Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                       Calendar No. 734
107th Congress                                                   Report
 2d Session                                                     107-317


                                                       Calendar No. 734



                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE



                                S. 2817


       DATE deg.October 16, 2002.--Ordered to be printed


                      one hundred seventh congress

                             second session

              ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii             JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
Virginia                             CONRAD BURNS, Montana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts         TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana            KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
RON WYDEN, Oregon                    SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MAX CLELAND, Georgia                 GORDON SMITH, Oregon
BARBARA BOXER, California            PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina         JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri              GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia

                     Kevin D. Kayes, Staff Director

                       Moses Boyd, Chief Counsel

                      Gregg Elias, General Counsel

      Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel

             Ann Begeman, Republican Deputy Staff Director

             Robert W. Chamberlin, Republican Chief Counsel

                                                       Calendar No. 734
107th Congress                                                   Report
 2d Session                                                     107-317




                October 16, 2002.--Ordered to be printed


      Mr. Hollings, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                Transportation, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 2817]

    The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 
which was referred the bill (S. 2817) TITLE deg. to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005, 
2006, and 2007 for the National Science Foundation, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill (as 
amended) do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

  The National Science Foundation Doubling Act, S. 2817, would 
authorize a doubling of funding for the National Science 
Foundation (NSF) over the next 5 years.

                          Background and Needs

  Federal investment in science and technology over the last 50 
years have yielded enormous benefits to the economy, national 
security, and quality of life in the United States. It has been 
estimated that technological advances are responsible for about 
one-half of the nation's economic growth. Nearly every Federal 
agency conducts research and development (R&D;) in order to 
further its missions, as well as to investigate basic 
scientific questions and explore technologies that the private 
sector cannot justify funding in the short term. Federal 
funding of R&D; is closely linked to market products: 70 percent 
of all patent applications recognize non-profit or Federally-
funded research as a core component of the innovation being 
  Established in 1950, the NSF is the Federal agency designated 
to support academic research in the United States across the 
full range of scientific and engineering disciplines. To 
fulfill this responsibility, it supports grants for university 
and college research, and for science, engineering, and 
mathematics education, including K-12 and university education. 
The NSF provides grants for these purposes. It does not operate 
any research laboratories of its own.
  The NSF is responsible for key national initiatives that will 
push the frontiers of scientific understanding like 
nanotechnology, biocomplexity, information technology research, 
mathematics research, and social and behavioral sciences. 
Nanotechnology, the next industrial revolution, has been 
identified as a national priority by many of the United States' 
strategic competitors such as European countries and Japan. 
Without appropriate funding, we risk falling behind other 
nations in this revolutionary research.
  Over the past few years, Congress has invested heavily in 
biomedical science funded by the National Institutes of Health 
(NIH). Nonetheless, recent advances in biomedical science have 
relied on advances in fields that are not traditionally funded 
by NIH, but rather fields that are funded by the NSF, such as 
computer science, physics, and chemistry. For example, the 
sequencing of the human genome was enabled by powerful 
computers networked in innovative ways. For this reason, 
increased funding for NSF would complement the already 
substantial Federal investment in NIH.
  One example of a field where more investment is needed is 
ocean science. The National Ocean Research Leadership Council, 
which is currently chaired by the NSF Director, recently 
released a report entitled, ``Charting the Future for the 
Academic Research Fleet.'' That report proposed a plan for the 
staged replacement and modernization of the academic research 
fleet, which is essential for cutting edge ocean sciences 
research. The NSF should work with the United States Navy to 
make the necessary investments to implement this plan.
  In addition, the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security 
and former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt 
Gingrich, have warned that our failure to invest in science and 
the need to reform math and science education is the second 
biggest threat to our national security. The NSF is well 
positioned to address this threat with its support for 
scientific research and efforts to improve math and science
  Grant Size. The average NSF grant in fiscal year 2000 was 
$93,000 and had a duration of just under three years. By 
comparison, the average NIH grant in fiscal year 2000 was 
$283,000 over four years. Increasing the size and duration of 
grants will enable researchers to concentrate on discovery, 
rather than grant proposals. Dr. Alan I. Leshner, Chief 
Executive Officer of the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science, testified before the Committee that 
``the NSF grossly underfunds every single grant that it makes, 
because it's trying to maximize the number of grants. So you 
could actually, tomorrow, double the size of every grant, and 
double the budget instantly and consume all the money in an 
extremely productive way.''
  Grant Selection. The NSF has been commended by the Bush 
Administration for its rigorous grant review process based on 
merit selection and peer review. Nonetheless, according to the 
Coalition for National Science Funding, each year the NSF can 
only fund 20 to 30 percent of the most highly rated proposals 
it receives. This means that the nation is forgoing investment 
in excellent research, not because the research is not 
important or of high quality, but simply because of a lack of 

                      SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS

  S. 2817 would provide for a doubling of NSF research funding 
over the next five years. As reported, the bill would authorize 
$5.5 billion for fiscal year (FY) 2003, $6.4 billion for FY 
2004, $7.4 billion for FY 2005, $8.5 billion for FY 2006, and 
$9.8 billion for FY 2007 (for further details, see table 
included in the section-by-section analysis below). The FY 2003 
figure is approximately $500 million (15.5%) higher than the 
Administration's requested level.
  Support for academic research, through the Research and 
Related Activities account, is NSF's largest activity. Most of 
this support is provided through NSF's six research 
directorates: Biological Sciences; Computer and Information 
Science and Engineering; Engineering; Geosciences; Mathematical 
and Physical Sciences; and Social, Behavioral, and Economic 
Sciences. In addition, NSF's Polar Research Programs Office 
supports scientific research in the Arctic and Antarctic. The 
NSF also supports K-12 and higher education in science, 
engineering, and mathematics through its Education and Human 
Resources account. The NSF's Office of Integrative Activities 
supports emerging cross-disciplinary research and education 
efforts, including funding for major research instrumentation, 
several university-based centers, and the Science and 
Technology Policy Institute.
  The Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction 
(MREFC) account provides funding for the construction of 
research facilities that provide unique capabilities at the 
cutting edge of science and engineering. These projects are 
intended to expand the boundaries of technology and offer 
significant new research opportunities. For FY 2003, funding 
would be authorized for seven projects: construction of the 
Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA); the Large Hadron 
Collider; the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation; 
the South Pole Station Modernization Project; Terascale 
Computing Systems; Earthscope; and the National Ecological 
Observatory Network (NEON) Phase I.
  S. 2817 would not address the transfer of 3 programs 
requested by the Administration to be moved to NSF from other 
agencies: the National Sea Grant program from the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the Department 
of Commerce; the hydrologic science program from the Department 
of the Interior; and environmental education from the 
Environmental Protection Agency. The Committee has opposed 
these transfers and, in particular, on June 27, 2002, reported 
a bill (S. 2428) to reauthorize the Sea Grant program within 
  The bill, as reported, would authorize NSF to continue 10 
important initiatives: (1) Information Technology Research; (2) 
Nanoscale Science and Engineering; (3) Plant Genome Research; 
(4) Innovation Partnerships; (5) Mathematics and Science 
Partnerships; (6) Robert Noyce Scholarships; (7) the Science, 
Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Talent Expansion 
Program; (8) Secondary School Systemic Initiative; (9) the 
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 
(EPSCoR); and (10) activities under the Science and Engineering 
Equal Opportunities Act.
  The NSF's Information Technology Research is part of a larger 
interagency program to stimulate research in computing and 
network engineering. NSF's program in cybersecurity research is 
within this area. Improving cybersecurity is increasingly 
important to our national and homeland security. The Committee 
has addressed research in this field with the Cybersecurity 
Research and Development Act, S. 2182, reported on August 1, 
  NSF's Nanoscale Science and Engineering is also a part of a 
larger interagency research program. Considered as the next 
industrial revolution, nanotechnology has the potential to 
radically alter science and society, similar to how 
breakthroughs in atomic physics, space exploration, and 
computers have changed the way we live and enjoy life. The 
Committee also addressed this issue by ordering the 21st 
Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, S. 2945, 
to be reported on September 19, 2002.
  Plant Genome Research is an example of NSF's continued 
support for fundamental biology. While funding for biomedical 
research has dramatically increased over the past five years, 
that funding has not supported important work in fundamental 
biology, such as plant biology research.
  According to ``Clusters of Innovation: Regional Foundations 
of U.S. Competitiveness,'' a two-year study sponsored by the 
Council on Competitiveness, creating and strengthening regional 
competitiveness and innovation is the key to succeeding in the 
global marketplace and raising the U.S. standard of living. 
NSF's Innovation Partnerships Program would foster partnerships 
involving States, local, and regional governmental entities and 
industry, academia, and other organizations to stimulate 
  The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, in 
reporting S. 2817, significantly changed the provision relating 
to the Math and Science Partnerships, a program intended to 
improve math and science education in schools. Members of the 
Commerce Committee have expressed concerns about the 
introduction of formula grants at NSF. One of the strengths of 
NSF has been its merit-reviewed, competitive system for 
awarding grants. This system is a model for government programs 
and should not be altered in favor of formula grants.
  To ensure that successful programs reach the maximum number 
of students, the NSF should give consideration to the benefits 
of awarding Math and Science Partnership grants to existing 
partnerships between institutions of higher education and 
secondary schools that have successfully developed curricula to 
expand educational opportunities for students in science, 
mathematics, engineering, and technology in multiple school 
districts. The institutions of higher education and secondary 
schools do not have to be located in the same State. Such 
partnerships may include developing curricula, teaching 
curricula and new developments in these fields to teachers, and 
implementing curricula in multiple school districts.
  The Robert Noyce Scholarships program addresses the nation's 
growing need for science and math educators by providing 
scholarships for students who commit to a teaching career.
  The number of undergraduate and graduate students entering 
and receiving a degree in the fields of science, mathematics, 
and engineering has been declining over the past 15 years. At 
the same time, many of the nation's working scientists and 
engineers are reaching retirement age. The National Science 
Board recently reported that more than half of workers with 
science and engineering degrees will be of retirement age 
within 20 years. Within the Federal government, one third of 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's work force 
will become eligible for retirement in the next three to five 
years and the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) has roughly one quarter (over 800 employees) of its 
3,300 employees eligible for retirement this year. The nation's 
Federal and non-Federal technical workers are responsible for 
much of the scientific innovation that occurs within government 
and industry, spurring growth in the nation's economy. The 
Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Talent 
Expansion Program encourages undergraduates to pursue degrees 
in these important fields. The Secondary School Systemic 
Initiative also is designed to prepare high school graduates 
for technical employment or undergraduate studies.
  The bill would continue the successful EPSCoR, a Federal-
State partnership to build research capacity and 
competitiveness in States needing to strengthen their research 
programs. The program has an impressive record of supporting 
individual researchers, developing research clusters, and 
enhancing State efforts. Recently, NSF implemented a new 
approach to provide infrastructure support to these States, to 
integrate these States into NSF activities through co-funding, 
and to provide centers with development support. These efforts 
are essential to the competitiveness of the EPSCoR States and 
to ensuring a truly national science and technology community.
  Over the past year, the Science, Technology, and Space 
Subcommittee has examined the involvement of minority serving 
institutions and of women in science and engineering. The 
Subcommittee has found that too many girls have not taken the 
courses that would prepare them to study science when they 
enter college. Therefore, the bill would encourage the NSF to 
continue its efforts under the Science and Engineering Equal 
Opportunities Act in order to encourage women, minorities, and 
persons with disabilities to pursue degrees and careers in 
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology related 
  The bill also would address some criticisms of the management 
of NSF's MREFC account. The bill would require that MREFC 
projects be prioritized in a list approved by the National 
Science Board. The current system--in which MREFC projects are 
approved but not prioritized--has left several important areas 
underfunded or unaddressed.

                          Legislative History

  On Wednesday, May 22, 2002, the Subcommittee on Science, 
Technology, and Space held a hearing to examine the FY 2003 
budget request for research & development, with a particular 
focus on the NSF. The Subcommittee received testimony from two 
panels of witnesses. The first panel included the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Director, Dr. John H. 
Marburger, and the NSF Director, Dr. Rita Colwell, who offered 
the Administration's perspective. The second panel featured 
advocates of increased spending on scientific research. 
Representative Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and Mr. John Podesta, former White House 
Chief of Staff, discussed the importance of NSF funding in a 
broad context. Dr. Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science, offered an 
independent analysis of the Administration's R&D; budget. 
Representatives from two universities who receive NSF and other 
Federal R&D; funding, Dr. Marsha R. Torr, Vice President for 
Research of Virginia Commonwealth University and Dr. Tom McCoy, 
Vice President for Research at Montana State University, 
offered the academic communities' perspective on the NSF budget 
and several NSF activities.
  In the Senate, both the Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) 
Committees have an interest in NSF. Under the terms of a 1988 
unanimous consent agreement, the two committees share 
authorizing jurisdiction over NSF. Upon being reported by the 
HELP Committee, all portions of any NSF legislation--except 
science and engineering education--are referred sequentially to 
the Commerce Committee for 30 days. Science and engineering 
education remains solely within the jurisdiction of the HELP 
Committee. In this regard, S. 2817 was first referred to the 
HELP Committee, which ordered the bill to be reported on 
September 6, 2002.
  On September 19, 2002, the Commerce Committee met in 
executive session and ordered the bill reported, as amended.

                            Estimated Costs

  In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the 
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget 

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                Washington, DC, September 26, 2002.
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. 
        Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2817, the National 
Science Foundation Doubling Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kathleen 
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

S. 2817--National Science Foundation Doubling Act

    Summary: S. 2817 would authorize the appropriation of $37.7 
billion over the 2003-2007 period for the activities of the 
National Science Foundation (NSF). Assuming implementation of 
the bill, NSF's appropriation would roughly double over the 
five-year period, increasing from $4.8 billion in 2002 to $9.8 
billion in 2007. S. 2817 also would establish guidelines for 
allocating NSF funding and require the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP) to prepare reports on issues related 
to research instrumentation and program duplication. Finally, 
the bill would outline new procedures for protecting the 
confidentiality of certain information collected by NSF and 
impose civil penalties for violations of those procedures.
    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing this bill would cost a total of 
$26.1 billion over the 2003-2007 period. Provisions imposing 
new civil penalties could increase governmental receipts (i.e., 
revenues), but CBO estimates that any amounts collected would 
be insignificant. Because S. 2817 could affect receipts, pay-
as-you-go procedures would apply.
    S. 2817 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 
The bill would make grants available to state and local 
educational agencies and institutions of higher education to 
support improvements in educational programs for science and 
mathematics. Any costs to the educational institutions would be 
incurred voluntarily.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of S. 2817 is shown in the following table. 
For this estimate, CBO assumes that the authorized amounts will 
be appropriated near the start ofeach fiscal year and that 
spending will occur at rates similar to those for existing NSF 
programs. Based on information from OSTP, CBO estimates that the office 
would incur no significant costs to implement this bill. The costs of 
this legislation fall within budget function 250 (general science, 
space, and technology).

                                                                     By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                   2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    2007
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

NSF Spending Under Current Law:
    Budget Authority \1\........................................   4,802       0       0       0       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................   4,037   3,229   1,124     328     124      45
Proposed Changes:
    Authorization Level.........................................       0   5,536   6,391   7,378   8,520   9,839
    Estimated Outlays...........................................       0   1,384   4,135   5,717   6,845   8,005
NSF Spending Under S. 2817:
    Authorization Level \1\.....................................   4,802   5,536   6,391   7,378   8,520   9,839
    Estimated Outlays...........................................   4,037   4,613   5,259   6,045   6,969   8,050
\1\ The 2002 level is the amount appropriated for that year for NSF plus the $13 million appropriated for
  Mathematics and Science Partnerships at the Department of Education, which would be transferred to NSF under
  this bill.

    Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you go procedures 
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. Although 
S. 2817 could affect receipts by increasing amounts collected 
from civil penalties, CBO estimates that any such effects would 
be insignificant.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 2817 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA. The bill would make grants available to state 
and local educational agencies and institutions of higher 
education to support improvements in educational programs for 
science and mathematics. Any costs to the educational 
institutions would be incurred voluntarily.
    Previous CBO estimates: On September 17, 2002, CBO 
transmitted a cost estimate for S. 2817 as ordered reported by 
the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
on September 5, 2002. The differences between the two versions 
would not affect the cost of the legislation.
    On May 31, 2002, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 
4664, the Investing in America's Future Act of 2002, as ordered 
reported by the House Committee on Science on May 22, 2002. 
That bill would cover a shorter period of time, but the amounts 
authorized for fiscal years 2003 through 2005 are similar to 
the levels in S. 2817. H.R. 4664 does not include provisions 
regarding the confidentiality of information and therefore 
would not affect governmental receipts. Other differences 
between the two bills would not affect their cost.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Kathleen Gramp; Impact 
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Susan Sieg Tompkins; 
and Impact on the Private Sector: Samuel Kina.
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

  In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the 
legislation, as reported:

                       NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

  The Committee believes that the bill would not subject any 
individuals or businesses affected by the legislation to any 
additional regulation.

                            ECONOMIC IMPACT

  This legislation would not have an adverse economic impact on 
the Nation. It would authorize funding for basic research 
funding through the NSF and thus should stimulate further 
technological innovation and economic growth.


  This legislation would not have a negative impact on the 
personal privacy of individuals.


  This legislation would not increase paperwork requirements 
for private individuals or businesses. It does require eight 
Federal reports: (1) an annual report by the NSF Director 
reviewing duplication in education programs; (2) a report by 
the NSF Director describing the impact of increasing average 
grant size on minority serving institutions and institutions in 
EPSCoR States; (3) a National Science Board report describing 
procedures for greater public access to its deliberations; (4) 
a report by the NSF Director reviewing and assessing the Major 
Research Instrumentation program, including findings and 
recommendations; (5) an Office of Science and Technology Policy 
report on the need to develop an interagency program for 
interagency research and instrumentation development; (6) an 
annual report by the NSF Director containing a list of funding 
priorities for MREFC; (7) a National Science Board annual 
report on the conditions of delegation relating to funds 
appropriate for any project in the MREFC account; and (8) a 
retrospective report by the NSF Director to be included in the 
next edition of the report required under the Science and 
Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 USC 1885) examining 
efforts to increase science and engineering opportunities for 
women, minorities, and persons with disabilities under that 

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Short Title

  Section 1 would cite the short title of the bill as the 
``National Science Foundation Doubling Act.''

Section 2. Definitions

  Section 2 would define certain terms as follows:
          ``Board''--the National Science Board established 
        under Section 2 of the National Science Foundation Act 
        (42 USC 1861);
          ``Director''--the Director of the National Science 
          ``Eligible Applicant''--an institution of higher 
        education or consortium thereof, or a partnership 
        between an institution of higher education and a 
        nonprofit organization, government or company with 
        experience in delivering science, mathematics, 
        engineering, or technology education;
          ``Foundation''--the National Science Foundation;
          ``Institution of Higher Education''--a term which has 
        the meaning given in section 101(a) of the Higher 
        Education Act of 1965 (20 USC 1001(a)); and
          ``National Research Facility''--a research facility 
        funded by the Foundation which, subject to access 
        policies, is available for use by all scientists and 
        engineers affiliated with research institutions in the 
        United States.

Section 3. Findings

  Section 3 would list findings concerning the importance of 
the NSF and its research in supporting scientific research, 
improving science and math education, and ensuring the global 
competitiveness of this nation.

Section 4. Policy Objectives

  Section 4 would identify the policy objectives that the NSF 
should use in allocating funding authorized by this 
legislation. These include: (1) strengthening the United 
States' lead in science and technology through strategic 
investment in basic research, a balanced research portfolio, 
expansion of the number of U.S. scientists and engineers, 
modernization of research infrastructure, and international 
cooperation; (2) increasing overall workforce skills through 
improving math and science education, providing access to 
information technology, encouraging the participation of 
underrepresented minorities and students from low-income 
households in post-secondary science and math education, and 
expanding technical training; and (3) strengthening innovation.

Section 5. Authorization of Appropriations

  Section 5 would authorize appropriations for the NSF for FY 
2003 through FY 2007 as follows:

                              ($ millions)
                                             FY    FY    FY    FY    FY
                                            2003  2004  2005  2006  2007
Research and Related Activities             4,17  4,84  5,61  6,51  7,55
                                             4.8   2.8   7.7   6.5   9.1
Education                                   1,00  1,15  1330  1,53  1,75
                                             6.2   7.2   .8    0.4   9.9
MREFC                                       152.  168.  185.  203.  223.
                                             9     2     0     5     9
Salaries and Expenses                       194.  214.  235.  259.  285.
                                             7     2     6     1     1
Inspector General                           7.7   8.5   9.3   10.2  11.3
    TOTAL **                                5,53  6,39  7,37  8,51  9,83
                                             6.4   0.8   8.3   9.8   9.3
** Total may not add, due to rounding

Section 6. Specific Program Authorizations

  Section 6 would provide specific authorizations for the 
following programs to be carried out with funds authorized 
under Section 5:
           Information Technology--an information 
        technology research program to support research, 
        education and infrastructure in cybersecurity, 
        terascale computing systems, communications and other 
           Nanoscale Science and Engineering--a program 
        designed to support science and engineering research in 
        emerging areas of nanoscale science and technology, 
        including research on the societal implications of 
        advances in nanotechnology.
           Plant Genome Research--a program to support 
        research to advance our understanding of the 
        organization and function of plant genomes and basic 
        biological processes in plants, especially economically 
        important plants such as corn and soybeans.
           Innovation Partnerships--a program designed 
        to stimulate regional innovation through partnerships 
        involving States, local, and regional governmental 
        entities and industry, academia, and other 
           Math and Science Partnerships Initiative--a 
        wide-ranging program to improve math and science 
        education in schools, particularly in urban and rural 
        areas, through competitive grants in FY 2003 through FY 
        2005 and formula grants in FY 2006 and FY 2007.
           Noyce Scholarships--a program to support 
        training for students studying to become mathematics 
        and science educators.
           Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and 
        Technology Talent Expansion Program--a program for 
        colleges and universities to support projects designed 
        to significantly increase the number of undergraduate 
        degree recipients in science, math, engineering, and 
           Secondary School Systemic Initiative--a 
        program designed to support proposals aimed at reform 
        initiatives designed to prepare graduating high school 
        students to comprehend scientific and technical 
        material, and to heighten college completion rates.
           EPSCoR--a program designed to stimulate 
        competitive research in EPSCoR States (which are 
        designated under the reported bill as States which, for 
        the proceeding three years, received not more than one 
        percent of the total amount of NSF research funding) by 
        providing for activities which may include research 
        infrastructure improvement grants, co-funding 
        initiatives, and outreach initiatives.
           The Science and Engineering Equal 
        Opportunities Act--a comprehensive program designed to 
        increase the numbers of women, minorities, and persons 
        with disabilities in science, mathematics, engineering, 
        and technology related fields.

Section 7. Establishment of Research on Mathematics and Science 
        Learning and Education Improvement

  Section 7 would establish a research program to improve 
education and learning in mathematics and science. Competitive 
grants would be awarded to investigate the science of learning 
and teaching mathematics and to apply the results of those 
investigations in low-performing elementary and secondary 
schools. The section would provide for the submission and 
evaluation of grants. Grantees would be required to include 
participation of elementary and secondary school educators and 
to submit their results to the Director. The Director would be 
required to coordinate with the Secretary of Education.

Section 8. Duplication of Programs

  Section 8 would direct the NSF Director to review NSF's 
education programs and terminate duplicative programs. In 
addition, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy (OSTP) would be required to review NSF's education 
programs and submit a report to the Congress on its findings 
not later than one year after the enactment of this legislation 
and annually thereafter, with the budget submission.

Section 9. Major Research Instrumentation

  Section 9 would instruct the NSF Director to conduct a review 
of the Major Research Implementation Program designed to 
improve the condition of scientific and engineering equipment 
for research and research training in our Nation's academic 
institutions. Additionally, the OSTP Director would be required 
to assess the need for and, if necessary, develop an inter-
agency program to establish fully equipped, state-of-the-art, 
university-based centers for interdisciplinary research and 
advanced instrumentation development.

Section 10. MREFC Plan

  Section 10 would address the prioritization of MREFC 
Projects. This provision would instruct the NSF Director to 
develop a list prioritizing funding for each MREFC project and 
to submit the list to the National Science Board for approval. 
This provision is designed to provide greater transparency to 
the process through which MREFC projects are evaluated, 
prioritized, and selected for funding.

Section 11. Administrative Amendments

  Section 11 would provide for several administrative 
modifications. Subsection (a) would allow the National Science 
Board to adopt procedures governing the conduct of its 
meetings. Subsection (b) would address the confidentiality of 
certain information regarding human subjects that was 
previously protected by the Office of Management and Budget. 
That Office has instructed agencies such as NSF to seek this 
protection for themselves. Subsection (c) would amend current 
law providing for a staff for the National Science Board by 
allowing the Board to appoint such staff directly rather than 
through the Director. The Committee understands that the 
National Science Board would still utilize the personnel 
structure and other administrative functions of NSF, but would 
report to the National Science Board's Chair.

Section 12. Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act Amendments 

  Section 12 would amend the findings and goals of the Science 
and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 USC 1885) to 
include persons with disabilities. While the operative portion 
of the Act in Section 1885b of Title 42 provides that the NSF 
is authorized to undertake or support programs and activities 
to encourage the participation of persons with disabilities in 
the science and engineering professions, the findings of the 
Act do not mention persons with disabilities.

Section 13. Amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965

  Section 13 would repeal part B of Title II of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 USC 6601 et seq.), 
which provides Math and Science partnerships such as those 
authorized in Section 5 of this bill through the Department of 
Education. This provision would take effect beginning on 
October 1, 2003.

Section 14. Reports

  Section 14 would require two reports, within 6 months of 
enactment, on grant size and duration and on public access to 
  Grant Size and Duration. As NSF's budget moves along its 
doubling path, proposals for utilizing increased resources have 
included increasing the average grant size and duration. This 
provision would instruct the Director to submit a report to 
Congress describing the impact that such increases would have 
on minority serving institutions and institutions located in 
EPSCoR States, in an effort to ensure that the gap between 
institutions that already receive significant NSF funding and 
other institutions will not widen.
  Report on Open Meetings. This provision would instruct the 
Chair of the National Science Board to submit a report to 
Congress describing proposed procedures to ensure greater 
public access to National Science Board deliberations.

Section 15. Evaluations

  Section 15 would provide for the annual evaluation of the 
effectiveness of a random sample of NSF grants and for the 
dissemination of such evaluation.

Section 16. Report by Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and 

  Section 16 would provide for a 10-year retrospective report 
by the NSF Director on the accomplishments and effectiveness of 
the NSF's efforts to expand science, mathematics, and 
engineering opportunities for minorities, women, and persons 
with disabilities.

                        Changes in Existing Law

  In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that its amendment to 
the bill as reported would make no change to existing law.