science foundation authorization act of two thousand and ten i recognize myself for an opening statement this morning the research and science education subcommittee will considers give me prints of the national science foundation authorization act of two thousand and ten today's legislation will become an essential component of the reauthorization of the america competes act which we considered by the full committee later  subcommittee is held a series of hearings on topics ranging from the state of stem education at all levels to need to promote high risk high reward research to ensuring a sustainable research infrastructure in addition to our i've also held a number of listening sessions across the country to gain insights from those on the front line of research facilitated by the n s f the result of listening sessions and subcommittees hearings is a bill that will accelerate the research efforts in the never bush's conviction that new products new industries and more jobs require continuous additions to knowledge of the laws of nature and the application of that knowledge to practical purposes and this has worked since world war two fifty percent of us g d p growth has come from the development adoption of new technologies along with countless improvements in medicine and national security as a former assistant professor at a research university i have a special appreciation for n s f in graduate school i received yesterday in n s f dissertation improvement grants throughout my time in academia i became very familiar with the critical role that the foundation plays was elected to congress i merely requested a seat on this committee partly because of the n s f when i had the opportunity to chair the subcommittee at the beginning of this congress i jumped at the chance because i knew the n s f reauthorization was on the while many agencies fun r and d the n s f is unique and that supporting fundamental research in education in stem disciplines is its only mission today's legislation authorizes forty seven point five billion dollars for n the next five years keeping the agency on a doubling path as recommended in the national academies rising above the gathering storm report and set in motion in a two thousand and seven america competes act competitiveness and assess mission extends beyond promoting the best science in the agency reviews grants not only on the basis of intellectual merit but also on the broader impact of the activities propose over ten years ago the n s f began to require that researchers include activities such as education and public outreach to broaden impact of their research unfortunately this requirement has had an even this legislation addresses this issue by requiring n s f to standardize its policies for broader impacts requiring that propose activities be based on proven strategies encouraging institutions of higher education in other education and research organizations to assist the researchers in meeting the broader impacts criterion the core of the n s f is innovation in my legislation promotes it in a number of ways first directs n least five percent of its research budget on high risk high reward proposals that had the potential to transform our understanding of science and engineering and create new frontiers this is consistent with what we learned in our hearing on the subject last year with recommendations in the national academies rising by the gathering storm report in the two thousand and eight american academy of arts and sciences arrives repor next this bill advanced manufacturing in the us through investments in fundamental research in manufacturing technologies materials and processes finally it will help build stronger university industry partnerships and ensure that research legislation promotes the development of all the stem talent our nation has to offer by increasing the collaboration and coordination of n s f funded education projects and by supporting early career researchers to post doctoral fellow ship the bill also supports the equipment and infrastructure these researchers need to succeed in this you raise continually by researchers in their academic institutions the legislation is yes is concerns about how the n s f supports mid scale research instrumentation encourages n s f to make sure that investment in infrastructure including cyber and infrastructure instrumentation and interdisciplinary centers grows along with the overall budget every worked on this bill for many months i believe we produce legislation that we we can all be proud of and it will help produce a significant boost that will be felt not only in american research labs and american classrooms but also  american homes is innovation and education produce jobs i want to thank my colleagues including this year mitchell who has worked on and written pieces of this legislation as well as both the democratic and republican have spent many hours working together to improve it we find the bill finally want to thank members for their participation this morning and i look forward to a productive hearing with that i'll turn it over to my colleague extremely important bill and they've worked well together and the result will be improved as a result of been pleased to participate in the research and science education  although probably much more often occurs in science committee than any other committee but i've read every word of the bill and that indicates the importance of the issue and the attention that it needs it's challenging to find large areas at the foundation in need of great improvement this is not because the agency is not operating well this is an agency known for its responsible budgeting and respected for its merit review and evaluation processes but overall i believe the bill we are considering today will further strengthen the national science foundation and also will improve our nation's ability to compete globally and ensure that it is receiving considerable attention however i have a few reservations about some of the provisions we are considering today many of my colleagues are concerned that the authorized levels of funding for the national science foundation may be excessively hi in light of our current economic situation as well as a recent infusion of funds from the american recovery and reinvestment act in particular some of my colleagues believe that infusion of funds eliminates the need for an increase at this point you and i both know that is not correct and i think that we can all agree that the n s f or function most effectively if we continue it on a strong doubling path that is also sustainable and that was passed for ford and they merican competes act and in subsequent actions both in the administration and in the congress i am hopeful that i all of us can work together to find common ground on this issue and others that may raise questions about to appropriate roles and responsibilities of the as i said before i want to recognize and thank the majority staff for working closely with the minority staff  many of the provisions included in the committee prints as well as incorporating a variety of expertise from the and us stakeholder community i look forward to our continued collaboration collaboration so as we improve and it's the best way for things to run and certainly for the not just for this subcommittee for the committee but for the entire congress to work out best for our country and in science in general which is what we're we're here for does anyone else wish to be recognized  so at this point i ask unanimous consent that the print is considered as read in open to amendment any point and it members proceed with amendments in the order of their roster without objection so ordered  objection so ordered i recognize myself for five minutes to explain the amendment this manager's amendment makes a number of technical and clarifying changes to the legislation in addition to  school work of the foundation and adding three new sections that focus on the critical issues of promoting innovation in improving stem education the first amendment adds a new section that codified the function of the n s f division of science resources to sticks as a central federal clearinghouse for objective data on a scientific engineering enterprise and the state of u s stem education s r s is responsible for the biennial science and engineering indicators report that congress relies so heavily on for an understanding of the state of u s compeyson this in science and technology this actually in reality is nothing more than a name change for s r s but such a name change confers on them a status that truly reflects the critical work they do the next main section partnerships for innovation was introduced earlier is h r forty nine ninety eight by mr hill this section requires the director of n out a program just for partnerships between institutions of higher education in private sector entities in order to promote innovation and increase the economic and social impact of their research the ultimate goal is for these kinds of partnerships between diverse institutions and local industry to help spur regional economic growth and ensure a well prepared stem workforce for local jobs finally the m m introduces two legislation t sections focus specifically on institutional reform in undergraduate and graduate stem education i want to thank ms cosmos for introducing h r forty nine fifty five transforming undergraduate education and stem which has been incorporated as one of the sections it authorizes a program of grants to colleges and universities to reform undergraduate stem education both increase the number of stem graduates and improve stem education for all students this provision will go a long way in spring the kind of institutional transformation that will result in better preparation of our graduates for the twenty first century workforce the manager's amendment also includes a section on twenty first century graduate education this language is based on misc if there is a bill h r forty nine sixty eight and a half as long provided financial support to graduate students do fellowships in traineeships but there have been limited programs focused on ensuring that today's stem graduate students are graduating with a broader set of skills necessary to compete for twenty first century jobs in all sectors including academia industry and government this provision helps fill this gap  current portfolio once again i want to thank my colleagues mr hill ms cosmos and ms giffords for their excellent contributions this legislation and my republican colleagues in their staff for all their hard work to help strengthen and clarif language in both this amendment and the underlying bill and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment is there further discussion on the amendment to recognize dr whalers thank you chairman i'm generally supportive of the manager's amendment that you've offered i understand that we are more explicitly codifying the science and engineering statistics office at the national science foundation and the partnership for innovation program and in addition we are strengthening stem education for undergraduate broadening graduate education opportunities and making minor changes to the bill based on feedback from members and various stakeholders my only concern is that was specific regard to the partnership for an vision section i want to make sure that we have the benefit of hearing what comes out of the workshop n s f is holding on this topic within the next  that workshop into this before we proceed we will be moving forward in two weeks and full committee on a corporate ng this legislation into the america competes act and you can be sure that we will work to  incorporate what is what comes out of that workshop thank you recent months to meet with a number of nonprofit innovators who are using technology and other skills to create products that might not be commercially competitive but made a tremendously important match for  example software or hardware applications for people with disabilities orphan drugs etc by the nature of these enterprises and their products they are not for profit and intentionally so and for too long they have been four i would hope the chairman would be amenable i'm not going to offer this in the memo here today but i would hope the chair would be amenable to adding the word nonprofit there and online fifteen or in the section b where it says may include other institutions of higher education public institutions and private sector entities the premise being that all of the rationale for including those and it isas partnerships would also apply to not for profit sector such as i've just to dispense with the reading without objection so ordered i recognize myself for five minutes to explain the amendment the amendment at the desk would create innovation inducement prize pilot program as a national science in recent years innovation inducement prizes have been offered not only by the private sector but also by the federal government through nasa video we in the department of defense although the n s f has not used such prizes language in a two thousand six of procreation is a bill led to a national academy study of the idea the study concluded the vicious program of innovation inducement prize contest will be a sound investment in strengthening the infrastructure for u s innovation thus they recommended that n s f embrace this challenge as an opportunity both to advance science and engineering and to learn a great deal more than we now know about what may prove to be a valuable mode of support for research and innovation my amendment was simply implement the recommendations us report by creating a small pilot program at n s f to explore what could be a valuable mode of support for research and innovation specifically it authorizes twelve million dollars for up to five prizes that could run for as many as seven years i see two primary benefits of such a program first is another way to encourage high risk high reward research unlike a traditional grant proposal which necessarily focuses on incremental challenges that can be solved during the grant period apprise qantas can highlight important problems that nobody knows how to solve second if it's done right a prize program can help the n s f and these scientific endeavor with public relations you can generate excitement and interest in the front two years of science and this is in no way intended to replace grant making that the n s a does so well i'd also like to point out that the intent of this program is the innovation in basic science and engineering rather than the creation of specific technologies or products ultimately the goal of this amendment is a further diversify our approach to funding science and engineering i think there are a number of potential benefits in that a pilot program is the right way to see exactly how useful innovation inducement prizes can be i urge my colleagues to support this amendment is there further discussion on the  being part of the process i'm not aware of any evidence that they are equipped at this point to implement a program and effective manner and i'm also  concerned about statements made by the current director who leaving shortly when he says this type of prize is not appropriate for the national science foundation and i think we need further conversations with each other and with the outgoing director and perhaps with the national science board itself as to whether or not this is an appropriate activity for the national science foundation how this would this  activity would mesh with their current ground grant making efforts and i'm not i'm not in the camp of being opposed to something just because it's new but i am in the camp that says examine it very carefully when you have a system that's working effectively and we're not sure how the new system might impact the current system so i'm just saying willing to consider it and i think we we should look more carefully at it than we have and particularly review what the outgoing director says and perhaps if we can wait a while with the incoming director  about this and also get some reaction from the scientific community as to whether or not they think this is an appropriate propre of the activity for the national science foundation so i'm basically taking the  the slow approach and say let's look at this carefully and decide what we really will be doing will it be effective or will not be  funding research clearly it's a very small very very small piece of the of what the and s f is going to be  authorized for as compared to the grants that will be authorized in this bill and so i think that this is the right first step to be making it to have such a pilot program and i know that we have a new  director coming in certainly we will work with him or her on how to best do this at the end of that but i think this is the proper way to be going about moving forward on this and if there are it this agency i think they're already giving out prizes because basically they're granting money for hopefully for projects that are show innervation and promise and so i guess i'm having a little bit of a  problem of understanding you know how when do you get a grant when you get a prize and whether this is the the appropriate forum for that kind of program  shouldn't be just looking for for one that they all out of meet that criteria so i can appreciate the chairman's being innovative and creative here there may be there may be a police in our jurisdiction here were this this is the propre place to be but i'm questioning if this is the place for this to be since i hope that's already the job that they're doing and would yield to the gentleman to to respond to that i think what you start out your statement with saying that the incentive that if you produce then you can eat basically that's what we're looking at here with the inducement prizes with most grant most grants you have a proposal research you hope to find a result you're looking to find a result but you don't know what that's going to be is this is a situation where no money is going to anyone until they produce a result that is being sought and these are going to be results that are determine that the n s f determines that are important in terms of innovation finding solutions to problems whatever it is that the n s f decides are important  s they're looking for just another way of doing it rather than saying up front here here's the money and hopefully this research will yield a result it is you go out there do the work find the result and if you do then you get get the prize in many ways i think that it's just a different way of going about it but it's exactly what you said if you don't produce you don't you don't eat and that  i think that's something good to to look at at least in the pilot programs a way to look at that when you're back reclaiming my time well i guess the question i have is that is there anything in the way that solution that in itself couldn't because generally what those those those projects while they may be moving in a direction you know there are a new discovery but generally they require refinement before commercialization and generally that's what i would think that's what you're looking for here is an idea that somebody has come up with a great idea you want to give them a prize for it but it was some point  generally there's another step or two to get to commercialize those good ideas and is there anything that prevents them from i believe they have the authority to do that and right now my understanding is that right now that is not the way that the n s f works that they do not have authorization right now to have to offer a prize it is all just upfront that you are money well it would need the authorization to be able to do this i think there's some disagreement with that that's the case for not i'm not a lawyer so i'm not going to i'm not one  sometimes you know the bureaucrats want to get congress to say they can do it when they already have the ability to do i believe congress and i would have to verify this but i believe the sticking issue here could be how appropriations works for the national science foundation the way this prize program language is written and i stuffed can hold onto the money for seven years before they reprogram it to allow the price program to play out normally on a soft as is given appropriations on an annual basis and they can't just hold on to the money and definitely without committing it to obligating it to say to some research project or such thing so we can go back and verify that and get back to you but that is my that's my suspicion that the authorization is lacking because of the appropriations issue with jim when you i think that the distinction here is that currently the n s a if can give grants for good ideas what will be if you want to do is be able to give a grant for a good product and so that's you know or a good result i guess you could you know you could say so i think that's the really the the distinction but in the purpose of this interface for basic research and then applied i mean are we moving in a different direction here i mean this is something that i want to make sure that we don't get into the into the realm of thinking that this is about producing a product because i think because we look at other other prizes and we sometimes think was going to we're talking about a product there are other potential prizes we just said the clay math institute's millennium challenge mathematical problem there are we're looking at prizes here not to be moving to ok you get a prize for producing a product but there are there  are breakthroughs that are being sought in science and technology that's very products of breakthroughs that are being sought that inducement prizes could play an important role in providing that incentive is there further discussion on this amendment to recognize mr inglis the chairman and i share copa turn of the with the  prize so i'm very excited about prizes it's a great idea to have prizes that incentivize breakthrough discoveries one of the things we learned as you recall from peter diamandis chairman of the x prize testifying here awhile back is that when we were working on the h prize is that prizes are successful if they have clearly defined metrics just beyond what's currently achievable and that's of course was the secret to the x prize and it worked very well that's what dr lipinski and i worked on in coming up with the with the h prize and that's underway and of course the department of energy will now be administering that y and so and i'm not sure that i'm here to advocate strongly for the position of agreeing with him because it does seem and s f is a place that could be very involved in the creative process of stating restating what they told us in the h prize i'm not sure really committed to what to that conclusion they drew it is however their conclusion i don't know  that got out of their basic science base doing basic science and i think we again we go back and look at this again and think about this we are not talking about the age prizes was looking at making these some advances which were some of them have to do with a product some would have to do with maybe a process but i think there is a a line there the n s f was concerned about crossing with the h prize into an area beyond basic science in research that they may not have wanted to get into there and i think that may have been the reason why the n s f took that position with the h prize the civically you know reclaim my time i think that's a very helpful distinction if it is to the earlier discussion about whether it's products or breakthroughs in processes or keeping in the basic science from would be an interesting distinction here because i agree with you the prize really did have metrics where we were designed trying to get to products and trying to get to the market and perhaps that's why unicef wasn't so thrilled with it or didn't think it was in their ballet like but if it is some metric that that have those of us it just play scientists on the science committee could understand another word some very clear metric in some it and that would probably speed up thank you thank you dr ellis any any further discussion on the amendment if no the vote the third amendment on the rosters amendment offered by the gentleman from texas mr know of are i ready to proceed with your amendments reading the objection so ordered i recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment you know i thank you mr chairman in first of all let me preface by saying you know i think research is a very important there's a lot of very important things that  congress is involved in unfortunately we've reached a time in our country where we're going to have to make some choices american families all across the country are having to make choices right now many of them are unemployed some are behind on their mortgages they got up too much credit card maybe bottle of more house than they should and i get letters from i'm on a daily basis telling me you know congress when we're cutting back or tak second jobs we're trying to to to get our financial house in order and you know i think the number one question that they ask me is why is it congress doing the same thing and we hear a lot of our leaders talking about we heard the president talk about our dire physical state of the union but unfortunately the budget that was sent over by the white house doesn't reflect a lot of concern or  percent of our economy that's an alarming number we just came off of a one point four one point five trillion dollars deficit we're headed in that direction as well and  it just it just appears to me that we have to some point in time say you know what some of these things are good there are important but right now you know we have to sharpen our pencils a little bit and basically what mom it does is it just reduces the overall authorization from a five year to three years would change the cost of this legislation from four forty seven point five billion to twenty six point start i think dealing a little bit shorter time frame because we really don't know what the future holds and if in if in three years for example we haven't made any progress on this deficit you know we're going to have to take a look at that you know almost kind of call this a sunset provision in texas mr ever said i think we do do some things right and one of things we do in texas is we sense that these programs and so you have to come back and say you know we need to we need to  don't need to let this sunset but you know what's been the result of the money that we've invested on behalf of the american people we have to remember who this money balling system belonged to you and me this bonus money belongs to the american people and unfortunately we're having to go to a chinese mayank to finance a lot of our projects over forty one cents of every dollar we're spending right now we're borrowing from others so i just think this is a scores you know they look at a ten year horizon here and so i think i would encourage my colleagues to think about the american taxpayers and think about children our grandchildren who are going to eventually have to  a program that the congress is creating or we are mandating exactly how the money's being spent if that were the case here i would might be a little more open to making it a shorter authorization time what we're looking at here is i don't believe any of us are talking about sunsetting that and s f and in three years eliminating the n s f in that's where i think that this is  a different situation from what you had you were speaking of that could be applied elsewhere the determination of first of all we i think we agree that we want to keep the national science foundation it certainly has a history of success and so i don't think anyone is saying well maybe in three years we decided this is not a good place to be spending our money anymore so i think that that doesn't apply here it  the i think the point i did want to make is that we may be a situation in three years we're even though in a self is doing those kinds of things that we want to be doing we just might not be able to sustain it back on track and but but that's not the direction that we're headed right now and so i think that's the reason that shortening the threshold may be more imprudent companies and families do that you know i mean you have to say you know what we're going to over the next two three years maybe we're not going to take as many vacations or we're not going to buy a new furniture we're not going to replace the the car they're driving their car a little bit longer i think these are the kinds of choices that the american people quite honestly are a little puzzled that the united states congress in making some of those same kinds of having that kind of dialogue and making those tough choices and they're not fund choices to mike reclaim my time again i agree that people are families are making lots of choices right now but the way i look at this bill is we should not hopefully we're not seeing families make the choice of saying well we'll send their child  college for one year and that's all we'll plan on it we'll see how things go from there it's an investment that we are making in the future for country i think the the original competes was  everything the foundation implemented based on the two thousand and seven bill in issue that i had was raised a number of times in ads and hearings especially in listening sessions i had as with any research program unique insist see the reliability of resources in order to foster innovation you have to have the know that there is there is a commitment there and i think the five year time period is the right amount of time to be committed here to the end of staffing funding level that we are going to give up funding the n s f in general and so i think that that is the right choice that we made with this with this bill to have to have a five year time period and you know with that i will i will yield back and then anyone else have  and he has a right it is at least one word wrong we had a vice president you couldn't spell potato so one day he can blame that on a speech writer and i've just spoken to him and he denies it he put it it's important that we do you deliver you know we're side of the provisions were put into place and their staff will probably have a new director in place within the year we might even have a new president in a couple of years or maybe within a year if we keep going to russian science something that we won't use or any method of national defense we have if we're attacked we don't yet know what plans that new director might have in mind and amendment would mr chairman a couple of quick points we had in the run up to this markup hearings in which organizations respected by both parties but i think tend to be favorably  appreciated certainly by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle including the national association of manufacturers the chamber of commerce the business roundtable the council on competitiveness all of those organizations those radical organizations support a five year bill and i think they support a five year bill because recalling their testimony they recognize that if we are to be competitive if we are to get out of this deficit if we are to create jobs if we are to solve our energy problems and simulate our economy etc we have to have that core infrastructure of science and technology and this bill is designed to do that so consistent with their support of this bill i think we need a five year bill but beyond that i think we need to understand how these kinds of programs work if you just do a five year three year authorization the institutions and investigators and the collaboration's that this bill is particularly calls for which are consistent with the testimony that we've heard those efforts depend on some kind of timeframe and predictability if we do just a three year authorization institutions that might be seeking to formulate teams for example to work on a particular area of investigation they need to know that that's going to be there for a while otherwise the risk is that you put together a collaborative team top flight researchers you apply for the grant and guess what you just lost the reauthorization a couple years after and you're not able to compete for you're not able to fulfill it so both because of the practicalities of the way people apply for and utilize grants in the real world not this world but the real world  and the recommendations of the various aforementioned organizations i would urge defeat of this the other thing i would say is i think with respect to the gentleman from both gentlemen from texas unless we're saying that at the end of three years we're going to stop the n s f which i think would be catastrophic for this country that we're not really saving anything i mean this is the old trick of we're going to sunset the tax cuts and say look out much cheaper these tax cuts are with fact is we're going to reauthorize but it does put a put think some to me puts a string there that if i am it in a safe i'm going to be look very carefully at the projects and the grants that i'm putting out because you know i  but the other thing to be aware of this is some projects that expand more than a couple of years and by their nature they require multi year investments and there's actually a false economy if you ask somebody to commit to an investment of infrastructure time equipment personnel the mobilization costs of that and then suddenly there's a risk that you pull the plug at the end of it you're not actually doing yourself a service people instead will shy away from sustained commitment that may yield the more beneficial results and focus on the sure thing may be the easier and less substantial thing so so i appreciate that i think we all share i hope share the commitment to fiscal responsibility here but i don't think creating unpredictability in the research environment is consistent with that and nor is it consistent with the desires and national association of manufacturers the chamber of commerce the business roundtable or the council of competitive of the funding of the national science foundation and action was taken to place a couple of years ago so the commitment is already there that we will double the funding for the national science foundation over a period of seven years the i think the best argument for mr amendment is the change of directors and i think we we retain more flexibility if we ensure that when the new director comes and he has an understanding that he says that we have a three year budget but we would like to work with that with a new director on pinning down what's going to be in the next part of the seven year doubling and it gives a new director more of an opportunity to review where the foundation is and where it should go in the next few years particularly after the three years is up so i think there's a good argument to proceed with mr knight about amendment and i don't see this is permanently impinging on the budget of the n s f it just gives  opportunity for the new director to put his stamp on whatever he's going to adopt and also recognize that in the same breath that the congress has already said we want to double in seven years and so that will be  goal that he can aim for may do well take him close to three years just to come up with you know feeling comfortable in this new job and coming up with a number that he would like to see at that point he report the roll middle mr chairman four members vote in seven members vote no the madmen is defeated section to all three of the underlying bill directs the national science foundation to carry out a program toward merit based grants to university supports fundamental research research that would hopefully lead to transfer made transformative advances in manufacturing technologies processes enterprises that will support us manufacturing through improved performance and productivity however i am concerned that there are we're going down a road of establishing a law per script of a list that just could easily be perhaps be resolved through report language while many of these are worthy areas which are where we should be focusing our energy and limited resources although congress doesn't appear to have a real appetite to limit resources my worry is that once again we're getting into the business of picking winners and losers and i think that this is a bad list but i wonder if by putting this in the rebel rather than perhaps and report or boxing or shows an adult ultimately than a national science foundation being boxed in as well and manufacturing is a first saw the list is a nonbinding list and i know that there always will be discussions maybe disagreements over how much  what congress should be saying what congress should not be saying but i think that it's the role of this committee to indicate our priorities for federal investments in research and everyone's agreed that these research yuri's are important i believe that this list simply first of all it doesn't tell us of what they they must run but points out the priorities that this that this committee has when it comes to  manufacturing and in funding research and these areas i don't think that we are necessarily picking the winners and losers and i think that this is a proper role of congress in this committee in this bill so i'm going to urge my colleagues t policy basically currently the noice scholarships are on a fifty fifty match basically and you know that the program sixty encourage talented science technology engineering mathematics majors and professionals to kim k through twelve mathematics and science teachers and that is that is important but at the same token you know we situation that we're in right now in in our budget i made the point earlier think this particular point in time it's we can show we are trying to be fiscally responsible here and we're not trying to put more and more burden on a government that doesn't have those resources well i understand the importance of math the match from fifty to thirty didn't save any money but it does make the money go further and that was the original reason that we had the match and because this fifty percent match is significantly higher than any other n s f match but we wanted to make our money go by reducing it fifty to thirty as i didn't say that and this is this was my recommendation that we take it from fifty thirty may explain why again with the best intentions we wanted to have this fifty percent match  but then we found that the number of schools that dissipate it was limited schools and for example mr neugebauer your or texas tech probably is in a better position to take advantage of fifty fifty where lubbock christian university probably couldn't do it and same thing with mr inglis the university of south carolina could probably take advantage of a fifty fifty match but not the university of south carolina at san marcus and the same thing with grand valley state university and mr ehlers district and so we heard from a variety of what you might call you know smaller universities that said that they want to dissipate they had good students there but the fifty percent match was beyond no additional money because reducing the match from fifty to thirty does not reduce amount that's being you know allocated here well but if you reduce the match then there's a less funds to to go to to the research programs know it's the same amount of money it's just what you would accomplish is it would spread it out father because people would be using a fifty percent match where the thirty cent match in other words if you had a dollar or if you had ten dollars that was going to be spent and if it was a fake you match you're going to make that go into fifteen dollars but thirty percent match makes you go you know to thirteen and so you do spread the money out more but in doing so you limit the number of institutions that can participate and so what we're trying to accomplish here and again we're on the same wavelength because this match is way above anything else in s f and that's so we were trying to accomplish or go after three years and the response we've gotten back from it it seems that a better approach is to continue to spread the money by virtue of them having some skin to gain but not leave out you know love a christian university and others and even though they can use their matching you don't know so they can get up to the full amount with magic i just still don't understand how if you increase the participation of in itself to seventy percent how you make the money from fifty to seventy how you make the money all they're all benefits but again there's a finite amount of money that's in the program x amount of money in the program and so if you had a hundred percent match or the scheme if you had a zero match it's to be the same amount of money  had a ten percent twenty you know the same amount of money that's in the n s f budget the question is just how far can it be spread among various institutions i think when you go to the to the seventy whil they're just saying the find out about the money but you but you're going to leave less money i mean there's got to be a shrinkage somewhere if you increase to decrease the match from from the outside and you increase your expenditure there's got to be a decrease and so is that a good pro is that is that the right direction to go i think it's well i mean if all you want is the you know the big hotshot schools doing it then you know you know make it a ninety percent match if you want to have christian luck and others of question you know schools and other regular schools participate you need to get it lowered that's that's what we've that's what we learned from our various hearings and feedback in the program to state and i don't see any thing in this that provides more money for states that are on the verge of bankruptcy such as michigan perhaps california i'm not sure what their latest status is but i know in michigan we are by far the worst of the states in terms of unemployment figures in terms of the state budget and so forth so this this effort to reduce the amount of match or equired or perhaps increase a federal share is certainly welcomed in michigan and a number of other states if if we're trying to see some sort of equity then i think we should do that directly it's not clear to me that that's going to be the impact of the bill the way it's written and perhaps someone can clarify if i'm wrong on that but it seems to me if you're really concerned about the state not having a money then the state but is not state what it will be in direct state dollars it is the institution that has that having having to decide whether what kind of priority the a c s and so again i think that it it it seventy match they will be so i think it accomplishes yours and again if you if you want to mean how do you determine what state is that if you want to do it by unemployment do you want to do it by the amount of debt debt might you know do you want to do it i mean it's just i don't know what other what other kind of demarcation line or what other kind of what you're going to use to say who's worthy and who's not well frankly it wouldn't matter in case of michigan no matter what measure we're still at the bottom  any more of our would if i could get somebody to yield me just i think you know i have to go back i'm a visual learner but let's just use a program here and we say we've got ten dollars for these grants ok and so we're doing to grant tried now we're doing five dollars each one of those that's the matching part and so the other partner has to come up with five dollars so that's ten dollars or so now we go to seventy thirty now we're going to put in seven dollars and that person that was putting in three or five before now puts in three and now the other person is getting the grant we only have three dollars to to match with that and so that grant basically falls out unless they can come up with  so that puts that person coming up with a seven dollar match for free so see i think this shrinks the program and that's that's the math that i'm looking at at the gym and you know i mean once again there's about fifty million dollars that goes into this program and so whether there's a ten percent match or ninety percent match it doesn't matter what the match is there's no more federal dollars going into the program as i mentioned earlier by the bigger the match the more you can spread across the country  question is just again do you want it all going to texas tech or do you want love a christian university being and i think that in a way match salute you reduce the number of grants you're going to be able to do that's the analogy that i just used and you know the other thing is is i haven't match more on a on a program basis somebody else is going to take a be left out or or lose a grant because you're increasing the match on some of these other things it was jim and you know but there were no more federal dollars spent or let's just say they got one hundred one hundred thousand dollars grant well it just means you can you can give the same number of one hundred thousand dollars grants out the difference is that university will be putting up three hundred  thirty rather than fifty so you can still do the same number of grants now because you were given one hundred and now they're changing the ratio and so you're going to have to come up with a no that's the university so it's so again the n s f can give the same number of grants it's just that the universities will be putting up less money so again if you're if you were going to do if you were going to do one hundred one hundred thousand dollar grants you can still do that i'm still not even counting because if the universities got one hundred thousand understand that they may be able to get more grants but we will have less capacity because we've increased the amount of oh you're still there still giving the same no they only if there's a lesser in any of the lesser is that the university is putting up less money and so maybe they can cover less students there but but it doesn't reduce the amount of there's a finite and the budget for the su so we don't reduce the budget deficit at all it doesn't reduce the amount that schools can mean the number schools that can participate it's just going to reduce the amount they put in  again if it's one hundred thousand dollars that you're putting into a university then and they have to do a thirty thousand match then you'll have one hundred thirty thousand dollars for the university to deal with there if it's a fifty thousand dollar match then they have one hundred fifty thousand but that's on the university level no less grants no less baird i'm not sure it's worth dragging this out too much longer but you know the fundamental issue i think the chairman's getting out which i actually am sympathetic to and i have heard from some of my universities on is is are some universities have big involvements large budget cetera and they come from states that are well funded and there are others that are less so and yet the merits of offering this opportunity to people should not be based on whether or not they're fortunate enough to go to the well funded universities it should be based on their merit and the need to train this body of researchers in that the chairman's point this one i've heard from some of my universities is is that the match makes  for certain universities and not for others and then you concentrate that federal dollars so it's not necessarily i think the debates not necessarily are you getting more people into the program i think that's what mr new barracks raising the question and i think mr gordon is saying are you getting more institutions into the question and i think i think the latter is is is the goal as i understand it of the and it's certainly what i've heard from my institutions and so it may i'm not sure i won't venture into the waters of this this more people are human but i proposal and fiscal year twenty eleven budget to consolidate the historically black colleges and universities undergraduate program the tribal colleges and universities program and the lewisville for alliances f participation program into a single undergraduate broadening participation program i'm concerned that the effectiveness of the individual programs or may not be able to this or the unique needs of the different types of minority serving institutions and under represented groups will be lost under a single umbrella program therefore my mim it prohibits nation sound foundation from moving forward with the consolidation program in living and requires the development of a detail plan clarifying the objectives and rationale for such a consolidation maman requires that input from the relevant stakeholders including when ari serving institutions are considered in the development of any consolidated programme the process for the inclusion and development of the consolidated programme in fiscal year twenty eleven budget was not transparent if my colleagues know in order for any program to be successful it needs a buy in from the stakeholder community additionally than half a sound foundation must consider the forthcoming recommendations from the national academies study on expanding stam workforce to include more under represented minorities that we required in the two about a seven complete set in order to maintain the competitiveness of our nation we need to produce more scientists and engineers to field a growing number of technical jobs where we will find it much more difficult to develop the well trained fam workforce we need if we continue to overlook significant portions of the talent pool we need to do a better job of developing all of the stem to out of the nation has to offer especially in light of the changing demographics of our nation according to the bureau of labor statistics the percentage of the college population that is currently represented by minorities will grow to fifty five percent and twenty fifty if we are to ensure an adequate  workforce we need to increase the number of minority students pursuing and obtaining stem degrees i am committed to ensuring that the national foundation is broadening which is a place and programs are effective and if we should alter the successful individual programs we need to develop we'll thought out plan i'm also committed to ensuring the complete set place is proper emphasis on embracing the broader participation of u s citizens in science to knowledge the engineering and math to do this we must be proactive in anticipation of oil found markup of this legislation i look forward to reviewing policy recommendations for compete from my colleagues and including the race a black caucus i will not go far below that does not appropriately address minority participation in stam and i would  my c b c colleagues met to vote against it as well i have an additional statement of the record regarding fiction three zero four of the committee print and i'd like to submit it for the record the same i raised the same issue and i asked for justification for the recommendation i was not convinced that they had to early considered the issue and i think i parent i left the meeting  same feelings that my colleague from texas has on this issue or that they just hadn't thought it through as fully as they might have so i support the amendment and i would like to see in writing the justification for the plan and just exactly how it would work i'm not necessarily opposed to what the directors are recommending but i didn't think we were given enough information and mr johnson's amendment would take care of that and give us the information we need to make a valid judgment you  to recognize them so again i want to think was just in for work on this issue i think there may be some value leveraging the common objectives and successful components of individual programs but the process for the formation of a can sol program was not transparent and i cannot be supportive of consolidation without sufficient detail about the whole how the program will be administered we need to increase the number of individuals from under represented groups who are pursuing stem degrees we all agree to that  we need to do this through a affective program i look forward to seeing more detailed and more broadly supported plan from the foundation next year i urge my colleagues to support this amendment there any further discussion on  authorization act of two thousand and ten seeks to improve the state of research on pre k through twelve stem education it requires the m f s and the department of education to work together to identify grand challenges in education research it also requires them to determine their respective roles in funding this crucial research and in december naming the results of this research to teachers and other education practitioners one of the most common complaints we hear from stakeholders education community is that research on the teaching and learning of stem education is too siloed it does not always look at some of the big questions that if answered have the greatest potential for improving pre k through twelve stim education the n s f and the department of education both invest in stem education research and each brings its own mission and own strengths to this purpose however there is merit in having the two agencies collaborate in identifying grand challenges in education research and then determining what specific role each of these two agencies should play in addressing those grand challenges we all know that in order to effectively reform stem education it is necessary to apply the latest research the latest research findings on how students learned that we may know a great deal on how individuals subsections of our society are best taught critical gaps education research remain collaboration is essential to feel these gaps specifically this amendment instructs the secretary of education and director of the n s f to consider six key research topics the scale ability sustainability and replication of successful stem activities but challenges and opportunities to improve the teaching and learning of stem the characteristics of effective stem teachers and stem teacher professional development programs how cyber enables to him programs influence learning and teaching instan stem teaching and learning in informal environments and how integrating engine earing with mathematics and science education may improve learning of math and science increase student interest and persistence in stem or improve student understanding of engineering design principles and of the built world it is critical but the research we are funding speaks to the needs of teachers and students across all parts of the country for that reason this amendment instructs the f and the department of education to solicit input from a variety of stakeholders throughout this process by enabling stakeholders to inform the n s f and the department of education on the needs of the stim community we will ensure that the research performed is relevant and useful but legislation also requires that the agencies provide a report to congress with a description of the grand challenges they have identified the respective roles of each agency in addressing them the common matrix that will be used to evaluate progress towards meeting these goals and most importantly how the agencies will disseminate their research results to practitioners and other federal and nonfederal funders of stim education this is an important element of the legislation since research findings and best practices will be of no use if they do not make their way into the hands of those teaching our nation's students this is an important amendment and one that will ensure that our tax dollars are funding the most relevant and useful the amendment i can't judge based on what i've heard whether my concerns will be dressed but i certainly support her amendment and i would like to have some discussions with her before  the final markup let me say as an example some of the best research done learning about the house children learn has been done in the national institutes of health  and clearly that research has to be studied by the department of education and of but i'm not sure they have the capability to really examine that and perhaps we need more people at the table i was struck some years ago when we were going on these issues and i've spent thirty years of my pre congress life working on stem education about ten years well here and it's a very complex issue with a lot of different participants and i really think we have to have example is going to use there was some of that the department of education has put in charge of this and they had a meeting every other week and at the end of the study that was going on it was very informal and i attended a number of them i was amazed we got up eighty participants attending from about seven or eight  huge interest in this topic and so if the gentle lady will is willing to discuss this with me between now and our next hearing on this the full committee hearing we may be able to come to an understanding of how broadly this has to be done or how it has to be managed so that all these different ideas are fairly represented in the work that's done by unicef and the department of education  ok thank you very much further discussion on the amendment here will recognize and self i want to thank you for this amendment this is certainly an issue that we've heard about in hearings i heard on stem education how to effectively scale up and replicate successful models we know that they are out there i think more should be done in order to make sure that these are these do get around we r consent to dispense with the reading jepson so ordered i recognize a gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment thank you mr chair this amendment seeks to improve opportunities for undergraduate students to participate in hands on scientific research there is significant attrition in many of the stem fields particularly during the undergraduate years and it is therefore critical that we find ways to increase student interest and student achievement in stem throughout college in february this subcommittee held a hearing on the need to strengthen undergraduate and graduate stem education and that hearing we heard repeatedly of the important role that research experiences can play in contributing to the quality of the undergraduate experience research experiences can provide a context in what students are being taught in the classroom and kids can give them a better understanding of what it means to be a scientist so what it means to be an engineer however many undergraduate students simply do not have the opportunity to participate in hands on research this amendment requires the director of the n s f to award grants to colleges universities are not  nonprofits to establish sites that will provide research experiences to undergrad stem students these research experiences for undergrad undergraduate or r t u sites are required to serve at least ten undergraduate students with at least half of the students coming from colleges or universities where such research opportunities are limited the amendment also requires that students participating in our e u site program mentors to help encourage them throughout their research experience and this amendment also requires n s f to change its policy for including undergraduate students in standard foundation research grants rather than applying for supplemental funding to include undergraduates in n s f funded research this amendment would encourage researchers to integrate undergraduate students into their research projects from the very beginning this ensures the student is fully integrated into that research team while also providing the researcher with their work force needed to carry out her or his research this amendment helps provide valuable research experiences to undergraduate students and sorts of different projects really brilliant young people from around the country many of them actually from community colleges and other institutions where undergraduate research is not usually excessive all but that is what catapults these young people careers and share dr raters commendation of our friend dr miss taco for his leadership in this and i'm sure there will be people around this country young people who will benefit from this i commend you for your initiative with a gentleman and i would also like to dr baird said this is we all know we've had our own experiences we've certainly heard from a lot of people how critical it is to have these types of experiences and they're not often available the more we can make them available the better off i now recognize myself to offer a motion i moved at the subcommittee favorably report the committee print as amended to the full committee furthermore i move that staff be instructed to prepare the subcommittee report and make necessary technical and conforming changes to the prince in accordance with the recommendations of the subcommittee the question is on the motions report to print favorably those in favor of the motion will signify by saying i i  i want to thank all members for their attendance participation at today's markup and this concludes today's