requirements for annual reports by requiring that such reports: (1) describe Program
Component Areas, including any changes in the definition of or activities under such Areas and
the reasons for such changes, and describe Grand Challenges supported under the Program; (2)
describe the levels of federal funding and the levels proposed for each Program Component Area;
(3) describe the levels of federal funding for each agency and department participating in the
Program for each such Area; and (4) include an analysis of the extent to which the Program
incorporates the recommendations of the advisory committee on high-performance computing.
Eliminates the requirement for inclusion of reports on Department of Energy activities taken to
carry out the National High-Performance Computing Program.
Requires the advisory committee on high-performance computing to conduct periodic evaluations
of the funding, management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the Program, and to
report at least once every two fiscal years to specified congressional committees. Prohibits
applying provisions for the termination, renewal, and continuation of federal advisory committees
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to such advisory committee.
Instructs the NSF, as part of the Program, to support basic research related to advanced
information and communications technologies that will contribute to enhancing or facilitating the
availability and affordability of advanced communications services for all people of the United
States. Requires the NSF Director to award multiyear grants to institutions of higher education,
nonprofit research institutions affiliated with such institutions, or their consortia to establish
multidisciplinary Centers for Communications Research. Increases funding for the basic research
activities described in this section, including support for such Centers. Requires the NSF Director
to transmit to Congress, as part of the President’s annual budget submission, reports on the
amounts allocated for support of research under this section.
(Sec. 7025) Revises the Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Talent Expansion
program to require the Director to issue grants to institutions of higher education for the creation
of not more than five centers to increase the number of students completing undergraduate
courses in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and to improve student academic
achievement in such courses.
Requires the NSF Director to strive to increase the representation of students from public
secondary schools that serve students from families with incomes below the poverty line or are
designated with a school locale code of 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the Secretary of Education
when providing grants under the Talent Expansion program to increase the number of students
studying and completing associate’s or bachelor’s degrees, concentrations, or certificates in

science, technology, engineering, or mathematics by giving priority to programs that heavily
recruit female, minority, and disabled students who are from such schools.
(Sec. 7026) Requires the NSF Director to establish a Partnerships for Access to Laboratory
Science research pilot program for awarding grants to partnerships to improve laboratories and
provide instrumentation as part of a comprehensive program to enhance the quality of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics instruction in secondary schools. Requires such
partnerships to include significant teacher preparation, unless such preparation is addressed
through other means.
Limits the federal share of partnership costs to 40%.
Requires the Director to report to specified congressional committees not later than five years
regarding the program’s effect on student achievement.
Sunsets the provisions of this section on the last day of FY2010.
Authorizes appropriations for the program for FY2008-FY2010.
(Sec. 7027) Requires the NSF Director to report to Congress not later than two years on the extent
to which institutions of higher education and private entities are donating used laboratory
equipment to elementary and secondary schools.
(Sec. 7028) Revises requirements for the Mathematics and Science Education Partnership
program (Partnership program), which provides grants to institutions of higher education or
nonprofit organizations for the improvement of elementary and secondary mathematics and
science instruction.
Includes the department, college, or program of education at an institution of higher education, in
addition to LEAs, state educational agencies, and businesses, among the entities with which
institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations may partner.
Adds to the list of grant fund uses: (1) professional development activities to prepare mathematics
and science teachers to teach challenging mathematics, science, and technology college-
preparatory courses; (2) laboratory training and support for teachers; (3) induction programs (as
defined by in section 6113 of this act) for teachers in their first two years of teaching; (4)
technology and engineering, in addition to mathematics and science, in the student enrichment
programs which are to include after-school programs and summer programs for female, minority,
and disabled students; and (5) the development and dissemination of curriculum tools that foster
inventiveness and innovation. Requires grantees providing challenging college preparatory
courses to encourage companies employing scientists, technologists, engineers, or
mathematicians to provide mentors to teachers and students.
Requires the Director to transmit to Congress not later than four years of this act’s enactment, a
summary of partnership evaluations that describes recommended changes to the program.
(Sec. 7029) Amends the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 to provide ^st
additional Program requirements for the NSF Teacher Institutes for the 21 Century.
(Sec. 7030) Amends the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 concerning the
Robert Noyce Scholarship Program to: (1) rename such Program the Robert Noyce Teacher

Scholarship Program and rewrite Program requirements, including by allowing participation in
the Program by an institution of higher education that receives grant funds on behalf of a
consortium of institutions of higher education; and (2) require the NSF Director to establish a
separate program to award grants to eligible entities to enable them to administer NSF Teaching
Fellowships and Master Teaching Fellowships according to this section. Requires that grants be
used by participating partnerships to develop and implement a program to recruit and prepare
mathematics, science, or engineering professionals to become NSF Teaching Fellows, and to
recruit existing teachers to become NSF Master Teaching Fellows. Requires Teaching Fellows
and Master Teacher Fellows to serve as a mathematics or science teacher for four years and five
years, respectively, in an elementary or secondary school served by a high-need LEA. Requires a

50% matching funds requirement from non-federal sources.

Increases Program scholarship amounts and sets stipend amounts.
Requires the Director: (1) to transmit to specified congressional committees a report on the
effectiveness of the programs carried out under this section; and (2) in consultation with the
Secretary of Education, to evaluate whether the scholarships, stipends, and fellowships authorized
under this section have been effective in increasing the numbers of high-quality mathematics, and
science teachers teaching in high-need LEAs and whether there continue to exist significant
shortages of such teachers in such LEAs.
(Sec. 7031) Amends the Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 to require the
establishment of innovative partnership arrangements under the national advanced scientific and
technical education program that encourage the participation of female, minority, and disabled
students.
Requires the NSF Director to: (1) establish a program to encourage and make grants available to
institutions of higher education that award associate degrees to recruit and train individuals from
the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to mentor female, minority, and
disabled students in order to assist such students in identifying, qualifying for, and entering
higher-paying technical jobs in those fields; (2) make grants available to associate-degree-
granting colleges to carry out such program; and (3) establish metrics to evaluate programs
established by NSF for encouraging female, minority, and disabled students to study and prepare
for careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and report annually to Congress
on evaluation results.
(Sec. 7032) Directs the NSF Director to arrange with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
for a report to Congress 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.
(Sec. 7033) Authorizes the NSF Director to establish a new program to award grants on a
competitive, merit-reviewed basis to Hispanic-serving institutions to enhance the quality of
undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education at such institutions
and to increase the retention and graduation rates of students pursuing associate’s or
baccalaureate degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Specifies that the grants awarded shall support: (1) activities to improve courses and curriculum
in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; (2) faculty development; (3) stipends for

undergraduate students participating in research; and (4) other activities consistent with the grant
program authorized by this section, as determined by the Director.
States that funding for instrumentation is an allowed use of grants awarded under this section.
(Sec. 7034) Requires the NSF Director to establish a clearinghouse, in collaboration with four-
year institutions of higher education, industries, and federal agencies that employ science-trained
personnel, to share program elements used in successful professional science master’s degree
programs and other advanced degree programs related to science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics. Requires the Director to award grants to institutions of higher education to facilitate
their creation or improvement of professional science master’s degree programs that may include
linkages between institutions of higher education and industries that employ science-trained
personnel, with an emphasis on practical training and preparation for the workforce in high-need
fields. Allows the Director to award up to 200 of such grants, which shall be for a three-year
period, with one authorized renewal for an additional two-year period. Requires the Director to
evaluate the programs and report evaluation results to Congress.
(Sec. 7035) Expresses the sense of Congress that institutions of higher education receiving
awards under the NSF Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program should,
among the activities supported under these awards, train graduate students in the communication
of the substance and importance of their research to nonscientist audiences. Requires the NSF
Director to transmit a report describing . such training programs provided to graduate students
who participated in the program. Requires that such report include data on the number of graduate
students trained and a description of the types of activities funded.
(Sec. 7036) Sets minimum and maximum amounts of awards under the Major Research
Instrumentation program.
Permits, in addition to the acquisition of instrumentation and equipment, funds made available by
awards under the Major Research Instrumentation program to be used to support the operations
and maintenance of such instrumentation and equipment.
Requires an institution of higher education receiving an award under such program to provide at
least 30% of the cost from private or non-federal sources. Exempts institutions of higher
education that are not Ph.D.-granting institutions from such cost sharing requirement and allows
the NSF Director to reduce or waive such requirement for: (1) certain institutions that are not
ranked among the top 100 institutions receiving federal R&D funding; and (2) consortia of
institutions of higher education that include at least one institution that is not a Ph.D.-granting
institution.
(Sec. 7037) Revises the selection process for awards that require the submission of preproposals
and that also limit the number of preproposals. Requires the National Science Board to: (1) assess
the effects on institutions of higher education of NSF policies regarding the imposition of
limitations on the number of proposals that may be submitted by a single institution for programs
supported by NSF; (2) determine whether current policies are well justified and appropriate for
the types of programs that limit the number of proposal submissions; and (3) summarize in a
report the Board’s findings and any recommendations regarding changes to the current policy on
the restriction of proposal submissions.

(Sec. 8001) Directs the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Director of the Bureau of
Economic Analysis, not later than January 31, 2008, to report to Congress on the feasibility,
annual cost, and potential benefits of a program to collect and study data relating to the export
and import of services.
(Sec. 8002) Expresses the sense of the Senate that the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board should complete promulgation of
the final rules implementing section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (concerning auditing
standards and their effect on small and mid-sized businesses).
(Sec. 8003) Directs the Comptroller General, not later than three years after enactment of this act,
to submit a report to Congress that (1) assesses a representative sample of the new or expanded
programs and activities required to be carried out under this act; and (2) includes
recommendations as the Comptroller General determines are appropriate to ensure effectiveness
of, or improvements to, the programs and activities, including termination of programs or
activities.
(Sec. 8004) Expresses the sense of the Senate that federal funds should not be provided to any
organization or entity that advocates against a U.S. tax policy that is internationally competitive.
(Sec. 8005) Directs the Secretary of Education to arrange with the NAS to conduct a study and
provide a report to such Secretary, the Secretary of Commerce, and Congress which shall
consider: (1) the mechanisms and supports needed for an institution of higher education or
nonprofit to develop and maintain a program to provide free access to online educational content
as part of a degree program, especially in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or
foreign languages, without using federal funds, including funds provided under title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965; and (2) whether such a program could be developed and managed
by such institution or nonprofit and sustained through private funding. Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 8006) Expresses the sense of the Senate that (1) government policies of the U.S.
government relating to deemed exports should safeguard US national security and protect
fundamental research; (2) the Department of Commerce has established the Deemed Export
Advisory Committee to develop recommendations for improving current controls on deemed
exports; and (3) the President and Congress should consider the Committee’s recommendations in
the development and implementation of export control policies.
(Sec. 8007) Expresses the sense of the Senate that (1) Congress, the President, regulators,
industry leaders, and other stakeholders should take necessary steps to reclaim the preeminent
U.S. position in the global financial services marketplace; (2) federal and state financial
regulatory agencies should take certain steps to avoid adverse consequences on innovation with
respect to financial products and services, and regulatory costs that are disproportionate to their
benefits; and (3) Congress should exercise vigorous oversight over federal regulatory and
statutory requirements affecting the financial services industry and consumers.
(Sec. 8008) Prohibits a grant or contract funded by amounts authorized by this act from being
used for defraying the costs of a banquet or conference that is not directly and programmatically
related to the purpose for which the grant or contract was awarded. Requires: (1) reporting to the
appropriate department, administration, or foundation of the records of total costs related to, and

justification for, all banquets and conferences; and (2) such department, administration, or
foundation to make such records available to the public not later than 60 days after their receipt.
Requires any person awarded a grant or contract funded by such amounts to submit a statement to
the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Education, the
Administrator, or the Director, as appropriate, certifying that no funds derived from the grant or
contract will be made available through a subcontract or in any other manner to another person
who has a financial interest or other conflict of interest in the person awarded the grant or
contract, unless such conflict is previously disclosed and approved in the process of entering into
a contract or awarding a grant. Provides for the appropriate Secretary, Administrator, or Director
to make all documents received that relate to the certification available to the public.
Makes such amendments effective 360 days after enactment of this act. Bars such amendments
from being applicable to grants or contracts authorized under sections 6201 and 6203 of this act.
^Deb^o^r^ah^{D. Stin}^e
^Specialis^{t i}ⁿ^Scieⁿ^{ce an}^{d T}^echⁿ^o^logy^P^o^lic^y
^ds^tⁱⁿ^e^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v^,⁷^-⁸⁴³¹