<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:33801.wais]
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LEADERSHIP
IN A 21ST CENTURY GLOBAL ECONOMY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 13, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-10
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
33-801 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington KEN CALVERT, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
NICK LAMPSON, Texas FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
JERRY MCNERNEY, California W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JO BONNER, Alabama
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon TOM FEENEY, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana VACANCY
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
C O N T E N T S
March 13, 2007
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 18
Written Statement............................................ 19
Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 20
Written Statement............................................ 22
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 23
Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 23
Prepared Statement by Representative Harry E. Mitchell, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 25
Prepared Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 26
Witnesses:
Mr. Norman R. Augustine, Chair, Committee on Prospering in the
Global Economy of the 21st Century, Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy, Division on Policy and Global
Affairs, the National Academies; Former Chairman and CEO,
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 28
Biography.................................................... 32
Mr. Harold McGraw III, Chairman and CEO, The McGraw-Hill
Companies; Chairman, Business Roundtable
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 35
Biography.................................................... 40
Dr. Robert C. Dynes, Professor of Physics and Material Science;
President, University of California
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 43
Biography.................................................... 56
Dr. Craig R. Barrett, Chairman of the Board, Intel Corporation
Oral Statement............................................... 57
Written Statement............................................ 59
Dr. Neal Lane, Malcolm Gillis University Professor, and Senior
Fellow of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy,
Rice University
Oral Statement............................................... 61
Written Statement............................................ 63
Biography.................................................... 67
Ms. Deborah L. Wince-Smith, President, Council on Competitiveness
Oral Statement............................................... 68
Written Statement............................................ 70
Biography.................................................... 78
Discussion....................................................... 79
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Norman R. Augustine, Chair, Committee on Prospering in the
Global Economy of the 21st Century, Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy, Division on Policy and Global
Affairs, the National Academies; Former Chairman and CEO,
Lockheed Martin Corporation.................................... 106
Mr. Harold McGraw III, Chairman and CEO, The McGraw-Hill
Companies; Chairman, Business Roundtable....................... 110
Dr. Robert C. Dynes, Professor of Physics and Material Science;
President, University of California............................ 113
Dr. Craig R. Barrett, Chairman of the Board, Intel Corporation... 115
Dr. Neal Lane, Malcolm Gillis University Professor, and Senior
Fellow of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy,
Rice University................................................ 117
Ms. Deborah L. Wince-Smith, President, Council on Competitiveness 119
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Section-by-Section Summary of H.R. 362........................... 122
Section-by-Section Summary of H.R. 363........................... 124
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LEADERSHIP IN A 21ST CENTURY GLOBAL ECONOMY
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:05 p.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Science and Technology Leadership
in a 21st Century Global Economy
tuesday, march 13, 2007
1:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
On Tuesday, March 13, 2007, the House Committee on Science and
Technology will hold a hearing to receive testimony on the critical
importance of science and technology to our nation's prosperity. The
focus is on the provisions of the National Academy of Sciences report
entitled Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Economic Future. Witnesses have been asked to
address the reasoning behind the education and research recommendations
enunciated in that report.
2. Witnesses
Mr. Norman R. Augustine, Retired Chairman and CEO of the Lockheed
Martin Corporation. Mr. Augustine chaired the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) committee that wrote the Gathering Storm report.
Mr. Harold McGraw III, Chairman, President, and CEO of the McGraw Hill
Companies. Mr. McGraw is the Chairman of the Business Roundtable.
Dr. Robert Dynes, President of the University of California. Dr. Dynes
is Professor of Physics and Materials Science and a member of the
National Academy of Sciences.
Dr. Craig Barrett, Chairman and CEO of Intel Corporation. Dr. Barrett
served on the NAS committee that wrote the Gathering Storm report.
Dr. Neal Lane, Malcolm Gillis University Professor at Rice University
and Senior Fellow at the James Baker III Institute for Public Policy.
Dr. Lane was the Director of the National Science Foundation from 1993
to 1998 and Director of the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy from 1998 to 2001.
Ms. Deborah Wince-Smith, President of the Council on Competitiveness.
Ms. Wince-Smith has held numerous positions in government as an expert
on innovation policy.
3. Overarching Questions
<bullet> Why is the promotion of science and technology so
critical to America's prosperity? Where do we stand today, and
where do we need to be in the future?
<bullet> What should be the federal government's role in
advancing the science and technology agenda? What should be the
top priorities in science education and research? Do H.R. 362
and H.R. 363 address the most critical needs?
4. Brief Overview
Henry Luce, publisher of Time Magazine, coined the term ``the
American century'' in 1941 to describe his vision of the 20th century.
Indeed, after World War II, the U.S. economy grew substantially, and
economists estimate that about half of U.S. economic growth was the
result of technological innovation. Indeed, during the 20th century,
the United States became a world leader in science and technology
education and research and in innovation, and economic indicators
demonstrated that the United States offered a high standard of living
to its citizens.
In the 1990's however, during a period in which the United States
was known as the world's lone ``superpower,'' a number of indicators
suggested that U.S. prosperity was diminishing. The United States trade
surplus in high-technology products that was $54 billion in 1990 turned
into a trade deficit of $50 billion in 2004. A number of iconic
American companies moved assets, jobs, and ownership overseas. And
American students performed poorly in several international assessments
of math and science achievement.
In May of 2005, Senators Lamar Alexander and Jeff Bingaman asked
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study of ``the most
urgent challenges the United States faces in maintaining leadership in
key areas of science and technology.'' In June, Congressmen Sherwood
Boehlert and Bart Gordon wrote to the NAS to endorse the Senate request
for a study and to suggest some additional specific questions. The
National Academy assembled a Committee on Prospering in the Global
Economy of the 21st Century, and on October 12, 2005, that committee
issued a report entitled Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing
and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.
That report, whose title we abbreviate to Gathering Storm, offered
four recommendations:
<bullet> Recommendation A: Increase America's talent pool by
vastly improving K-12 science and mathematics education.
<bullet> Recommendation B: Sustain and strengthen the Nation's
traditional commitment to long-term basic research that has the
potential to be transformational to maintain the flow of new
ideas that fuel the economy, provide security, and enhance the
quality of life.
<bullet> Recommendation C: Make the United States the most
attractive setting in which to study and perform research so
that we can develop, recruit, and retain the best and brightest
students, scientists, and engineers from within the United
States and throughout the world.
<bullet> Recommendation D: Ensure that the United States is
the premier place in the world to innovate; invest in
downstream activities such as manufacturing and marketing; and
create high-paying jobs based on innovation by such actions as
modernizing the patent system, realigning tax policies to
encourage innovation, and ensuring affordable broadband access.
Along with each recommendation, the report spelled out several
specific action items to pursue in order to implement the
recommendation.
On October 20, 2005, the Committee on Science of the 109th Congress
held a hearing, entitled ``Science, Technology, and Global Economic
Competitiveness.'' The witnesses at that hearing were Norm Augustine,
retired Chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corporation and Chair of
the NAS committee that wrote the Gathering Storm report; Roy Vagelos,
retired Chairman and CEO of Merck & Co. and member of the NAS committee
that wrote the report; and William Wulf, President of the National
Academy of Engineering. In their testimony, these witnesses promoted
the recommendations of the report and argued that the action items were
critical and urgent.
The Gathering Storm report quickly became influential in promoting
a national agenda on innovation and competitiveness. In the 109th
Congress, the House Committee on Science reported two pieces of
legislation implementing a number of the Gathering Storm action items.
The first of these bills was H.R. 5356, the Research for
Competitiveness Act. The second was H.R. 5358, the Science and
Mathematics Education for Competitiveness Act. Together, these bills
addressed many of the action items related to Recommendations A and B.
The bills were never brought to the Floor of the House.
In the 110th Congress, Chairman Bart Gordon introduced three
competitiveness bills, again attempting to implement the Gathering
Storm recommendations that address science and technology. The first of
these, H.R. 362, entitled ``10,000 Teachers, 10,000,000 Minds Science
and Math Scholarship Act,'' parallels in large part H.R. 5358 from the
109th Congress. The second of these, H.R. 363, entitled ``Sowing the
Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act,'' parallels in
large part H.R. 4346 from the 109th Congress. (The third bill, H.R.
364, is to provide for an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy
and is not the focus of the present hearing.)
On February 28, 2007, the Committee on Science and Technology
marked up H.R. 363 and passed an amended version of the introduced
bill. A summary of that bill, along with a summary of H.R. 362, appears
below.
5. Specific Questions for the Witnesses
Each witness received a letter of invitation to testify at the
hearing. In that letter, the witnesses were asked to address the
overarching questions related to the hearing. In addition, each witness
was asked to address an aspect of the hearing focus that relates to
their realm of expertise.
Mr. Augustine was asked to describe the reasoning behind the
priorities that resulted in the recommendations in Gathering Storm
report. Dr. Barrett was asked the same question, and in addition was
asked about his thoughts on what changes are needed in STEM education
in order for the Nation to meet the future workforce needs of industry.
Mr. McGraw and Ms. Wince-Smith were asked what changes are needed
in STEM education in order to meet the future workforce needs of
business and industry. The Business Roundtable and the Council on
Competitiveness both represent broad coalitions of business interests.
Dr. Dynes was asked to describe the California Teach program: how
the Cal Teach model came into being; what the challenges are to putting
it in place; what we are learning from the program about recruiting and
preparing science, math, and engineering college majors to become STEM
teachers; and what factors are important for emulating similar programs
on a national scale.
Dr. Lane was asked to comment on the appropriateness of the
proposed role of NSF in administering the STEM education programs
contained in H.R. 362. In particular, Dr. Lane was asked to address how
these NSF programs interact with STEM education activities at the
Department of Education.
6. The Provisions of the Bills
H.R. 362--The ``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds'' Science and Math
Scholarships Act
The bill implements most of the K-12 science education
recommendations of the Gathering Storm report. It establishes a teacher
education program at the National Science Foundation (NSF) to encourage
math, science and engineering faculty to work with education faculty to
improve the education of science and math teachers and to provide
scholarships to science, math and engineering students who commit to
become science or math teachers at elementary and secondary schools;
authorizes summer teacher training institutes at NSF and DOE to improve
the content knowledge and pedagogical skills of in-service science and
math teachers, including preparing them to teach Advanced Placement and
International Baccalaureate courses in science and math; requires that
NSF include support for Master's degree programs for in-service science
and mathematics teachers within the NSF Math and Science Partnerships;
and authorizes funding for the NSF STEM Talent Expansion program and
expands the program to include centers for improving undergraduate STEM
education.
Sectional Summary of Bill
Section 1 is the Table of Contents.
Section 2 reports findings on the role of NSF in K-12 and undergraduate
STEM education.
Section 3 spells out definitions used in the bill.
Title I--Science Scholarships
Section 101 is the short title of the bill.
Section 102 reports findings relating the bill to the NAS report
recommendations.
Section 103 describes the policy objective of the bill--to increase by
10,000 annually the number of capable K-12 science and math teachers.
Section 104 amends the NSF Noyce Scholarship program, established by
the NSF Authorization Act of 2002, to create incentives for colleges
and universities to improve the training of STEM teachers and increases
the size and duration of the scholarships provided for science, math,
and engineering majors who pursue teaching credentials:
<bullet> Provides competitive awards to institutions of higher
education (or consortia of such institutions) that (1)
establish cross-department faculty teams (science, math and
engineering faculty along with education faculty) to develop
courses of instruction leading to baccalaureate degrees in
fields of science, math and/or engineering and also preparing
graduates to become certified or licensed to teach in a K-12
classroom, and (2) administer scholarships for students during
their sophomore through senior years and summer internships
during their freshman years.
<bullet> Requires early field teaching experiences for student
teachers in the program under the supervision of highly
experienced and effective teachers.
<bullet> Requires awardees to provide professional development
and mentoring support to scholarship recipients, after
matriculation.
<bullet> Sets scholarship amounts at the cost of attendance at
particular institutions, not to exceed $10,000 per year, and
provides up to three years of scholarship support for any
individual.
<bullet> Requires scholarship recipients to commit to teaching
for up to six years following graduation (the period of
teaching commitment is based on the number of years of
scholarship support), reduces the commitment by one year for
individuals who teach at high-need schools, and converts the
scholarships to loans if the teaching commitment is not met.
<bullet> Authorizes the NSF to accept donations from the
private sector to help support scholarships and internships.
<bullet> Authorizes $70 million for NSF for FY 2008, $101
million for FY 2009, $133 million for FY 2010, $164 million for
FY 2011, and $196 million for FY 2012.
Title II--Mathematics and Science Education Improvement
Section 201 amends the NSF Math and Science Education Partnerships
program established by the NSF Authorization Act of 2002:
<bullet> Specifies that priority for awards under the program
be given to applications that include teacher training
activities as a main focus.
<bullet> Authorizes teacher training activities to prepare
teachers to teach Advanced Placement and International
Baccalaureate science or math courses and provides for
mentoring by professional scientists, mathematicians and
engineers.
<bullet> Authorizes the development of master's degree
programs for in-service science and math teachers.
Section 202 addresses teacher institute programs at NSF and DOE:
<bullet> NSF is directed to establish a grant program to
support summer or academic year teacher institutes and
authorizes summer teacher institutes as a component of the NSF
21st Century program. Such summer institutes are required to
include teacher training activities to prepare teachers to
teach Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate
science or math courses.
<bullet> Authorizes $32 million for NSF for FY 2008, $35.2
million for FY 2009, and $38.7 million for FY 2010, $42.6
million for FY 2011, and $46.8 million for FY 2012.
<bullet> The following amounts are authorized for the existing
Laboratory Science Teacher Professional Development program at
DOE: $3 million for FY 2008, $8 million for FY 2009, and $10
million for each year FY 2010 through FY 2012.
Section 203 requires NSF to ensure that, under the Math and Science
Partnership program, Master's degree programs are developed and
implemented for in-service math and science teachers, who attend on a
part-time basis and who will be able to complete the degree
requirements within two years. The programs have the following
features:
<bullet> Provide stipends to defray the cost of attendance for
teachers in the program.
<bullet> Allow for support for the development of the courses
of instruction and related educational materials and equipment
(offering of online learning is an option).
<bullet> Require the distribution of awards among institutions
of different sizes and geographic locations.
Authorizes for this program $46 million for NSF for FY 2008, $50.6
million for FY 2009, $55.7 million for FY 2010, $61.2 million for FY
2011, and $67.3 million for FY 2012.
Section 204 establishes a national panel of experts to identify and
collect K-12 science and mathematics teaching materials that have been
demonstrated to be effective and to recommend the development of new
materials in areas where effective materials do not exist; and directs
NSF and the Department of Education to develop ways to disseminate
effective materials and support efforts to develop new materials, in
accordance with the recommendations of the national panel.
Section 205 amends the NSF STEM Talent Expansion program established
under the NSF Authorization Act of 2002 to create centers for
improvement of undergraduate education in STEM fields, including:
<bullet> Development of undergraduate curriculum and teaching
methods and training for faculty and teaching assistants in
effective pedagogical practices.
<bullet> Assessment of the effectiveness of the centers and
dissemination of information about materials and methods
developed.
Authorizes $44 million for NSF for the STEM Talent Expansion
program for FY 2008, of which $4 million is available for centers; $55
million for FY 2009, of which $10 million is available for centers; and
$60 million for each year of FY 2010 through FY 2012, of which $10
million is available in each year for centers.
H.R. 363--Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering Research Act
The bill implements recommendations related to strengthening long-
term basic research contained in the Gathering Storm report. It
supports outstanding researchers in the early stages of their careers
through grants at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the
Department of Energy (DOE) of $80,000 per year for five years;
establishes a floor of 1.5 percent of research funding appropriated for
NSF for an existing program supporting graduate students in multi-
disciplinary fields of national importance; establishes a presidential
innovation award to stimulate scientific and engineering advances in
the national interest; establishes a national coordination office to
identify and prioritize research infrastructure needs at universities
and national laboratories and to help guide the investments of new
infrastructure funds authorized for NSF and DOE; authorizes NSF to
support research on innovation; directs the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) and DOE to report on efforts to recruit
and retain early-career scientists and engineers; and expresses the
sense of Congress that a balanced science program at the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) contributes significantly
to innovation and competitiveness.
Sectional Summary of Bill
Section 1 is the short title of the bill.
Section 2 authorizes NSF to carry out a grant program for awards to
scientists and engineers at the early stage of their careers in
academia or in nonprofit research organizations. The NSF's existing
Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) program may be designated as
the mechanism for awarding these grants. The awards will go to
outstanding researchers at the beginning of their careers and are
intended for individuals from a variety of types of institutions,
including minority serving institutions. The grants provide five years
of research funding support at a minimum of $80,000 per year per award.
NSF is required to designate at least 3.5 percent of funds
appropriated for Research and Related Activities to the grant program
for each of FY 2008 through FY 2012.
Section 3 authorizes DOE to carry out a grant program for awards to
scientists and engineers at the early stage of their careers in
academia or in nonprofit research organizations to conduct research in
fields relevant to the mission of DOE. The awards will go to
outstanding researchers at the beginning of their careers and are
intended for individuals from a variety of types of institutions,
including minority serving institutions. The grants provide five years
of research funding support at a minimum of $80,000 per year per award,
and priority shall go to proposals involving collaborations with
researchers at DOE national laboratories. The bill authorizes to DOE
$25 million for each year for FY 2008 through FY 2012.
Section 4 directs NSF to allocate at least 1.5 percent of the amounts
appropriated for Research and Related Activities to the Integrative
Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program, which
provides support for graduate students in fields relevant to national
needs. It requires NSF to coordinate with other agencies to expand the
interdisciplinary nature of the IGERT program and authorizes NSF to
accept funds from other agencies to carry out the program.
Section 5 establishes the Presidential Innovation Award presented
periodically, on the basis of recommendations from the Director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, to citizens or permanent
residents of the U.S. who develop unique scientific or engineering
ideas judged to stimulate scientific and engineering advances in the
national interest, to illustrate the linkage between science and
engineering and national needs, and to provide an example to excite the
interest of students in science or engineering professions.
Section 6 establishes a National Coordination Office for Research
Infrastructure under the Office of Science and Technology Policy to
identify and prioritize deficiencies in research facilities and
instrumentation in academic institutions and national laboratories and
to make recommendations for use of funding authorized. The Office is
directed to report to Congress annually at the time of the
administration's budget proposal.
Section 7 authorizes NSF, in carrying out its research programs on
science policy and the science of learning, to support research on the
process of innovation and the teaching of inventiveness.
Section 8 directs NIST to transmit to the House Committee on Science
and Technology and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, not later than three months following enactment of the
bill, a report on efforts to recruit and retain early-career scientists
and engineers at NIST.
Section 9 expresses the sense of Congress that a balanced and robust
program in science, aeronautics, exploration, and human space flight at
NASA contributes significantly to national innovation and
competitiveness. It also directs the NASA administrator to participate
fully in interagency efforts to promote innovation and economic
competitiveness through scientific research and development.
Appendix A:
Executive Summary of National Academy of Sciences Report, Rising Above
the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter
Economic Future
The United States takes deserved pride in the vitality of its
economy, which forms the foundation of our high quality of life, our
national security, and our hope that our children and grandchildren
will inherit ever-greater opportunities. That vitality is derived in
large part from the productivity of well-trained people and the steady
stream of scientific and technical innovations they produce. Without
high-quality, knowledge-intensive jobs and the innovative enterprises
that lead to discovery and new technology, our economy will suffer and
our people will face a lower standard of living. Economic studies
conducted before the information-technology revolution have shown that
even then as much as 85 percent of measured growth in U.S. income per
capita is due to technological change.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example, work by Robert Solow and Moses Abramovitz
published in the middle 1950s demonstrated that as much as 85 percent
of measured growth in U.S. income per capita during the 1890-1950
period could not be explained by increases in the capital stock or
other measurable inputs. The big unexplained portion, referred to
alternatively as the ``residual'' or ``the measure of ignorance,'' has
been widely attributed to the effects of technological change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, Americans are feeling the gradual and subtle effects of
globalization that challenge the economic and strategic leadership that
the United States has enjoyed since World War II. A substantial portion
of our workforce finds itself in direct competition for jobs with
lower-wage workers around the globe, and leading-edge scientific and
engineering work is being accomplished in many parts of the world.
Thanks to globalization, driven by modern communications and other
advances, workers in virtually every sector must now face competitors
who live just a mouse-click away in Ireland, Finland, China, India, or
dozens of other nations whose economies are growing.
CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE
The National Academies was asked by Senator Lamar Alexander and
Senator Jeff Bingaman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
with endorsement by Representatives Sherwood Boehlert and Bart Gordon
of the House Committee on Science, to respond to the following
questions:
What are the top 10 actions, in priority order, that federal
policy-makers could take to enhance the science and technology
enterprise so that the United States can successfully compete,
prosper, and be secure in the global community of the 21st
Century? What strategy, with several concrete steps, could be
used to implement each of those actions?
The National Academies created the Committee on Prospering in the
Global Economy of the 21st Century to respond to this request. The
charge constitutes a challenge both daunting and exhilarating: to
recommend to the Nation specific steps that can best strengthen the
quality of life in America--our prosperity, our health, and our
security. The committee has been cautious in its analysis of
information. However, the available information is only partly adequate
for the committee's needs. In addition, the time allotted to develop
the report (10 weeks from the time of the committee's meeting to report
release) limited the ability of the committee to conduct a thorough
analysis. Even if unlimited time were available, definitive analyses on
many issues are not possible given the uncertainties involved.
This report reflects the consensus views and judgment of the
committee members. Although the committee includes leaders in academe,
industry, and government--several current and former industry chief
executive officers, university presidents, researchers (including three
Nobel prize winners), and former presidential appointees--the array of
topics and policies covered is so broad that it was not possible to
assemble a committee of 20 members with direct expertise in each
relevant area. Because of those limitations, the committee has relied
heavily on the judgment of many experts in the study's focus groups,
additional consultations via e-mail and telephone with other experts,
and an unusually large panel of reviewers. Although other solutions are
undoubtedly possible, the committee believes that its recommendations,
if implemented, will help the United States achieve prosperity in the
21st century.
FINDINGS
Having reviewed trends in the United States and abroad, the
committee is deeply concerned that the scientific and technical
building blocks of our economic leadership are eroding at a time when
many other nations are gathering strength. We strongly believe that a
worldwide strengthening will benefit the world's economy--particularly
in the creation of jobs in countries that are far less well-off than
the United States. But we are worried about the future prosperity of
the United States. Although many people assume that United States will
always be a world leader in science and technology, this may not
continue to be the case inasmuch as great minds and ideas exist
throughout the world. We fear the abruptness with which a lead in
science and technology can be lost--and the difficulty of recovering a
lead once lost, if indeed it can be regained at all.
This nation must prepare with great urgency to preserve its
strategic and economic security. Because other nations have, and
probably will continue to have, the competitive advantage of a low-wage
structure, the United States must compete by optimizing its knowledge-
based resources, particularly in science and technology, and by
sustaining the most fertile environment for new and revitalized
industries and the well-paying jobs they bring. We have already seen
that capital, factories, and laboratories readily move wherever they
are thought to have the greatest promise of return to investors.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The committee reviewed hundreds of detailed suggestions--including
various calls for novel and untested mechanisms--from other committees,
from its focus groups, and from its own members. The challenge is
immense, and the actions needed to respond are immense as well.
The committee identified two key challenges that are tightly
coupled to scientific and engineering prowess: creating high-quality
jobs for Americans and responding to the Nation's need for clean,
affordable, and reliable energy. To address those challenges, the
committee structured its ideas according to four basic recommendations
that focus on the human, financial, and knowledge capital necessary for
U.S. prosperity.
The four recommendations focus on actions in K-12 education (10,000
Teachers, 10 Million Minds), research (Sowing the Seeds), higher
education (Best and Brightest), and economic policy (Incentives for
Innovation) that are set forth in the following sections. Also provided
are a total of 20 implementation steps for reaching the goals set forth
in the recommendations.
Some actions involve changes in the law. Others require financial
support that would come from reallocation of existing funds or, if
necessary, from new funds. Overall, the committee believes that the
investments are modest relative to the magnitude of the return the
Nation can expect in the creation of new high-quality jobs and in
responding to its energy needs.
10,000 TEACHERS, 10 MILLION MINDS
IN K-12 SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
Recommendation A: Increase America's talent pool by vastly improving K-
12 science and mathematics education.
Implementation Actions
The highest priority should be assigned to the following actions
and programs. All should be subjected to continuing evaluation and
refinement as they are implemented:
Action A-1: Annually recruit 10,000 science and mathematics
teachers by awarding four-year scholarships and thereby educating 10
million minds. Attract 10,000 of America's brightest students to the
teaching profession every year, each of whom can have an impact on
1,000 students over the life of their careers. The program would award
competitive four-year scholarships for students to obtain Bachelor's
degrees in the physical or life sciences, engineering, or mathematics
with concurrent certification as K-12 science and mathematics teachers.
The merit-based scholarships would provide up to $20,000 a year for
four years for qualified educational expenses, including tuition and
fees, and require a commitment to five years of service in public K-12
schools. A $10,000 annual bonus would go to participating teachers in
under-served schools in inner cities and rural areas. To provide the
highest-quality education for undergraduates who want to become
teachers, it would be important to award matching grants, perhaps $1
million a year for up to five years, to as many as 100 universities and
colleges to encourage them to establish integrated four-year
undergraduate programs leading to Bachelor's degrees in science,
engineering, or mathematics with teacher certification.
Action A-2: Strengthen the skills of 250,000 teachers through
training and education programs at summer institutes, in Master's
programs, and Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate (AP
and IB) training programs and thus inspires students every day. Use
proven models to strengthen the skills (and compensation, which is
based on education and skill level) of 250,000 current K-12 teachers:
<bullet> Summer institutes: Provide matching grants to state
and regional one- to two-week summer institutes to upgrade as
many as 50,000 practicing teachers each summer. The material
covered would allow teachers to keep current with recent
developments in science, mathematics, and technology and allow
for the exchange of best teaching practices. The Merck
Institute for Science Education is a model for this
recommendation.
<bullet> Science and mathematics Master's programs: Provide
grants to universities to offer 50,000 current middle-school
and high-school science, mathematics, and technology teachers
(with or without undergraduate science, mathematics, or
engineering degrees) two-year, part-time Master's degree
programs that focus on rigorous science and mathematics content
and pedagogy. The model for this recommendation is the
University of Pennsylvania Science Teachers Institute.
<bullet> AP, IB, and pre-AP or pre-IB training: Train an
additional 70,000 AP or IB and 80,000 pre-AP or pre-IB
instructors to teach advanced courses in mathematics and
science. Assuming satisfactory performance, teachers may
receive incentive payments of up to $2,000 per year, as well as
$100 for each student who passes an AP or IB exam in
mathematics or science. There are two models for this program:
the Advanced Placement Incentive Program and Laying the
Foundation, a pre-AP program.
<bullet> K-12 curriculum materials modeled on world-class
standards. Foster high-quality teaching with world-class
curricula, standards, and assessments of student learning.
Convene a national panel to collect, evaluate, and develop
rigorous K-12 materials that would be available free of charge
as a voluntary national curriculum. The model for this
recommendation is the Project Lead the Way pre-engineering
courseware.
Action A-3: Enlarge the pipeline by increasing the number of
students who take AP and IB science and mathematics courses. Create
opportunities and incentives for middle school and high school students
to pursue advanced work in science and mathematics. By 2010, increase
the number of students in AP and IB mathematics and science courses
from 1.2 million to 4.5 million, and set a goal of tripling the number
who pass those tests, to 700,000, by 2010. Student incentives for
success would include 50 percent examination fee rebates and $100 mini-
scholarships for each passing score on an AP or IB mathematics and
science examination.
The committee proposes expansion of two additional approaches to
improving K-12 science and mathematics education that are already in
use:
<bullet> Statewide specialty high schools. Specialty secondary
education can foster leaders in science, technology, and
mathematics. Specialty schools immerse students in high-quality
science, technology, and mathematics education; serve as a
mechanism to test teaching materials; provide a training ground
for K-12 teachers; and provide the resources and staff for
summer programs that introduce students to science and
mathematics.
<bullet> Inquiry-based learning. Summer internships and
research opportunities provide especially valuable laboratory
experience for both middle school and high school students.
SOWING THE SEEDS
THROUGH SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH
Recommendation B: Sustain and strengthen the Nation's traditional
commitment to long-term basic research that has the potential
to be transformational to maintain the flow of new ideas that
fuel the economy, provide security, and enhance the quality of
life.
Implementation Actions
Action B-1: Increase the federal investment in long-term basic
research by 10 percent a year over the next seven years, through
reallocation of existing funds\2\ or if necessary through the
investment of new funds. Special attention should go to the physical
sciences, engineering, mathematics, and information sciences and to
Department of Defense (DOD) basic research funding. This special
attention does not mean that there should be a disinvestment in such
important fields as the life sciences (which have seen growth in recent
years) or the social sciences. A balanced research portfolio in all
fields of science and engineering research is critical to U.S.
prosperity. This investment should be evaluated regularly to realign
the research portfolio--unsuccessful projects and venues of research
should be replaced with emerging research projects and venues that have
greater promise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The funds may come from anywhere in an agency, not just other
research funds.
Action B-2: Provide new research grants of $500,000 each annually,
payable over five years, to 200 of our most outstanding early-career
researchers. The grants would be made through existing federal research
agencies--the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE), DOD, and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration--to underwrite new research
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
opportunities at universities and government laboratories.
Action B-3: Institute a National Coordination Office for Research
Infrastructure to manage a centralized research-infrastructure fund of
$500 million per year over the next five years--through reallocation of
existing funds or if necessary through the investment of new funds--to
ensure that universities and government laboratories create and
maintain the facilities and equipment needed for leading-edge
scientific discovery and technological development. Universities and
national laboratories would compete annually for these funds.
Action B-4: Allocate at least eight percent of the budgets of
federal research agencies to discretionary funding that would be
managed by technical program managers in the agencies and be focused on
catalyzing high-risk, high-payoff research.
Action B-5: Create in the Department of Energy (DOE) an
organization like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
called the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E).\3\ The
Director of ARPA-E would report to the Under Secretary for Science and
would be charged with sponsoring specific research and development
programs to meet the Nation's long-term energy challenges. The new
agency would support creative ``out-of-the-box'' transformational
generic energy research that industry by itself cannot or will not
support and in which risk may be high but success would provide
dramatic benefits for the Nation. This would accelerate the process by
which knowledge obtained through research is transformed to create jobs
and address environmental, energy, and security issues. ARPA-E would be
based on the historically successful DARPA model and would be designed
as a lean and agile organization with a great deal of independence that
can start and stop targeted programs on the basis of performance. The
agency would itself perform no research or transitional effort but
would fund such work conducted by universities, startups, established
firms, and others. Its staff would turn over about every four years.
Although the agency would be focused on specific energy issues, it is
expected that its work (like that of DARPA or NIH) will have important
spin-off benefits, including aiding in the education of the next
generation of researchers. Funding for ARPA-E would start at $300
million the first year and increase to $1 billion per year over five to
six years, at which point the program's effectiveness would be
evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ One committee member, Lee Raymond, does not support this action
item. He does not believe that ARPA-E is necessary as energy research
is already well funded by the Federal Government, along with formidable
funding of energy research by the private sector. Also, ARPA-E would
put the Federal Government in the business of picking ``winning energy
technologies''--a role best left to the private sector.
Action B-6: Institute a Presidential Innovation Award to stimulate
scientific and engineering advances in the national interest. Existing
presidential awards address lifetime achievements or promising young
scholars, but the proposed new awards would identify and recognize
persons who develop unique scientific and engineering innovations in
the national interest at the time they occur.
BEST AND BRIGHTEST IN SCIENCE
AND ENGINEERING HIGHER EDUCATION
Recommendation C: Make the United States the most attractive setting in
which to study and perform research so that we can develop, recruit,
and retain the best and brightest students, scientists, and engineers
from within the United States and throughout the world.
Implementation Actions
Action C-1: Increase the number and proportion of U.S. citizens who
earn physical-sciences, life sciences, engineering, and mathematics
Bachelor's degrees by providing 25,000 new four-year competitive
undergraduate scholarships each year to U.S. citizens attending U.S.
institutions. The Undergraduate Scholar Awards in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (USA-STEM) would be distributed to states
on the basis of the size of their congressional delegations and awarded
on the basis of national examinations. An award would provide up to
$20,000 annually for tuition and fees.
Action C-2: Increase the number of U.S. citizens pursuing graduate
study in ``areas of national need'' by funding 5,000 new graduate
fellowships each year. NSF should administer the program and draw on
the advice of other federal research agencies to define national needs.
The focus on national needs is important both to ensure an adequate
supply of doctoral scientists and engineers and to ensure that there
are appropriate employment opportunities for students once they receive
their degrees. Portable fellowships would provide funds of up to
$20,000 annually directly to students, who would choose where to pursue
graduate studies instead of being required to follow faculty research
grants.
Action C-3: Provide a federal tax credit to encourage employers to
make continuing education available (either internally or though
colleges and universities) to practicing scientists and engineers.
These incentives would promote career-long learning to keep the
workforce current in the face of rapidly evolving scientific and
engineering discoveries and technological advances and would allow for
retraining to meet new demands of the job market.
Action C-4: Continue to improve visa processing for international
students and scholars to provide less complex procedures and continue
to make improvements on such issues as visa categories and duration,
travel for scientific meetings, the technology-alert list, reciprocity
agreements, and changes in status.
Action C-5: Provide a one-year automatic visa extension to
international students who receive doctorates or the equivalent in
science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or other fields of
national need at qualified U.S. institutions to remain in the United
States to seek employment. If these students are offered jobs by United
States-based employers and pass a security screening test, they should
be provided automatic work permits and expedited residence status. If
students are unable to obtain employment within one year, their visas
would expire.
Action C-6: Institute a new skills-based, preferential immigration
option. Doctoral-level education and science and engineering skills
would substantially raise an applicant's chances and priority in
obtaining U.S. citizenship. In the interim, the number of H-1B\4\ visas
should be increased by 10,000, and the additional visas should be
available for industry to hire science and engineering applicants with
doctorates from U.S. universities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The H-1B is a non-immigrant classification used by an alien who
will be employed temporarily in a specialty occupation of distinguished
merit and ability. A specialty occupation requires theoretical and
practical application of a body of specialized knowledge and at least a
Bachelor's degree or its equivalent. For example, architecture,
engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, medicine
and health, education, business specialties, accounting, law, theology,
and the arts are specialty occupations. See http://uscis.gov/graphics/
howdoi/h1b.htm
Action C-7: Reform the current system of ``deemed exports.'' \5\
The new system should provide international students and researchers
engaged in fundamental research in the United States with access to
information and research equipment in U.S. industrial, academic, and
national laboratories comparable with the access provided to U.S.
citizens and permanent residents in a similar status. It would, of
course, exclude information and facilities restricted under national-
security regulations. In addition, the effect of deemed-exports
regulations on the education and fundamental research work of
international students and scholars should be limited by removing all
technology items (information and equipment) from the deemed-exports
technology list that are available for purchase on the overseas open
market from foreign or U.S. companies or that have manuals that are
available in the public domain, in libraries, over the Internet, or
from manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The controls governed by the Export Administration Act and its
implementing regulations extend to the transfer of technology.
Technology includes ``specific information necessary for the
`development,' `production,' or `use' of a product'' [emphasis added].
Providing information that is subject to export controls--for example,
about some kinds of computer hardware--to a foreign national within the
United States may be ``deemed'' an export, and that transfer requires
an export license. The primary responsibility for administering
controls on deemed exports lies with the Department of Commerce, but
other agencies have regulatory authority as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCENTIVES FOR INNOVATION
AND THE INVESTMENT ENVIRONMENT
Recommendation D: Ensure that the United States is the premier place in
the world to innovate; invest in downstream activities such as
manufacturing and marketing; and create high-paying jobs that are based
on innovation by modernizing the patent system, realigning tax policies
to encourage innovation, and ensuring affordable broadband access.
Implementation Actions
Action D-1: Enhance intellectual-property protection for the 21st
century global economy to ensure that systems for protecting patents
and other forms of intellectual property underlie the emerging
knowledge economy but allow research to enhance innovation. The patent
system requires reform of four specific kinds:
<bullet> Provide the Patent and Trademark Office sufficient
resources to make intellectual-property protection more timely,
predictable, and effective.
<bullet> Reconfigure the U.S. patent system by switching to a
``first-inventor-to-file'' system and by instituting
administrative review after a patent is granted. Those reforms
would bring the U.S. system into alignment with patent systems
in Europe and Japan.
<bullet> Shield research uses of patented inventions from
infringement liability. One recent court decision could
jeopardize the long-assumed ability of academic researchers to
use patented inventions for research.
<bullet> Change intellectual-property laws that act as
barriers to innovation in specific industries, such as those
related to data exclusivity (in pharmaceuticals) and those
which increase the volume and unpredictability of litigation
(especially in information-technology industries).
Action D-2: Enact a stronger research and development tax credit to
encourage private investment in innovation. The current Research and
Experimentation Tax Credit goes to companies that increase their
research and development spending above a base amount calculated from
their spending in prior years. Congress and the Administration should
make the credit permanent,\6\ and it should be increased from 20
percent to 40 percent of the qualifying increase so that the U.S. tax
credit is competitive with that of other countries. The credit should
be extended to companies that have consistently spent large amounts on
research and development so that they will not be subject to the
current de facto penalties for previously investing in research and
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The current R&D tax credit expires in December 2005.
Action D-3: Provide tax incentives for United States-based
innovation. Many policies and programs affect innovation and the
Nation's ability to profit from it. It was not possible for the
committee to conduct an exhaustive examination, but alternatives to
current economic policies should be examined and, if deemed beneficial
to the United States, pursued. These alternatives could include changes
in overall corporate tax rates, provision of incentives for the
purchase of high-technology research and manufacturing equipment,
treatment of capital gains, and incentives for long-term investments in
innovation. The Council of Economic Advisers and the Congressional
Budget Office should conduct a comprehensive analysis to examine how
the United States compares with other nations as a location for
innovation and related activities with a view to ensuring that the
United States is one of the most attractive places in the world for
long-term innovation-related investment. From a tax standpoint, that is
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
not now the case.
Action D-4: Ensure ubiquitous broadband Internet access. Several
nations are well ahead of the United States in providing broadband
access for home, school, and business. That capability will do as much
to drive innovation, the economy, and job creation in the 21st century
as did access to the telephone, interstate highways, and air travel in
the 20th century. Congress and the Administration should take action--
mainly in the regulatory arena and in spectrum management--to ensure
widespread affordable broadband access in the near future.
CONCLUSION
The committee believes that its recommendations and the actions
proposed to implement them merit serious consideration if we are to
ensure that our nation continues to enjoy the jobs, security, and high
standard of living that this and previous generations worked so hard to
create. Although the committee was asked only to recommend actions that
can be taken by the Federal Government, it is clear that related
actions at the State and local levels are equally important for U.S.
prosperity, as are actions taken by each American family. The United
States faces an enormous challenge because of the disadvantage it faces
in labor cost. Science and technology provide the opportunity to
overcome that disadvantage by creating scientists and engineers with
the ability to create entire new industries--much as has been done in
the past.
It is easy to be complacent about U.S. competitiveness and pre-
eminence in science and technology. We have led the world for decades,
and we continue to do so in many research fields today. But the world
is changing rapidly, and our advantages are no longer unique. Without a
renewed effort to bolster the foundations of our competitiveness, we
can expect to lose our privileged position. For the first time in
generations, the Nation's children could face poorer prospects than
their parents and grandparents did. We owe our current prosperity,
security, and good health to the investments of past generations, and
we are obliged to renew those commitments in education, research, and
innovation policies to ensure that the American people continue to
benefit from the remarkable opportunities provided by the rapid
development of the global economy and its not inconsiderable
underpinning in science and technology.
SOME WORRISOME INDICATORS
<bullet> When asked in spring 2005 what is the most attractive
place in the world in which to ``lead a good life,'' \1\
respondents in only one of the 16 countries polled (India)
indicated the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Interview asked nearly 17,000 people the question: ``Supposed a
young person who wanted to leave this country asked you to recommend
where to go to lead a good life--what country would you recommend ?''
Except for respondents in India, Poland, and Canada, no more than one-
tenth of the people in the other nations said they would recommend the
United States. Canada and Australia won the popularity contest. Pew
Global Attitudes Project, July 23, 2005.
<bullet> For the cost of one chemist or one engineer in the
United States, a company can hire about five chemists in China
or 11 engineers in India.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Web site http://www.payscale.com/about.asp tracks and
compares pay scales in many countries. Ron Hira, of Rochester Institute
of Technology, calculates average salaries for engineers in the United
States and India as $70,000 and $13,580, respectively.
<bullet> For the first time, the most capable high-energy
particle accelerator on Earth will, beginning in 2007, reside
outside the United States.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CERN, http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html.
<bullet> The United States is today a net importer of high-
technology products. Its share of global high-technology
exports has fallen in the last two decades from 30 percent to
17 percent, and its trade balance in high-technology
manufactured goods shifted from plus $33 billion in 1990 to a
negative $24 billion in 2004.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For 2004, the dollar value of high-technology imports was $560
billion; the value of high-technology exports was $511 billion. See
Appendix Table 6-01 of National Science Board's Science and Engineering
Indicators 2004.
<bullet> Chemical companies closed 70 facilities in the United
States in 2004 and have tagged 40 more for shutdown. Of 120
chemical plants being built around the world with price tags of
$1 billion or more, one is in the United States and 50 in
China.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``No Longer The Lab Of The World: U.S. chemical plants are
closing in droves as production heads abroad,'' BusinessWeek (May 2,
2005).
<bullet> Fewer than one-third of U.S. 4th grade and 8th grade
students performed at or above a level called ``proficient'' in
mathematics; ``proficiency'' was considered the ability to
exhibit competence with challenging subject matter. Alarmingly,
about one-third of the 4th graders and one-fifth of the 8th
graders lacked the competence to perform basic mathematical
computations.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ National Center for Education Statistics, Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study, 2003, http://nces.ed.gov/
timss.
<bullet> U.S. 12th graders recently performed below the
international average for 21 countries on a test of general
knowledge in mathematics and science. In addition, an advanced
mathematics assessment was administered to U.S. students who
were taking or had taken precalculus, calculus, or Advanced
Placement calculus and to students in 15 other countries who
were taking or had taken advanced mathematics courses. Eleven
nations outperformed the United States, and four countries had
scores similar to the U.S. scores. No nation scored
significantly below the United States.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Data are from National Science Board. 2004. Science and
Engineering Indicators 2004 (NSB 04-01). Arlington, VA: National
Science Foundation. Chapter 1.
<bullet> In 1999, only 41 percent of U.S. 8th grade students
received instruction from a mathematics teacher who specialized
in mathematics, considerably lower than the international
average of 71 percent.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Data are from National Science Board. 2004. Science and
Engineering Indicators 2004 (NSB 04-01). Arlington, VA: National
Science Foundation. Chapter 1.
<bullet> In one recent period, low-wage employers, such as
Wal-Mart (now the Nation's largest employer) and McDonald's,
created 44 percent of the new jobs, while high-wage employers
created only 29 percent of the new jobs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Roach, Steve. More Jobs, Worse Work. New York Times. July 22,
2004.
<bullet> In 2003, only three American companies ranked among
the top 10 recipients of patents granted by the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Preliminary list of top
patenting organizations. 2003, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/
oeip/taf/top03cos.htm.
<bullet> In Germany, 36 percent of undergraduates receive
their degrees in science and engineering. In China, the figure
is 59 percent, and in Japan 66 percent. In the United States,
the corresponding figure is 32 percent.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Data are from National Science Board. 2004. Science and
Engineering Indicators 2004 (NSB 04-01). Arlington, VA: National
Science Foundation, Appendix Table 2-33.
<bullet> The United States is said to have 10.5 million
illegal immigrants, but under the law the number of visas set
aside for ``highly qualified foreign workers'' dropped to 65,
000 a year from its 195,000 peak.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Colvin, Geoffrey. 2005. ``America isn't ready.'' Fortune
Magazine, July 25. H-1B visas allow employers to have access to highly
educated foreign professionals who have experience in specialized
fields and who have at least a bachelor's degree or the equivalent. The
cap does not apply to educational institutions. In November 2004,
Congress created an exemption for 20,000 foreign nationals earning
advanced degrees from U.S. universities. See Immigration and
Nationality Act Section 101(a)(15)(h)(1)(b).
<bullet> In 2004, China graduated over 600,000 engineers,
India 350,000, and America about 70,000.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Geoffrey Colvin. 2005. ``America isn't ready.'' Fortune
Magazine, July 25.
<bullet> In 2001 (the most recent year for which data are
available), U.S. industry spent more on tort litigation than on
R&D.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S. research and development spending in 2001 was $273.6
billion, of which industry performed $194 billion, and funded about
$184 billion. (National Science Board Science and Engineering
Indicators 2004). One estimate of tort litigation costs in the United
States was $205 billion in 2001. (Leonard, Jeremy A. 2003. How
Structural Costs Imposed on U.S. Manufacturers Harm Workers and
Threaten Competitiveness. Prepared for the Manufacturing Institute of
the National Association of Manufacturers.) http://www.nam.org/
s<INF>-</INF>nam/bin.asp?CID=216&DID= 227525&DOC=FILE.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Gordon. Welcome to a hearing of the Science and
Technology Committee on the critical importance of science and
technology in the 21st century global economy, and I want to
especially welcome our very distinguished panelists today.
I saw that you all had a chance to meet Mr. Hall. I hope
you checked your billfold to make sure that as he passed
through you, things are still all right.
Let me also say that we are being televised today, and I
know that folks will be watching us from the office. The
Democrats have an important caucus going on right now, so some
of our folks are trying to break loose. I know that Vern Ehlers
and others are in a variety of meetings, so folks will be
coming in, but we are well represented by all their staff today
also.
In 2005, I joined Senators Bingaman and Alexander and
Congressman Sherry Boehlert in asking the National Academies of
Science to study the urgent challenges facing the U.S. in
maintaining global leadership in science and technology.
In response, the Academies formed an all-star committee and
issued their report, entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering
Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic
Future.'' I, for a long time, have had on my desk the
preliminary copy. I am pleased today, and maybe your appearance
here helped the printer get going, but we now have the final
version that is out.
It is a very inspiring term, the title of the report, but
it is also a very inspiring report, and we thank you for that.
That committee was chaired by Mr. Augustine, and included Mr.
Barrett, both of whom are here and witnesses today. It has
become an enormously influential report, not only owing to the
grave dangers it predicts if we are complacent, but also owing
to 20 constructive action items it spells out that will lead to
continued American leadership and prosperity.
I am an enthusiastic advocate of the report, and after
studying its recommendation, I drafted legislation in the 109th
Congress to implement each and every action item that fell
within the Science Committee's jurisdiction. Sadly, little of
the competitiveness agenda made it into law, but in the 110th
Congress, that will change. There is a bipartisan consensus
that investing in education and research along the lines of the
Gathering Storm report is necessary.
That is why I am reintroducing H.R. 362 and H.R. 363 in the
first days of this Congress. And I am pleased that Speaker
Pelosi has made these two bills a major part of her
competitiveness agenda. H.R. 362 is ``10,000 Teachers, 10
Million Minds'' Science and Math Scholarship Act. This bill
addresses the critical shortage of certified science and math
teachers in the U.S. It will produce a new corps of outstanding
science and math teachers who are dedicated to and well
prepared for teaching. And this is not an experiment. We know
that the model works, and President Dynes, who is on our panel
today, can discuss about the success of CalTeach Program which
uses the same technique.
H.R. 362 also addresses the needs of the current science
and math teachers through summer institutes and Master's degree
programs, focused on content knowledge, that are targeted just
for them. And we are not talking about the old-fashioned
professional development programs, we are talking about
sustained programs focusing on disciplinary knowledge of
teachers that will create a network of 50,000 teacher leaders
across this country. H.R. 362 places these education programs
at the National Science Foundation, and Dr. Lane on our panel
today can explain why the National Science Foundation is the
right agency for this job.
Leaders of the business community, such as Mr. McGraw, Ms.
Wince-Smith, and Mr. Barrett, are on the panel today, will
explain to us why the full breadth of the corporate sector
takes an interest in pre-college math and science education.
In order to produce the most innovative scientists and
engineers in the world, our children must be the highest
achieving science and math students in the world, but the
pathway that leads to innovation in the global economy doesn't
end at the twelfth grade or with a college education. We also
need to support the research and development enterprise in
science and technology to maintain our world leadership in
these areas.
That brings me to the second bill, H.R. 363, which the--
which this committee reported unanimously, and should be before
the full House next month. H.R. 363 is Sowing the Seeds Through
Science and Engineering Research Act. Mr. Augustine, you might
remember that term. I completely plagiarized your work, which I
hope that you will find as a compliment. It was done so that it
wouldn't be a Democratic or a Republican bill, but rather, a
recommendation of this very well knowledged group.
This bill will strengthen long-term basic research in the
physical sciences, mathematical sciences, and engineering. It
directs funding toward graduate students and early career
researchers in these areas. It also establishes a Presidential
Innovation Award to stimulate scientific and engineering
advances in the national interest.
Investing in science education and research along these
lines is necessary if the U.S. is to maintain its position as a
global leader in technology and innovation. Now, I don't claim
these bills do everything. There are a variety of good ideas
out there that address issues of national competitiveness, and
this committee is going to be the committee of good ideas. So,
even though these bills don't address every recommendation of
the Gathering Storm report, they do address what seems to me to
be the highest priorities concerning that, and that have
bipartisan support, and you can be assured we will be building
that bipartisan support for additional measures very soon.
Today, we have asked our distinguished panelists to address
the reasons why the promotion of science and technology is so
critical to America's prosperity, where we stand today, and
where we need to be in the future. I look forward to hearing
their expert testimony.
At this time, I recognize our distinguished Ranking Member,
Mr. Hall, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
It is my pleasure to welcome everyone this morning to this hearing
of the Committee on Science and Technology on the critical importance
of science and technology in the 21st century global economy. I want
especially to welcome and to thank our distinguished panelists for
taking the time to appear before us today.
In 2005, I joined Senators Bingaman and Alexander and Congressman
Boehlert in asking the National Academy of Science to study the urgent
challenges facing the United States in maintaining global leadership in
science and technology.
In response, the Academy formed an all-star committee and issued
their report entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing
and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.'' That committee
was chaired by Mr. Augustine and included Mr. Barrett, both of whom are
here as witnesses today.
It has become an enormously influential report, not only owing to
the grave dangers it predicts if we are complacent but also owing to 20
constructive action items it spells out that will lead to continued
American leadership and prosperity.
I am an enthusiastic advocate of the report and, after studying its
recommendations, I drafted legislation in the 109th Congress to
implement each and every action item that fell within the Science
Committee's jurisdiction.
Sadly, little of that competitiveness agenda made its way into law.
But in the 110th Congress that will change. There is a bipartisan
consensus that investing in education and research along the lines of
the Gathering Storm report is necessary. That is why I re-introduced
H.R. 362 and H.R. 363 in the first days of this new Congress.
H.R. 362 is the ``10,000 Teachers, 10,000,000 Minds'' Science and
Math Scholarship Act. This bill addresses the critical shortage of
certified science and math teachers in the U.S. It will produce a new
corps of outstanding science and math teachers who are dedicated to and
well prepared for teaching.
This is not an experiment. We know the model works. President Dynes
on our panel today can tell us about the successful ``CalTeach''
program, which uses the same approach.
H.R. 362 also addresses the needs of current science and math
teachers, through summer institutes and Master's degree programs
focusing on content knowledge that are targeted just for them. We're
not talking about old-fashioned professional development programs. We
are talking about sustained programs focusing on disciplinary knowledge
of teachers that will create a network of 50,000 teacher leaders across
the country.
H.R. 362 places these education programs at the National Science
Foundation. Dr. Lane on our panel today can explain why the National
Science Foundation is the right agency for this job.
Leaders of the business community, such as Mr. McGraw and Ms.
Wince-Smith on today's panel, can explain to us why the full breadth of
the corporate sector takes an interest in pre-college math and science
education.
In order to produce the most innovative scientists and engineers in
the world, our children must be the highest achieving science and math
students in the world. But the pathway that leads to innovation in the
global economy doesn't end at the 12th grade or with college
graduation. We also need to support the research and development
enterprise in science and technology to maintain our world leadership
in these areas.
That brings me to the second bill, H.R. 363, which this committee
reported unanimously and should be before the full House next month.
H.R. 363 is the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering
Research Act. This bill will strengthen long-term basic research in
physical sciences, mathematical sciences, and engineering.
It directs funding toward graduate students and early-career
researchers in these critical areas. It also establishes a presidential
innovation award to stimulate scientific and engineering advances in
the national interest. Investing in scientific education and research
along these lines is necessary if the United States is to maintain its
position as a global leader in technology and innovation.
Now I don't claim that these bills do everything. There are all
kinds of good ideas out there addressing issues of national
competitiveness, and this committee is going to be the ``committee of
good ideas.''
Even though these bills don't address every recommendation in the
Gathering Storm report, they do address what seems to me to be the
highest priority concerns that have bipartisan support.
Today, we've asked our distinguished panelists to address the
reasons why the promotion of science and technology is so critical to
America's prosperity; where we stand today; and where we need to be in
the future. I look forward to hearing their expert testimony.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I understand that
you had a well attended press conference, and I am sorry I
missed it. I always enjoy hearing what our leader says, and Mr.
Augustine, and Norm, nice to have you here again. You have been
here many times, and I have quoted your statement that we can't
be 911 to the whole world a lot of times. I always got good
response on it.
And I say to Dr. Neal Lane that I might be your President
if I had answered the letter correctly I received, that I was
in the top ten in consideration to be President of Rice
University. And I simply sent them back a copy of my
transcript, and a press release that said that I had made four
Fs and a D one time, and my dad punished me for spending too
much time on one subject. So, I have got both those letters in
my office up there. I have not heard back from them. So----
But I always--I am on the positive side. All of you who
were there will be spared listening to my being repetitive. My
message for this hearing is the same. If America is going to
remain on top of the evolving world economy, we have to be
dedicated to improving our workforce. We don't have time to
stop for a breather, because countries like China and India are
breathing down our necks, pumping out doctors and pumping out
engineers, through great difference in numbers, probably not
quality, but in numbers alone.
Today, we are--today's workers increasingly require a solid
academic foundation in science and math, as well as technical
know-how, in order to succeed in today's high-tech workplace.
Despite these growing demands nationally, only one out of every
fifty high school graduates will ever obtain an engineering or
technical degree. Further, most American high school graduates
are either not sufficiently prepared or not sufficiently
motivated to pursue advanced study in science, math,
engineering, or technology fields, and this is a real problem.
While there are no quick fixes, we can take steps now to
reexamine and improve how teachers teach, and how students
learn math and science, and I am pleased to see the Science
Committee doing just that. Mr. Chairman, I salute you for that,
and I thank you for that.
As a part of the H.R. 362, which I believe is on the agenda
for today, I am particularly pleased to see that we are using
University of Texas, UTeach, not UT, that would be University
of Texas, or some say University of Tennessee, but UTeach is a
program that they use as a basis for scholarship programs for
the STEM students, who commit to teaching K-12 science and math
classes after graduation. This program has been replicated and
expanded to University of California, and I look forward to
hearing more about it from Dr. Dynes.
Along with improving education, Congress should also work
to promote competitiveness by increasing Federal R&D funding,
while simultaneously stimulating private sector R&D. The
Administration's American Competitiveness Initiative is working
to do just that on the federal level, but there is still some
room for creativity on how to increase private sector basic
research. The government's role for the latter should be to
create a system of incentives.
As the President said, and I quote, ``The role of
government is not to create wealth. The role of our government
is to create an environment in which the entrepreneur can
flourish, in which minds can expand, and in which technologies
can reach new frontiers.'' Encouraging private sector
innovation through tax credits and other such programs will
improve the American economy, make us more competitive
globally, and also bring new products to the American people.
I have seen firsthand America's innovative capabilities,
and I know we can do better. America's preeminence in the
global economy depends on what all of us do today, each of us,
all levels of government, industry, academia, parents and
students, has an important role to play in keeping America
competitive and ahead of the innovative curve.
I look forward to working closely with you, Mr. Chairman,
on these competitiveness issues, and to hearing what our
esteemed witnesses have to say on the subject.
And with that, I yield back my time, and I thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon. We just wrapped up a
press conference to highlight the importance of innovation and the role
that Congress and others can play in promoting American
competitiveness. I have not changed my mind in the last few minutes, so
I think I will stick with the same message. It's pretty simple.
If America is going to remain on top in the evolving world economy,
we must be dedicated to improving our workforce. We don't have time to
stop for a breather because countries like China and India are
breathing down our necks, pumping out doctors and engineers.
Today's workers increasingly require a solid academic foundation in
science and math, as well as technical know-how, in order to succeed in
today's high-tech workplace. Despite these growing demands nationally,
only one out of every 50 high school graduates will ever obtain an
engineering or technical degree. Further, most American high school
graduates are either not sufficiently prepared or not sufficiently
motivated to pursue advanced study in science, math, engineering or
technology fields.
This is a problem.
While there are no quick fixes, we can take steps now to re-examine
and improve how teachers teach and students learn math and science, and
I am pleased to see the Science Committee doing just that.
As a part of H.R. 362, which I believe is on the agenda for today,
I am particularly pleased to see that we are using the University of
Texas UTeach program as a basis for a scholarship program for STEM
students who commit to teaching K-12 science and math classes after
graduation. This program has been replicated and expanded at the
University of California, and I look forward to hearing more about it
from Dr. Dynes.
Along with improving education, Congress should also work to
promote competitiveness by increasing Federal R&D funding, while
simultaneously stimulating private sector R&D. The Administration's
American Competitiveness Initiative is working to do just that on the
federal level, but there is still room for creativity on how to
increase private sector basic research. The government's role for the
latter should be to create a system of incentives.
As the President said, ``The role of government is not to create
wealth; the role of our government is to create an environment in which
the entrepreneur can flourish, in which minds can expand, in which
technologies can reach new frontiers.'' \1\ Encouraging private sector
innovation through tax credits and other such programs will improve the
American economy, make us more competitive globally, and also bring new
products to the American people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ President George W. Bush, May 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have seen first-hand America's innovative capabilities, and I
know we can do better. American preeminence in the global economy
depends on what all of us do today. Each of us. . .all levels of
government, industry, academia, parents and students. . .has an
important role to play in keeping America competitive and ahead of the
innovation curve.
I look forward to working closely with you, Mr. Chairman, on these
competitiveness issues and to hearing what our esteemed witnesses have
to say on the subject.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I ask unanimous
consent that all additional opening statements submitted by the
Committee Members be included in the record. Without objection,
so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Multiple indicators tell us our nation is falling behind, when it
comes to world competitiveness in science, technology, engineering and
math.
I have seen a few examples in which a concerted effort by industry,
or by a university, or even a scholarship program really makes a
difference in student achievement.
Townview High School in Dallas comes to mind. Or the UTeach program
at the University of Texas.
However, I have also seen many more schools struggle, with teachers
feeling constrained with rigorous curricula but few resources to bring
that curriculum to life for their students.
Despite the Federal Government's best efforts, young Americans are
being ``left behind.'' Many of these students are in high-need school
districts, in poor urban and rural areas.
I appreciate the work that went into the report called Rising Above
the Gathering Storm. I feel it is a definitive science policy
guidebook.
However, the report isn't comprehensive. I feel that high-need
schools are still getting left behind.
I also would like to see more attention given to encouraging women,
Blacks and Hispanics to enter STEM fields and obtain advanced degrees.
I'll be interested to hear your recommendations on this issue.
I welcome today's witnesses and appreciate your candid feedback on
legislation we are developing in the Committee on Science and
Technology.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Russ Carnahan
Mr. Chairman, thank you for hosting this hearing to address the
importance of science and technology to the global competitiveness of
our nation.
I share the concerns of many of you here today. Our nation's
standing as the global leader in science and technology has slipped in
recent years and I believe we need to counteract this worrying trend.
Last year I received a letter, from a mother in New Jersey whose
14-year-old daughter was not satisfied with her education. This girl
wanted permission from her parents to move to Beijing for high school
because she felt her counterparts in China were getting ahead. To me,
this story underscores the need for our nation to strengthen its
investment in education. In particular, America must commit to
education in math, science and engineering to promote innovation and
technological advancement. I request that this letter be submitted to
the record.
I am pleased that the National Academy of Sciences has provided us
with an excellent report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, to focus on
these crucial issues. I am similarly pleased that the Chairman has
introduced legislation to implement the recommendations of the report.
Last August, Mr. Gordon visited St. Louis for an outstanding panel
discussion on innovation. Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that your
visit sparked a conversation about competitiveness, STEM education and
innovation that continues with enthusiasm in St. Louis. I look forward
to working with the Committee and participating in the ongoing debate.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today and I
look forward to hearing the testimony.
[The information follows:]
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Harry E. Mitchell
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To remain competitive in the global economy, America needs
technological innovation.
Today's hearing focuses on the education and research
recommendations of the National Academy of Science's (NAS) report
Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for
a Brighter Economic Future.
The question is how to increase the number of innovators. We must
encourage and inspire well-trained STEM educators--educators to inspire
a new generation of scientists and engineers.
If the number of students studying science and technology continues
to decrease, American competitiveness will also decline.
If we don't invest now and invest well, we will fall even further
behind. Students today will be the innovators keeping American
companies and their operations here tomorrow.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
It is wonderful to have such a distinguished panel with us today.
Each of you is an expert in the relationship between our national
economic competitiveness and science and technology. I am pleased that
the Chairman has scheduled this hearing early in the 110th session and
I appreciate his commitment to action on the recommendations of the
Gathering Storm report.
As we work to ensure that our best and brightest students will be
attracted to science, technology, engineering and math fields, we also
must make sure we focus on improving math and science literacy for all
of our students. I am pleased that H.R. 362 includes provisions
supporting the training and retention of STEM teachers, and feel very
strongly that teachers have a tremendous impact on student enthusiasm
and interest in these subjects. Our system must foster a desire to
explore the unknown, ask good questions, and equip our citizens with
quantitative skills that will be useful in all parts of the workforce.
There is no substitute for the inspiration provided by a teacher who
has a passion for the subject they are teaching. Such passion is
impossible without a solid foundation in pedagogy and content.
Finally, I would also like to note that one of the recommendations
of the Gathering Storm report was to ensure that the United States is a
hospitable location for innovative companies. While many of the
recommended implementation steps to achieve this goal lie outside of
the jurisdiction of this committee, I would note that the panel cited
manufacturing and marketing as key activities related to innovation.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) works very
closely with industry on programs to implement innovative technologies
from the laboratory into the field. I want to make sure the Committee
values NIST's important contribution to our national competitiveness,
and look forward to working with my colleagues on an upcoming
authorization bill for the agency.
Chairman Gordon. Now, I am pleased today to welcome this
illustrious panel of academic, business, and government leaders
to testify before the Committee.
First, Mr. Norm Augustine. As Mr. Hall has said, he has
been before our committee many times, and we are the better off
for it. He is the retired Chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin.
He is also a member of the Advisory Board to the Department of
Homeland Security, and served for 16 years on the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. In the 1970s, he
served as Under Secretary, and then Acting Secretary of the
Army. And Mr. Augustine chaired the National Academies
committee that wrote the Gathering Storm. Mr. Augustine.
STATEMENT OF MR. NORMAN R. AUGUSTINE, CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON
PROSPERING IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY OF THE 21ST CENTURY, COMMITTEE
ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND PUBLIC POLICY, DIVISION ON POLICY
AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES; FORMER CHAIRMAN AND
CEO, LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION
Mr. Augustine. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
thank you very much for this opportunity to speak with you
about a topic that I deem to be one of the most important
facing America today.
Mr. Chairman, with the Committee's permission, I would like
to submit a formal statement for the record and briefly
summarize it here. Thank you.
As you pointed out, it was my privilege to chair the
National Academies committee that wrote the Gathering Storm
report, and you were kind enough or polite enough not to
mention that it was really because of your efforts and those of
your colleagues that the Academies began this effort in the
first place.
It was an effort that, of course, joined those of many
other organizations, including the Council on Competitiveness.
Our committee included 20 members who were nonpartisan. The
membership was broad, and included CEOs of major corporations,
presidents of universities, three Nobel laureates, a former
state superintendent of schools, and a number of former
Presidential appointees. Our findings were essentially
unanimous, and I will briefly summarize them in a moment.
The underlying principle behind our work was what has been
called the death of distance, which refers to the notion that
many transactions that, in the past, required people to be in
proximity to one another no longer do. And that means that, for
example, when you have a CAT-scan to be read, it may be read by
a physician in Australia; when you need software, it may be
written by an engineer in Bangalore, and when you need your
income tax prepared, it may be prepared by an accountant in
Costa Rica.
Tom Friedman has said, in his marvelous book about the
Earth being flat, that globalization has accidentally made
Bangalore, Beijing, and Bethesda next-door neighbors, and when
it comes to seeking jobs, that is certainly true. At the end of
the Cold War, over three billion new would-be capitalists
entered the world job market, and it is a world job market.
Those three billion people are highly motivated, increasingly
well educated, and willing to work for a fraction of what
American workers at all levels are willing to work for, or at
least have been accustomed to working for.
That suggests that we have a major competitiveness
disadvantage that we have to find a way to offset. It has been
the view of virtually every study with which I am familiar,
certainly our recent National Academies study, that that offset
will have to come from being the world's best innovators and
first to market.
There are a number of indications that things are not going
particularly well in that regard. Although our overall economy
looks good in many respects, Americans, with five percent of
the world's population, produce 28 percent of the world's goods
and services. We have created two million net new jobs each
year in recent years. Household net worth just passed $50
trillion, but there are a lot of worrisome signs, the gathering
storm, if you will.
For example, of new R&D facilities that are to be built in
the world, in the next few years, 77 percent are scheduled to
be in India or China. You are all familiar with the fact that
the world-renowned Bell Labs, I think unarguably, once the
finest corporate research facility in the world was recently
sold to the French, or what was left of that lab. The R&D
investment in the physical sciences has been stagnant for 20
years in this country in real dollars. Of course, it is good
things that others prosper, but the National Academies' goal is
to insure that America continues to prosper.
Our committee's findings were straightforward. The first
was that our standard of living, and indeed, our security, in
the years ahead, will depend on people having high-quality jobs
in America. Second, to have high-quality jobs, we are going to
have to be exceptional in science and technology, because those
are the fields that underpin, to a very large degree,
innovation, which is likely to be our primary competitive
advantage.
Of recommendations we have made that have to do with
science and technology, the first is that the federal
investment in basic research be doubled in real dollars over
the next seven years.
Second, a series of special grants should be set up for
young researchers. Many of the great technical and scientific
breakthroughs have been by young people, but because of the
constraints on funding, and conservatism in grant funds, first
grants, on the average, go to a person 42 years old.
Third, $500 million a year should be devoted to modernizing
the instrumentation and equipment infrastructure of scientific
research labs in this country.
Fourth, eight percent of the R&D budget should be set aside
for discretionary application by the heads of local
laboratories, the people who know best where the promise of
future innovation lies, with a focus on high-risk high-payoff
research.
Fifth, we proposed creating the equivalent of an Advanced
Research Project Agency (ARPA) in the Department of Energy.
ARPA was successful in most people's eyes, in helping the
Department of Defense. Our hope is that ARPA-E can do the same
thing in the Department of Energy.
Finally, we suggested, and you referred to this, Mr.
Chairman, in your remarks, a National Award for Innovation.
The reaction of the media and the public to our
recommendations has been astonishingly favorable. I have a
collection of op-eds, several from each state in the union,
almost all supporting our findings. Because of its length, I
won't submit it for the record, but if the Members would like a
copy, I would be happy to see that you get it.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for this
opportunity to address your committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Augustine follows:]
Prepared Statement of Norman R. Augustine
Can America Compete for Jobs?
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing which
addresses one of the most significant challenges facing America today:
our nation's ability to preserve, and hopefully enhance, the standard
of living and quality of life enjoyed by America's citizens.
Unfortunately, because of absent decisive action on the part of our
nation's leaders, there is a very real likelihood that today's adult
generation will leave to its children, for the first time in our
nation's history, a sustained, substantially lower standard of living
than it enjoyed.
I would like to begin my testimony by thanking you, Mr. Chairman,
for your courageous leadership in placing science and engineering on
the Nation's agenda. I believe that there has been a broad awakening in
America as to the impact of science and technology and the consequences
of its neglect. You and the Members of this committee were among the
first to sound the alarm.
As you may be aware, it was my privilege to serve as Chair of the
National Academies' assessment of our nation's future competitiveness.
This committee, whose report became known as the ``Gathering Storm''
report, has completed its assigned task and, in keeping with the
Academies' policies, been disbanded. Given that circumstance, the views
I express today will be my own, speaking as a private citizen. However,
I believe that my remarks are generally reflective of the views of my
colleagues on the National Academies' committee. The committee's 20-
person membership consisted of former presidential appointees, CEO's,
Nobel Laureates, a State Superintendent of Schools, and several
university presidents. . .one of whom has recently found new employment
as Secretary of Defense. I should note that many other individuals and
organizations have devoted enormous talent and energy to helping
address the competitiveness challenges our nation faces, including the
Council on Competitiveness, the Business Roundtable, the National
Association of Manufacturers, the American Association of University
Presidents, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, the American Physical Society,
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and numerous
others.
It was through the encouragement of Members of the Senate and House
of Representatives that the National Academies' project was initiated,
and in particular Senators Alexander and Bingaman and Representatives
Boehlert and you, Mr. Chairman, requested that an assessment be
conducted. It would be difficult to cite a finer example of bipartisan
cooperation in addressing a problem of critical importance to America's
citizenry than that which took place following the release of the
National Academies' ``Gathering Storm'' report and involving the White
House and Cabinet Officers, the House of Representatives, and the
Senate. The initial legislation to implement the Academies'
recommendations had 70 co-sponsors in the Senate--35 Democrats and 35
Republicans. Similar support has been found in the House.
I have with me a collection of editorials and op/eds from
newspapers in all 50 states. Virtually all indicate support for the
Academies' findings and recommendations. I will, because of the
document's length, not request that it be included in the record, but
if any of the Members would like a copy I would be pleased to have one
delivered to your office.
Having examined a great deal of evidence, the committee concluded
that America's ability to compete for jobs in the years ahead will
depend heavily upon our ability to maintain a strong position in the
fields of science and engineering. It will be these fields that will
underpin the innovation that in turn will create quality jobs for
Americans. And to fill those jobs, all our citizens will need the basic
tools required to function in a high-tech world. Eight different
studies conducted in recent decades indicate that public investments in
science and technology have produced societal returns that range from
20 to 67 percent per year. Various other studies have concluded that
between 50 and 85 percent of the Nation's growth in GDP per capita
during the last half-century can be attributed to science and
engineering progress. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find a
better investment than research and education.
While a great deal has been accomplished, much remains to be done.
The Academies' estimate of the incremental cost, at the federal level,
of putting the Nation in a position to compete, will grow from $9B per
year to $19B per year over the next five years. This is not a one-year
competition in which we find ourselves--it is a seismic change,
comparable to that the Nation underwent when it encountered a shift
from 84 percent of its workers being involved in agriculture in the
early 1800's to about one percent today. The transition to a globalized
economy will, however, be markedly faster, with three billion would-be
capitalists having entered the global job market in the past two
decades alone and the number of nations actively participating in that
market suddenly increasing from 25 to 66. These job candidates are
highly motivated, willing to work for a fraction of the compensation
U.S. workers receive, and are increasingly well educated. Furthermore,
they span the employment spectrum from laborers and assembly workers to
medical doctors, accountants and engineers.
It has been 17 months since the Academies' report was issued and
while substantial preparatory work is now in place, including the FY07
continuing resolution, little impact of this effort has yet to be felt
where it matters: in America's factories, schools, and research
laboratories. The year ahead will be decisive in this regard, a period
that one day may be looked back upon as a ``tipping point''--one way or
the other. The question is whether we have the staying-power to sustain
the efforts which have now been initiated.
During the months since the Academies' report was issued, the world
has, unfortunately, not been standing still waiting for us: An entire
new generation of semiconductor integrated circuits, the mortar of the
modern electronics revolution, has been introduced; Toyota now has
eight times the market capitalization of General Motors and Ford,
combined; the remnants of what was once the world's greatest industrial
research lab, the legendary Bell Labs, the home of the transistor and
the laser and numerous Nobel Laureates, has now been sold to a French
firm; for the first time the most capable high-energy particle
accelerator in the world does not reside in the United States; another
$650 billion has been spent on our public schools which, according to
recent standardized tests in science, was accompanied by a moderate
improvement in performance in the lower grades and further
deterioration in the 12th grade--suggesting that the longer our
children are exposed to our schools, the worse they fare. In addition,
U.S. investors put more new money into foreign stock funds than U.S.
funds; 77 percent of the new research laboratories currently planned to
be built in the world will reside in just two countries--neither of
which is the United States; American firms once again spent more on
litigation than on research and development; U.S. undergraduate
engineering enrollment remained generally flat according to the latest
data; nearly all the major Initial Public Offerings in the world during
the period took place outside the United States; the German firm which
not long ago purchased one of America's Big Three automakers, Chrysler,
has now, upon closer inspection, decided it doesn't want it after all;
the Academies' recommendation to add $9 billion to the federal budget
was debated as U.S. citizens gambled $7 billion on the Super Bowl; our
children continued to spend more time watching television than in the
classroom; and the World Economic Forum in Geneva precipitously lowered
its rating of U.S. competitiveness from first place to sixth.
A particularly troublesome aspect of the challenge we face is that
there has been and will be no sudden wake-up call--no Sputnik, no 9/11,
no Pearl Harbor--rather, the situation is much more analogous to the
proverbial frog being slowly boiled. The economy is of course doing
quite well, and it has to be considered a major positive that other
nations are prospering. The challenge for America is to continue to be
among those nations that prosper--and in this regard virtually all the
warning trends are headed in the wrong direction.
As Tom Friedman concluded in The World is Flat, globalization has
``accidentally made Beijing, Bangalore and Bethesda next door
neighbors''--a neighborhood wherein able candidates for jobs which have
traditionally resided in the United States are now just a mouse-click
away.
It should be noted that while the Academies' committee focused on
creating and sustaining jobs, the impact of the competitiveness race on
our nation's physical security could be even more profound. Several
years ago it was my privilege to serve on the bipartisan Hart-Rudman
Commission on National Security, one of the two primary findings of the
group being, ``. . .the inadequacies of our system of research and
education pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next
quarter century than any potential conventional war that we might
imagine.'' Indeed, the consequences of current trends are particularly
acute for defense firms, which must rely upon U.S. citizens for much of
their engineering force and cannot simply shift work overseas as does
much of the commercial sector.
The National Academies' report offers four recommendations and 20
specific implementing actions to begin the process of assuring
America's future competitiveness and security. The four recommendations
address strengthening our K-12 public schools, significantly increasing
the Nation's investment in basic research, encouraging more of the
Nation's ``best and brightest'' to become engineers and scientists; and
reconstituting the Nation's innovation ecosystem in such areas as
patent policy, tax policy, litigation policy, and immigration policy.
The Academies' report proposes undertaking these tasks within an
overall framework that focuses upon reducing the Nation's energy
dependence, since that is a task of the utmost importance and is
closely coupled to the attainment of advancements in science and
engineering.
The two highest priorities cited in the National Academies' report
are, first, to increase the number of K-12 teachers with university
degrees in the physical sciences, math or engineering, and, second, to
substantially increase the basic research budget in math, engineering
and the physical sciences while, at a very minimum, preserving the
purchasing power of the Nation's on-going investment in the
biosciences. The growth in recent years in funding of the health
sciences is already paying significant dividends.
The Academies' specific recommendations with regard to science were
presented in ``The Gathering Storm'' report under the heading, ``Sowing
the Seeds'' and focused on strengthening the Nation's traditional
commitment to long-term basic research through:
<bullet> Increasing federal investment in research by 10
percent per year (real growth) over the next seven years, with
primary attention devoted to the physical sciences,
engineering, mathematics, and information sciences--without
disinvesting in the biological sciences.
<bullet> Providing research grants to early career
researchers.
<bullet> Instituting a National Coordination Office for
Research Infrastructure to oversee the investment of an
additional $500M per year for five years for advanced research
facilities and equipment.
<bullet> Allocating at least eight percent of the existing
budgets of federal research agencies to discretionary funding
under the control of local laboratory directors.
<bullet> Creating an Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy
(ARPA-E), modeled after DARPA in the Department of Defense,
reporting to the Department of Energy Under Secretary for
Science. The purpose of this entity would be to support on a
competitive basis the conduct of long-term ``out-of-the-box,''
transformational, generic, energy research by universities,
industry and government laboratories.
<bullet> Establishing a Presidential Innovation Award to
recognize and stimulate scientific and engineering advances in
the national interest.
It is critical that we assure the existence of a long-term talent
base to pursue the needed science and engineering activity, which
together comprises the underpinning of much of America's innovation
enterprise. Warranting particular emphasis is the matter of encouraging
women and minorities, now widely under-represented in the science and
engineering community, to pursue careers in these fields. America,
already handicapped in this global competition by its wage scale,
cannot afford to fail to avail itself of the talents of over half its
citizenry. The committee recommended, under the heading, ``Best and
Brightest'':
<bullet> Establishing 25,000 competitive science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology undergraduate scholarships and
5,000 graduate fellowships in areas of national need for U.S.
citizens pursuing study at U.S. universities.
<bullet> Providing a federal tax credit to employers to
encourage their support of continuing education of their
employees.
<bullet> Providing a one-year automatic visa extension to
international students who receive a science or engineering
doctorate at a U.S. university and meet normal security
requirements, and providing automatic work permits and the
opportunity for expedited residence status if these students
are offered employment in the U.S.
<bullet> Instituting a skill-based, preferential immigration
option.
<bullet> Reforming the current system of ``deemed exports'' so
that international students and researchers have access to
necessary non-classified information and research equipment
while studying and working in the U.S.
Absent decisive steps, America's business base is almost certain to
migrate to other, more competitive countries in the years ahead--in
fact, it is already doing so. Under such a circumstance our nation
could find itself with some of the world's richest investors living in
a sea of unemployment. The consequences of this for stability and
prosperity are evident.
Fortunately, it is not yet too late. . .but it is getting late.
With the strong involvement of our nation's leaders, including the
continuing support of the Members of this committee, we can assure that
our science base remains vigorous, our K-12 educational system is
rebuilt, our innovation infrastructure once again becomes the most
attractive in the world--and our children are assured of an opportunity
for a life even better than most of us have enjoyed.
Thank you again for permitting me to address this important topic.
I would of course be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
NATIONAL ACADEMIES ``GATHERING STORM'' COMMITTEE BIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
NORMAN R. AUGUSTINE [NAE*] (Chair) is the retired Chairman and CEO of
the Lockheed Martin Corporation. He serves on the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and has served as
Under Secretary of the Army. He is a recipient of the National
Medal of Technology.
CRAIG BARRETT [NAE] is Chairman of the Board of the Intel Corporation.
GAIL CASSELL [IOM*] is Vice President for Scientific Affairs and a
Distinguished Lilly Research Scholar for Infectious Diseases at
Eli Lilly and Company.GQ02
STEVEN CHU [NAS*] is the Director of the E.O. Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory. He was a co-winner of the Nobel prize in
physics in 1997.
ROBERT GATES is the President of Texas A&M University and served as
Director of Central Intelligence.*
NANCY GRASMICK is the Maryland State Superintendent of Schools.
CHARLES HOLLIDAY JR. [NAE] is Chairman of the Board and CEO of DuPont.
SHIRLEY ANN JACKSON [NAE] is President of Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute. She is the immediate Past President of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science and was Chairman of
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ANITA K. JONES [NAE] is the Lawrence R. Quarles Professor of
Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Virginia.
She served as Director of Defense Research and Engineering at
the U.S. Department of Defense and was Vice-Chair of the
National Science Board.
JOSHUA LEDERBERG [NAS/IOM] is the Sackler Foundation Scholar at
Rockefeller University in New York. He was a co-winner of the
Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 1958.
RICHARD LEVIN is President of Yale University and the Frederick William
Beinecke Professor of Economics.
C.D. (DAN) MOTE JR. [NAE] is President of the University of Maryland
and the Glenn L. Martin Institute Professor of Engineering.
CHERRY MURRAY [NAS/NAE] is the Deputy Director for science and
technology at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. She was
formerly the Senior Vice President at Bell Labs, Lucent
Technologies.
PETER O'DONNELL JR. is President of the O'Donnell Foundation of Dallas,
a private foundation that develops and funds model programs
designed to strengthen engineering and science education and
research.
LEE R. RAYMOND [NAE] is the Chairman of the Board and CEO of Exxon
Mobil Corporation.
ROBERT C. RICHARDSON [NAS] is the F.R. Newman Professor of Physics and
the Vice Provost for research at Cornell University. He was a
co-winner of the Nobel Prize in physics in 1996.
P. ROY VAGELOS [NAS/IOM] is the retired Chairman and CEO of Merck &
Co., Inc.
CHARLES M. VEST [NAE] is President Emeritus of MIT and a Professor of
mechanical engineering. He serves on the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology and is the immediate Past
Chair of the Association of American Universities.
GEORGE M. WHITESIDES [NAS/NAE] is the Woodford L. & Ann A. Flowers
University Professor at Harvard University. He has served as an
adviser for the National Science Foundation and the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency.
RICHARD N. ZARE [NAS] is the Marguerite Blake Wilbur Professor of
Natural Science at Stanford University. He was Chair of the
National Science Board from 1996 to 1998.
* subsequently became Secretary of Defense
Biography for Norman R. Augustine
NORMAN R. AUGUSTINE was raised in Colorado and attended Princeton
University where he graduated with a BSE in Aeronautical Engineering,
magna cum laude, and an MSE. He was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, Tau Beta
Pi and Sigma Xi.
In 1958 he joined the Douglas Aircraft Company in California where
he worked as a Research Engineer, Program Manager and then Chief
Engineer. Beginning in 1965, he served in the Office of the Secretary
of Defense as Assistant Director of Defense Research and Engineering.
He joined LTV Missiles and Space Company in 1970, serving as Vice
President, Advanced Programs and Marketing. In 1973 he returned to the
government as Assistant Secretary of the Army and in 1975 became Under
Secretary of the Army, and later Acting Secretary of the Army. Joining
Martin Marietta Corporation in 1977, he served as Chairman and CEO from
1988 and 1987, respectively, until 1995, having previously been
President and COO. He served as President of Lockheed Martin
Corporation upon the formation of that firm in 1995, and became its CEO
in January 1996, and later Chairman. Upon retiring from Lockheed Martin
in August 1997, he joined the faculty of the Princeton University
School of Engineering and Applied Science where he served as Lecturer
with the Rank of Professor until July, 1999.
Mr. Augustine was Chairman and Principal Officer of the American
Red Cross for nine years, Chairman of the National Academy of
Engineering, President and Chairman of the Association of the United
States Army, Chairman of the Aerospace Industries Association, and
Chairman of the Defense Science Board. He is a former President of the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the Boy Scouts
of America. He is a current or former member of the Board of Directors
of ConocoPhillips, Black & Decker, Procter & Gamble, of which he is
Presiding Director, and Lockheed Martin and is a member of the Board of
Trustees of Colonial Williamsburg, a Trustee Emeritus of Johns Hopkins
and a former member of the Board of Trustees of Princeton and MIT. He
is a member of the Advisory Board to the Department of Homeland
Security, was a member of the Hart/Rudman Commission on National
Security, and has served for 16 years on the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology. He is a member of the American
Philosophical Society and the Council on Foreign Affairs, and is a
Fellow of the National Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Explorers
Club.
Mr. Augustine has been presented the National Medal of Technology
by the President of the United States and received the Joint Chiefs of
Staff Distinguished Public Service Award. He has five times received
the Department of Defense's highest civilian decoration, the
Distinguished Service Medal. He is co-author of The Defense Revolution
and Shakespeare In Charge and author of Augustine's Laws and
Augustine's Travels. He holds 21 honorary degrees and was selected by
Who's Who in America and the Library of Congress as one of ``Fifty
Great Americans'' on the occasion of Who's Who's fiftieth anniversary.
He has traveled in over 100 countries and stood on both the North and
South Poles of the Earth.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Augustine, for your
testimony, more importantly, your long-term commitment to our
country.
Next, Mr. Harold Terry McGraw III is Chairman, President,
and CEO of McGraw-Hill Companies. I guess when your name is on
the front door, you can do whatever you want. He does it well,
and is also the Chairman of the Business Roundtable, as well as
the President of the Committee Encouraging Corporate
Philanthropy.
Thank you, Mr. McGraw, for joining us today.
STATEMENT OF MR. HAROLD MCGRAW III, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, THE
MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES; CHAIRMAN, BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
Mr. McGraw. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking
Member Hall, and Members of the Committee, and thank you for
the leadership and the ideas that are embodied in H.R. 362 and
H.R. 363. The CEOs of the Business Roundtable are very much in
support of your work.
In 2005, the Business Roundtable and 14 other national
business associations created the Tapping America's Potential
campaign, with the goal of doubling the number of American
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduates by
2015. We believe that expanding the talent pool is the critical
element of the innovation agenda that America must pursue in
order to remain competitive, and it is all about
competitiveness.
America has a tremendous record of success and growth any
way that you look at it, in economic terms, in technological
terms, medical terms, any way. The United States has a $13.2
trillion economy, which is bigger than any other country by a
wide margin. But to keep moving ahead in our changing and
increasingly very competitive world, everyone, young and old,
needs a roadmap to find their way.
Business and government together need to help every
American locate avenues to continually upgrade their skills and
knowledge so that they can succeed. Education and lifelong
learning are essential for a better life and a brighter future
for America. Census data tells us that people with bachelor's
degrees can earn more than twice as much as those with only a
high school diploma, and three times more than a high school
dropout.
Alliance for Excellent Education research shows that if the
dropouts from the class of 2006 earned diplomas instead of
dropping out, our economy would see an additional $309 billion
in wages over those students' lifetimes. The economic impact of
increasing our graduation rate is staggering to the individual
and the economy as a whole. Johns Hopkins University research
shows that half of our dropouts, half of our dropouts in this
country come from 2,000 of our 14,000 high schools. We can get
at half that problem if we just focus on those 2,000.
Your committee has been working on two important bills that
would provide critical support for the foundation of America's
innovation system. We endorse those bills, and let me tell you
why. Our economy stands at a critical juncture. The United
States is still, again, the world's economic leader, but that
lead could slip. Powerful economic rivals have emerged, and
these competitors are investing in innovation. Meanwhile, our
federal support for research has declined, relative to the size
of our economy.
In business, research is an investment pegged to sales or
revenues, but federal funding for R&D has declined from 1.25
percent of GDP to 0.75 percent today. Imagine if a high-tech
company invested in R&D at such a rate. Should we be investing
in our children's future at a high-tech rate, or at least a
greater rate than we do now, and if so, what should that rate
be?
Also, demands of the workplace are increasing. The number
of jobs requiring technical training is growing at five times
the rate of non-technical jobs, but the U.S. education system
is not keeping pace. More than half of the U.S. students
entering college drop out before earning a degree, and the most
recent data from the National Assessment of Educational
Progress exams, NAEP, reveals that high school seniors' reading
performance over the past decade actually declined, and
according to NAEP, less than one quarter of seniors perform at
their grade level or above in math.
The American people understand that the competitive
landscape is changing. Today's challenge is about maintaining
the higher standard of living Americans have come to expect.
That means creating more high wage jobs in high value-added
industries here in America. And it means preparing all of our
citizens to compete and to succeed in the global economy. The
key to our competitiveness challenge is innovation. Innovation
drives productivity growth, creates new products, even whole
new industries, and generates high wage employment and a higher
standard of living for all Americans.
Productivity gains have created a new economic paradigm,
enabling the Fed to maintain a generally accommodative interest
rate policy in the face of strong economic growth, without
triggering inflation. It is time to implement the
recommendations of the Gathering Storm report, and Tapping
America's Potential report. We appreciate the work this
committee is doing to press forward.
And finally, innovation is all about talent. In a world
where natural resources, capital, and unskilled labor are all
globally available, it is the well educated, skilled, and
creative individual who will make the difference in economic
performance. That is why the business community's innovation
recommendations focus on education.
Today, American business and higher education leaders
released the American Innovation Proclamation, urging Congress
to double basic research at key federal science agencies,
increase the funding of proven programs and incentives for math
and science teacher recruitment and professional development,
welcome highly educated foreign professionals, particularly
those holding advanced science and technology degrees,
especially from U.S. universities, by reforming our visa
policies, and of course, our H-1B visa programs, and make
permanent a strengthened R&D tax credit to encourage continued
private sector innovation investment. And I am proud to be a
signatory on this Proclamation, along with so many other
business leaders who believe so much in what you are doing.
And in conclusion, it is worth noting that the forces
driving economic integration and global competition were all
invented here. America is in the best position to take
advantage of the changing landscape and to continue to lead the
world in these areas, so long as we recognize the challenges we
face, we maintain the right focus on education, and invest
where necessary to ensure that Americans succeed in the new
environment.
Mr. Chairman, it is up to us to ensure that the 21st
Century is the next American Century, and with your help and
the Members of this committee, we will do just that.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGraw follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harold McGraw III
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hall, Members of the Committee. Good
afternoon. My name is Terry McGraw, Chairman, President, and CEO of The
McGraw-Hill Companies.
I welcome the opportunity to appear before you today to address the
vitally important issues of innovation and competitiveness not only on
behalf of The McGraw-Hill Companies, but also as Chairman of Business
Roundtable.
The McGraw-Hill Companies is a global information services provider
headquartered in New York. We employ 20,000 people in 280 offices in 40
countries worldwide. You know us best through the McGraw-Hill imprint
in education, Standard & Poor's, J.D. Power and Associates and Business
Week.
Business Roundtable (www.businessroundtable.org) is an association
of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies with $4.5
trillion in annual revenues and more than 10 million employees. Member
companies comprise nearly a third of the total value of the U.S. stock
markets and represent over 40 percent of all corporate income taxes
paid. Collectively, they returned $112 billion in dividends to
shareholders and the economy in 2005.
Roundtable companies give more than $7 billion a year in combined
charitable contributions, representing nearly 60 percent of total
corporate giving. They are technology innovation leaders, with $90
billion in annual research and development spending--nearly half of the
total private R&D spending in the U.S.
Both McGraw-Hill and Business Roundtable are passionate about
innovation. In 2005, Business Roundtable, together with fourteen other
national business associations, created the Tapping America's Potential
campaign, or TAP, with the goal of doubling the number of American
science, technology, engineering and mathematics graduates with
Bachelor's degrees by 2015. We believe that expanding the talent pool
is a critical element--perhaps the critical element--of the innovation
agenda that America must pursue in order to remain competitive in the
21st Century.
The McGraw-Hill Companies has a deep commitment to education and
lifelong learning. In our rapidly changing and highly competitive
world, every individual--young and old alike--needs a roadmap, a Global
Positioning System if you will, to find their way. Not to find a
location on a map or to provide driving directions, but to chart a
course to succeed in our increasingly globalized society. Both business
and government need to help every American locate avenues to
continually upgrade their skills and knowledge. But it is a two-way
street--every American also needs to recognize the importance of
lifelong learning. For students it is particularly important to help
them understand the important role that science, technology,
engineering and math play in keeping routes open in their own global
positioning system.
The McGraw-Hill Companies believe that education and lifelong
learning are essential for a better life for all Americans. In the
broader sense, education also is essential for a brighter future for
America. U.S. Census data tells us that people with Bachelor's degrees
have more than twice the average annual earnings of those with only a
high school diploma and three times more than high school dropouts.
Business Roundtable endorses the Science and Technology Committee's
bills, H.R. 362, ``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds'' Science and Math
Scholarship Act, and H.R. 363, Sowing the Seeds Through Science and
Engineering Research Act. These bills, if enacted, would provide
critical support for the foundations of America's innovation system.
They represent essential components of a broader innovation and
competitiveness agenda that Business Roundtable believes must be
enacted this year. I commend the Committee for moving the legislation
forward. Now, let me tell you why I think that is so important.
The U.S. economy stands at a critical juncture. While the United
States is still the world's economic leader, that lead is slipping.
<bullet> Powerful global economic rivals have emerged, some of
which were minor competitors only a decade ago.
<bullet> These competitors are investing in innovation. For
example, China more than doubled its research and development
spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) from
0.6 percent in 1995 to 1.4 percent today. This, during a time
of very rapid GDP growth.
<bullet> Meanwhile, in the United States, federal support for
research has declined relative to the size of the economy. In
business, we think of research as an investment that should be
pegged to sales or annual revenue, but federal funding for
research and development has declined from 1.25 percent of GDP
in 1985 to 0.75 percent today. Imagine if a high tech company,
for example, invested in R&D at such a rate. Shouldn't we be
investing in our children's future at a high tech rate, or at
least at a greater rate than we do now?
<bullet> The demands of the workplace are increasing. The
number of jobs requiring technical training is growing at five
times the rate of non-technical occupations.
<bullet> But the U.S. educational system is not keeping pace.
More than half of U.S. students entering college will drop out
before earning a degree. The United States ranks 17th in the
world in the proportion of the college-age population earning a
science or engineering degree.
<bullet> And just a few weeks ago, the most recent data from
the National Assessment of Educational Progress exams revealed
that high school seniors' reading performance over the past
decade actually declined. And according to the NAEP, less than
one quarter of seniors perform at their grade level or above in
math.
The American people understand that the competitive landscape is
changing. A poll commissioned by Business Roundtable in late 2005
showed that Americans are confident about the competitive position of
the United States today, but unlike a decade ago when they believed
that the United States would continue to be the world's economic
leader, Americans now think that the United States will lose its
competitive advantage in the future.
Like the public at large, Business Roundtable CEOs do not take
America's leadership position for granted. Because our companies'
operations are global, we see firsthand how rapidly other countries are
improving their competitive position. Business Roundtable is confident
of America's ability to compete and win in global markets but we know
that past success is no guarantee of future performance.
Today's competitiveness challenge is about maintaining the higher
standard of living Americans have come to expect in a flatter world
with more nimble competitors. That means creating more high-wage jobs
in high-value-added industries here in America. And it means preparing
all of our citizens to compete and succeed in the global economy.
The key to America's competitiveness challenge is innovation.
Technological innovation drives productivity growth. It creates new
products and processes--even whole new industries--thereby generating
high-wage employment and a higher standard of living for all Americans.
Productivity gains have enabled the U.S. economy to grow in recent
years at rates that previously had been considered likely to trigger
inflation. The recent strong growth, low inflation environment is
attributable to the extraordinary gains in productivity that the U.S.
economy has enjoyed since the mid 1990s.
Economists estimate that fifty percent of productivity growth comes
from innovation. A study by economists Kevin Hassett and Robert
Schapiro found that the value of ideas and innovation generated by the
U.S. economy is more than $5 trillion a year--some 42 percent of our
GDP.
The wellsprings of innovation require constant nurturing, and
maintaining U.S. innovation leadership demands hard work and
investment.
We can meet this challenge.
Frankly, as a nation we have been too complacent. It has been 18
months since the National Academies released the Gathering Storm
report. In addition, nearly two years ago, Business Roundtable and 14
other national business associations issued the Tapping America's
Potential report that contained recommendations to double federal
investments in fundamental research, reform visa and green card
policies to welcome the best and the brightest from around the world,
and improve U.S. K-12 math and science education by focusing on
recruiting and training a greater number of qualified teachers.
As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, the Tapping America's
Potential campaign adopted one strategic and overarching goal: to
double the number of science, technology, engineering and mathematics
graduates with Bachelor's degrees by 2015.
It is time to pass legislation and start implementing the
recommendations. We appreciate the good work this committee is doing to
press forward.
Innovation is all about talent. In a world where natural resources,
capital, and unskilled labor are all globally available, it is well-
educated, skilled, and creative individuals who make the difference in
economic performance. That is why Business Roundtable and our TAP
campaign partners have focused on education as the first among equals
of the key elements of the business community's innovation
recommendations. More than any other aspect of our innovation system,
education is the potential Achilles heel for future U.S. economic
competitiveness.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, America's competitiveness challenge has
galvanized the business community. Just this afternoon, a broad
coalition of American business and higher education leaders released
the American Innovation Proclamation, which calls upon Congress to
enact an innovation agenda to:
<bullet> One, renew America's commitment to discovery by
doubling basic research at four key federal science agencies.
<bullet> Two, improve U.S. student achievement in math and
science through increased funding of proven programs and
incentives for math and science teacher recruitment and
professional development.
<bullet> Three, welcome highly educated foreign professionals,
particularly those holding advanced science, technology,
engineering, or mathematics degrees, especially from U.S.
universities, by reforming U.S. visa policies. We need to boost
the number of H-1B visas beyond the very low level of only
65,000.
<bullet> And four, make permanent a strengthened R&D tax
credit to encourage continued private-sector innovation
investment.
I am proud to be a signatory on this proclamation, along with some
of my fellow panelists here. I believe that it embodies the right
agenda for America. It is a positive agenda, which, if enacted, would
open up new opportunities for America and her citizens. Of course,
there are additional agenda items that Congress must address to ensure
U.S. competitiveness. They include opening access to new markets,
reducing health care costs, and reauthorizing a strengthened No Child
Left Behind Act, among others. However, I will save that discussion for
another day.
It is worth noting that the forces driving economic integration and
global competition were all invented here. More than any other country,
the United States created the conditions for global economic growth
driven by accelerated technological innovation. America is in the best
position to take advantage of the changing competitive landscape as
long as we recognize the challenges we face and make the investments
required to succeed in the new environment.
Mr. Chairman, it is up to us to ensure that the 21st Century is the
next American Century. With your help, and the help of all of the
Members of the Committee on Science and Technology, we will do just
that.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Biography for Harold McGraw III
Harold McGraw III was elected Chairman of The McGraw-Hill Companies
in December 1999; Chief Executive Officer in 1998; and President and
Chief Operating Officer in 1993. He has been a member of The McGraw-
Hill Companies' Board of Directors since 1987.
Mr. McGraw has led a transformation of the Corporation,
consolidating 15 diverse units into three focused business segments,
each one a market leader. In Financial Services, Standard & Poor's is
the world's leading provider of financial analyses and risk
assessments. In Education, McGraw-Hill Education is a leader in the
U.S. K-12 education market as well as in the higher education and
professional markets. And in Information & Media, the Corporation is a
preeminent provider of essential news, information, analysis and
solutions globally through Business Week, J.D. Power and Associates and
leading portals for the energy, construction and aviation industries.
The McGraw-Hill Companies had sales of $6.3 billion in 2006. The
Corporation has a strong history of growth. Over the last 10 years, it
has outperformed the S&P 500, producing an annualized total return of
21.5 percent versus 8.4 percent for the S&P 500.
Mr. McGraw, 58, joined The McGraw-Hill Companies in 1980 and has
held a number of positions with increasing responsibilities, including
Vice President, Corporate Planning; publisher, Aviation Week & Space
Technology; President, McGraw-Hill Publications Company; and President,
McGraw-Hill Financial Services Company.
He serves on the Board of Directors of United Technologies and
ConocoPhillips. He is Chairman of Business Roundtable, Chairman of the
Emergency Committee for American Trade (SCAT) and a member of the
Business Council. Mr. McGraw is a member of the State Department's
Advisory Committee on Transformational Diplomacy and he also served as
a member of President George W. Bush's Transition Advisory Committee on
Trade.
Mr. McGraw is Chairman of the Committee Encouraging Corporate
Philanthropy. He is also Co-Chair of Carnegie Hall's Corporate
Leadership Committee and a member of its Board of Trustees.
Additionally, Mr. McGraw serves on the boards of the National Council
on Economic Education, New York Public Library, National Organization
on Disability, National Academy Foundation, Partnership for New York
City, and Prep for Prep.
Mr. McGraw received an M.B.A. from the Wharton School of the
University of Pennsylvania in 1976 and a B.A. from Tufts University in
1972.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. McGraw.
And now we have Dr. Robert Dynes, who is President of the
University of California. Dr. Dynes is also Professor of
Physics and Material Science at the University. And before
coming to the University of California, he had a 22-year career
at the AT&T Bell Laboratories and, in 1989, was elected to the
National Academies of Science.
Thank you, Dr. Dynes.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT C. DYNES, PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS AND
MATERIAL SCIENCE; PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Dynes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Hall, and other Members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue of
science and technology leadership in the 21st Century.
I want to first specifically recognize Chairman Gordon and
Norm Augustine for their leadership in bringing us to this
point. It is an honor to be with these distinguished folks on
the panel. My written testimony, which I have submitted for the
record, outlines the University of California's vision for
ensuring strong competitiveness in California and in the U.S.
My job is to keep California competitive.
My vision rests on three planks. One, fueling innovation
and boosting the Nation's economy by leading in RD&D, research,
development, and a second D: delivery, which is the delivery of
the products of the university to society, and delivery of
educated, motivated innovators to our society.
Two, forging strategic alliances with the best and
brightest minds around the world to solve global problems that
confront all societies for our benefit. Three, enhancing the
quality of California's future workforce by tackling the crisis
in K-12 education. This afternoon, I will provide a snapshot of
a program at the University of California that speaks to the
third plank.
This exciting program, which we call the Science and Math
Initiative, or 1,000 Teachers, a Million Minds, is one of the
models for your national program, the 10,000 Teachers,
10,000,000 Minds, which was outlined in the National Academies
report and your legislation, H.R. 362.
My own motivation for this priority came from my many
travels throughout California, where I encountered entire
schools and entire school districts where there wasn't a single
credentialed science and math teacher in the school.
Mr. Chairman, you have called upon us to recognize the
challenges we face in research, and most especially, in
education of our youth in mathematics and science. Your
legislation creates an excellent model for research
universities, and I say research universities, to implement
that vision. And we at the University of California are
stepping up to that plate to create a pipeline of math and
science innovators for the Nation's future, and teachers for
the Nation's future.
The Science and Math Initiative is one of my highest
priorities as President of the University of California. It has
personal significance for me, because I was a first generation
college student, transformed by math and science education way
back in the Sputnik era. The components of the University's
initiative are described in more detail in my written
testimony, but essentially, we must pay attention to three
elements to develop good teachers.
One, recruit UC students who are majoring or considering
majoring in science and math to be teachers. Two, provide these
students with innovative curricula that rely on the expertise
of our faculty in science, math, and education. Three, offer
incentives to attract and retain these students as teachers,
including a streamlined path to certification and financial
incentives, such as loan forgiveness and paid summer
internships. (We need to support these young people, even after
they are in the teaching workforce.)
The University of California Deans who direct the Campus
Science and Math Initiative, along with the faculty of science
and mathematics departments and our departments of education
are energized, are committed, and are working together. This
may sound like a no-brainer to you, but it is quite novel to
have the science faculty working with the School of Education
on teacher training.
Attached to my written testimony is an example from UC-
Berkeley of the new curriculum they are developing, which
blends cutting-edge content knowledge in the sciences,
including lab and field experiences, with distinctive new
pedagogy, specifically suited to convey this knowledge to young
students. We supplement the program with a field experience
course. We actually put freshmen out in teaching environments.
These field experiences continue for four years, where students
work in local schools, under the supervision of mentors or
master teachers, and they meet regularly in small seminars to
discuss the experiences, and learn from each other.
Our early research on this field-experience course has
demonstrated that it has a profound effect on student
aspirations. Many intensify their commitment to teaching, and
many find that their interest deepens in various aspects of
their own science and math, as they work with students.
Teaching science motivates a deeper understanding of science,
and everybody in the University knows that. Some of them also
discover that teaching is not for them, which is important to
learn as early as possible.
One of the strengths of the California Higher Education
Master Plan is that many students transfer to UC from the
community colleges, and this provides a rich source for future
teachers. This academic year, as many as 100 community college
freshmen are involved in the same field experiences as our UC
freshmen. These parallel experiences allow them to transition
smoothly when they transfer to UC later. We are now in the
second year of the SMI program, developing our model
simultaneously on all nine of our general campuses.
Collectively, our campuses provide an excellent laboratory for
testing different approaches to meet our program goals. We are
inventing this as we go along, and by the year 2010, we are
committed to producing 1,000 science and math teachers per year
for the State of California.
While each of the campuses approaches this program
differently, there are several common elements that we believe
will lead to success, and those are described in my written
testimony. We learn best practices from looking at all nine
campuses.
At all the campuses, the students gain a deep grounding in
their math and science majors, and every student has early
field experience, and an expeditious pathway to teacher
certification. To date, more than 600 students are enrolled in
the SMI on our campuses, nearly 1,000 student placements have
occurred in schools for field experiences, and we are involved
with 467 teachers, 174 schools, and 41 districts across
California. This is now the second year we are into it. It is
growing rapidly.
I am also happy to report that the Science and Math
Initiative has attracted enormous enthusiasm and support from
both the public and the private sectors. The vigorous support
of Governor Schwarzenegger and the state legislature has been
instrumental in the program's strong start, and to date,
corporate and foundation funding is over $4 million. I am
especially grateful to several of our corporate major sponsors,
including Intel, and I personally thank Craig Barrett for
leading Intel to support us on this program.
I want to thank you for introducing H.R. 362, and I offer
the University's support for your efforts. This bill will
greatly assist programs like ours, and we look forward to
working with your staff on a few modifications that we believe
are necessary to make this as flexible as possible.
As a physicist, I look for things that are scalable. This
program is scalable. It can work in school districts, it can
work in the State, it can work in the Nation. H.R. 362 will
allow expansion of the Science and Math Initiative concept from
California to the Nation, and also, focus more broadly on other
elements essential to improving K-12 math and science
education.
H.R. 362 is premised on students graduating with a science
or math degree and teaching credential within four years.
However, as we have developed down this path, many of our best
students take a little longer to complete a science and math
degree. The Science and Math Initiative streamlines the
credentialing process, but because of varying teacher licensure
requirements, especially in California, additional postgraduate
training is often necessary.
We would like to see the legislation amended to allow
flexibility in creating integrated programs that streamline the
process to obtaining a Bachelor's or Master's degree and a
teaching credential.
We look forward to working with you and your staff to enact
this legislation. In addition, we need the Congress and the
President to address federal resources in this endeavor. UC
can, and I emphasize will, increase the number of science and
math teachers who are trained, qualified, skilled, and equally
importantly, passionate about science and mathematics. However,
we need sustained, long-term commitment from our current
partners and the Federal Government to realize our intended
effects.
Finally, let me give you an example of the value of this
program, and I share the words of one of our Science and Math
Initiative students, who is out in the classroom. ``After
completing field work in the classroom, I knew teaching was for
me. It made me realize the passion I had to help others, and at
that point, I knew I wanted to make it a career.''
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dynes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert C. Dynes
UC's Missions as a Land-Grant University
Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and other Members of the
Committee, I am Robert C. Dynes, President of the University of
California. I want to thank you for inviting me to testify, and I want
to give special thanks to Chairman Gordon and Norm Augustine for their
leadership and support in seeking to enhance U.S. competitiveness
through targeted investments in university research and in science and
mathematics education. I am pleased to have this opportunity to share
the University of California's vision in this crucially important task.
Mr. Chairman, your invitation asked me to comment on your
legislation that implements recommendations from the National Academy
of Sciences' report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' and also to
describe the University of California's Science and Mathematics
Initiative, which is one of the models for the recommendation to create
a national program called ``10,000 teachers, 10 million minds.''
The report rightly and forcefully draws our attention to the
challenges we face in research and most especially in the education of
our youth in mathematics and science. In the past, America's colleges
and universities have played a vital role in stimulating the innovation
and creativity that drives economic development. This role of higher
education in the future is likely to be even greater as the world
becomes even more competitive.
As one of the Nation's most distinguished land-grant universities,
the University of California has always had a tradition of employing
its research and teaching capacity to address our state's and nation's
economic and social challenges. In the 19th century, those challenges
were in agriculture and mining (food and resources). Today,
universities must build our nation's capacity for innovation, with
greater urgency than ever before. Innovation in science and technology
is the engine that will drive the 21st century economy, and the
University of California is poised to play a major role in this effort.
Looking Ahead: Vision for Future of UC and California
My vision for how the University of California will do its part to
keep the U.S. and California competitive in the new global knowledge-
based economy builds on the land-grant research university's tripartite
mission of research, education, and public service. A simple way to
describe those three missions is:
<bullet> Research: Create new ideas.
<bullet> Education: Create new leaders and creators.
<bullet> Public service: Put these creations and people to
work to benefit all citizens.
We believe that in carrying out these three missions--through
research, education, and public service--the University must continue
to contribute, as it has done to such great effect in the past, to
California's ongoing achievement as one of the world's most creative
laboratories for new ideas and better lives for the entire Nation.
At UC, we have been undertaking new efforts at long-range thinking
and planning, trying to envision what the University should be in 2025
and what we need to do now to get there. That process has led to a
number of initiatives within the University to build on the advantages
we have as the Nation's largest research university with multiple
campuses and a multitude of institutional and disciplinary strengths.
My own vision for the future of the University of California--and
the State of California--focuses on three main efforts where we can
harness the promise and power of our 10 campuses as one university most
effectively. Those efforts are:
<bullet> RD&D Innovation: First, we will fuel innovation and
ramp up the State's economy by leading the Nation in RD&D--
research, development, and delivery of new products to end-
users for society's benefit.
<bullet> Strategic Global Alliances: Second, we are forging
strategic alliances with the best and brightest minds around
the globe to solve problems that confront all societies. In the
process, we will lure some of those best and brightest to the
University so they can work for the benefit of California and
the Nation.
<bullet> Improving K-12 Education, especially in Science and
Math: Third, we will enhance the quality of California's and
the Nation's future workforce by tackling the crisis in K-12
education--not just bemoaning it, but actually doing something
about it.
The Science and Mathematics Initiative (SMI) or ``Cal Teach'' is an
important piece of this last effort. We need many more science and
mathematics majors to choose teaching in K-12 schools as their ultimate
career. However, it is not the only piece. Public research universities
must do more to transform math and science teaching in ways that will
ensure future generations of Americans are offered educational
opportunities that exceed those of past generations.
In this testimony, I will further describe these three initiatives,
and I will point out which of the recommendations from The National
Academy of Sciences' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report and
the Chairman's legislation can help us in each of these efforts.
RD&D Innovation
We entered the era of research, development, and delivery on
September 11, 2001, when we watched first responders trying--and
failing--to communicate with each other at the World Trade Center. As a
techie, I knew we had the communications technology. But the fire crews
and the police and the rescue workers were never given that technology.
As UC President, I have vowed that this University will lead the
Nation in RD&D advancements. That leadership is centered in our four
California Institutes for Science and Innovation. They are changing the
way universities operate, and they represent a new algorithm for
university tech transfer.
Each Institute embodies ``the promise and power of our 10
campuses'' by linking two or more UC campuses with industry partners to
focus on an area with vast RD&D potential, like nanotechnology,
biotechnology, information technology, and telecommunications.
Each Institute is briefly described below.
<bullet> The California Institute for Quantitative Biomedical
Research (QB3): UC-San Francisco leads this partnership with
UC-Berkeley and UC-Santa Cruz. QB3 is developing new
technologies and new areas of research for drug discovery and
for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, arthritis, and other
diseases through the convergence of mathematics, engineering,
and physical sciences with biomedical and genome research.
<bullet> The California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI): UCLA
leads this partnership with UC-Santa Barbara. CNSI is creating
laboratories for research, education and technology development
in the emerging field of nanoscience--the study and design of
materials and functional machines at the level of individual
molecules and atoms.
<bullet> The California Institute for Telecommunications and
Information Technology (Calit2): UC-San Diego leads this
partnership with UC-Irvine that has built effective inter-
campus collaborations and new paradigms for performing multi-
disciplinary research and education. Calit2 is defining
worldwide and community-based networking scenarios to serve a
broad spectrum of RD&D areas and global societal needs.
<bullet> The Center for Information Technology Research in the
Interest of Society (CITRIS): UC-Berkeley leads this
partnership with UC-Davis, UC-Santa Cruz, and UC-Merced. CITRIS
is changing the way researchers collect, share, and utilize
data, and it will transform decision-making in government and
commerce by delivering new kinds of vital data for rapid
analyses to save lives and dollars. The original focus of this
research center was on six societal-scale applications of
information technology--energy efficiency, transportation,
earthquake preparedness, environmental monitoring, health care
and education--but it was recently expanded to include special
initiatives in Homeland Defense and Cultural Research.
In partnership with the State and with industry, including more
than 400 companies, the four Institutes engage UC's world-class faculty
directly with California companies in tackling large-scale issues
critical to California's economy and to its citizens' quality of life.
Information technology, telecommunications, nanotechnology, biology,
health care, traffic congestion, environmental management, homeland
security, and novel energy systems are among the areas of focus for new
research within these Institutes. The Institutes are taking ideas
beyond theory into practice, shortening the time to product development
and job creation.
On December 27, our RD&D mission received a huge boost with the
news of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Research and
Innovation Initiative. Governor Schwarzenegger proposed nearly $95
million in the State budget--$25 million from the general fund and $70
million from lease revenue bonds--for the four Institutes and for other
major UC projects that will boost our economy and preserve our
environment through RD&D of new innovations.
Specifically, the Governor's Budget proposed $30 million in lease
revenue bonds to the Helios Project, run by the University's Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory to create sustainable, carbon-neutral
sources of energy, including the next generation of super-efficient
solar energy technology that will help reduce greenhouse gases and oil
dependency.
It also included $40 million in lease revenue bonds for UC in the
event that one of its campuses won the global competition for British
Petroleum's $500 million grant to build and operate an Energy
Biosciences Institute. The Institute will focus on converting biomass
materials into fuels, converting fossil fuels to energy with less
environmental damage, and maximizing oil extraction from existing wells
in environmentally sensitive ways. February 1 brought more good news
with the announcement that UC-Berkeley and the Lawrence Berkeley
National Lab, in partnership with the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, did win this global competition. Their new venture has the
potential to revolutionize energy usage in this country.
I should emphasize here that, in all these undertakings, RD&D is
being carried out by faculty AND students. UC students learn to be
innovators by taking part in the creative process as students, both
graduate students and undergraduates. That is the best kind of
education you can give to a bright young person.
The National Academy of Sciences' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm''
Report/H.R. 363 recommendations that will help
research universities carry out RD&D:
I will not go into detail about each of the recommendations that is
now in H.R. 363, but let me note here that implementation of that
legislation would be of tremendous assistance in helping public
research universities like ours. Annual 10 percent increases in federal
support for peer-reviewed competitive research would help provide
needed stability to plan future research endeavors.
In particular, the University strongly supports the provision that
would designate a percentage of funding dedicated to high-risk, high-
payoff research projects. While undefined in the bill, the term ``high-
risk, high-payoff'' is widely understood and supported in the
scientific community. This approach generally refers to research that
has the goal of exploring concepts that have the potential for huge
impacts but that might also have a chance of failure.
Any successful enterprise that grows in size will tend to stick to
proven methods. However, as global competition increases, we need to
make sure the U.S. does not become overly complacent in how it funds
research. Encouraging the federal research funding agencies to support
cutting-edge research that pushes the boundaries of disciplines is a
wise long-term strategy. Inevitably, there will be many examples where
taking such chances does not pay off, but in the long run, just as
high-tech industry depends on venture capital to progress, we need to
create the resources for scientists to take risks that lead to major
advances in science and technology.
Similarly, we need to take risks on promising individuals in the
sciences. I strongly support the proposals to provide large awards to
the most promising researchers. This will ensure that some of the best
and brightest minds stay in academia long enough to make a difference
in the overall enterprise.
And of course, we strongly support more federal support for
research infrastructure--for facilities and specialized
instrumentation.
Strategic Global Alliances
I believe we must view the progress of other nations as an
opportunity for our own nation's development and not as a threat. We
must harness the best minds from different societies to tackle common
problems.
On the international front, the UC's push to forge strategic global
alliances is driven in large part by leaders from industry and
government who want California to maintain its competitive edge. You
don't do that by building walls and staying in your own yard. You do
that by being open to new ideas from people of diverse cultures and
different perspectives.
The University of California is expanding its global presence as
close as Canada and Mexico and as far away as China, India and Africa.
Other societies grapple with the same problems we do in public health,
energy and transportation, and the environment. Top universities in
those societies are putting their best minds to work on these problems.
Shouldn't we harness our best minds with theirs to tackle these
problems and create innovative solutions?
This concept has taken me to China twice to launch a ``10 + 10''
alliance of our 10 UC campuses and China's top 10 universities. On both
trips, I brought along at least two Chancellors and many campus
representatives.
I just returned from India where I was developing a ``UC-India
Initiative'' to expand research and educational collaboration with
academic, government, and industrial partners. The tour included a
special meeting with Indian President Abdul Kalam, who delivered the
keynote speech via high bandwidth streaming video at last fall's UC-
India Summit at Calit2 at UC-San Diego.
As with all our international alliances, the emphasis is on RD&D
innovation that crosses the disciplines in areas of vital importance to
both nations, areas like information technology, energy resources, and
public health.
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' recommendations related to
strategic global alliances
Although not specifically addressed in Chairman Gordon's
legislation, we also wish to express our support for recommendations in
the National Academy of Science's report, ``Rising Above the Gathering
Storm,'' that would facilitate entry of international students and
scholars to the United States. There is a significant and ongoing need
to facilitate institutions' efforts to attract and retain high-caliber
U.S. and foreign students and researchers. With growing competition
from other nations for international talent, the U.S. needs to make
changes to the current visa system in order to compete. The current
U.S. visa system increasingly prevents U.S. businesses, universities,
medical institutions, and research centers from competing for needed
talent.
Like many institutions around the country, UC has seen a decrease
in international enrollments, which are crucial at the graduate level.
In fall 2002, for example, UC enrolled 7,532 international graduate
students. In fall 2005, that figure declined to 6,988--a drop of 7.2
percent.
Improving K-12 Education
The University is moving forward in addressing shortcomings in K-12
education. This task may hold the greatest potential for economic and
societal impact, but in many ways, it may present our most difficult
challenges. In my travels throughout California to meet with
constituents, I have found this to be our most urgent problem by far.
Mathematics and science achievement in California is lagging, and the
ramifications for our state are alarming. Let me cite a few specifics:
<bullet> On the 2000 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), nearly half of California's eighth grade
students scored ``below basic'' in science and math.
<bullet> National testing data (Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study) reveal that California's
children are among the worst in the U.S. in their knowledge and
abilities in both mathematics and science. U.S. children are
falling further behind children of other countries in their
knowledge of and abilities in mathematics and science.
<bullet> Statewide, 25 percent to 35 percent of California's
science and mathematics teachers either have no credentials or
are not qualified, i.e., they have neither a major nor minor in
the subject area they are teaching. The situation is much worse
in lower performing schools where as many as 80 percent of
science and mathematics teachers are not qualified.
<bullet> The National Center for Education Statistics found in
its 2002 report that at least 60 percent of high school science
classes are taught by ``out-of-field'' teachers. In middle
school, the problem is even more acute.
<bullet> At present, nearly 25,000 teachers in California are
teaching with emergency credentials, meaning they do not meet
the current requirements in the federal No Child Left Behind
legislation.
<bullet> Projections indicate that more than 30 percent of
California's teacher workforce will be eligible to retire in
the next decade.
<bullet> For the first time in many years, California
experienced a decrease in the number of credentialed teachers
entering its workforce in 2005-06.
<bullet> This year, California has a shortage of more than
2,000 mathematics teachers, 1,000 life science teachers, and
1,000 physical science teachers.
<bullet> Little or no science is being taught in many of
California's K-5 classrooms.
The one experience that really brought this home to me in my
travels up and down the state was visiting entire schools and even
school districts that did not have a single qualified mathematics or
science teacher.
Having been in the sciences my whole career, I know first-hand that
great K-12 teachers are indispensable to the future scientific interest
and success of students.
Without any doubt, some of these problems are due to the shortage
of teachers with deep content knowledge in mathematics and science.
California's supply of mathematics and science teachers falls far below
the number needed. The state barely produces half of the necessary
credentialed teachers to cover the demand.
In May 2004, UC and California State University (CSU) entered into
a compact with Governor Schwarzenegger that offered us stability in
State funding in exchange for meeting certain state accountability
goals and addressing state needs. The compact called for a new UC
initiative to address the shortage of trained K-12 teachers in science
and math.
In May 2005, in consultation with Governor Schwarzenegger and
Chancellor Charles Reed of the CSU system, we launched a bold program.
UC made a commitment to quadruple the number of students trained to be
science and math teachers from 250 per year to 1,000 a year. We called
the program ``Cal Teach'' or the UC Science and Mathematics Initiative
(SMI). CSU committed to 1,500 science and math teachers a year for a
combined total of 2,500.
The basic elements of SMI as we envisioned it were:
<bullet> Recruiting UC students to be math and science
teachers from students who are majoring or considering majoring
in those fields.
<bullet> Providing these students the training they need by
drawing on the expertise of our faculty in those fields, both
in the disciplines and in advances in pedagogy specific to
science and math education.
<bullet> Offering financial incentives to retain these
students as teachers.
As this process has developed, two interesting things have happened
on the campuses. First, the SMI campus directors are deans in the
sciences, so they carry a lot of clout. They are committed to the
success of this program, and they are energized about it.
Second, we are seeing faculty in science and mathematics
departments team up with faculty in education departments. Now they are
collaborating on entirely new curricula for preparing science and math
undergraduates to be master teachers. Included with this testimony is
an example from UC-Berkeley of this new curricula, blending cutting-
edge content knowledge in the sciences, including field and lab
experiences, with distinctive new pedagogy specifically suited to
conveying this knowledge.
As the campuses develop these new curricula, and as they come back
together to pool their ideas, I predict we are going to see real magic
happen. Because your committee is considering a similar program for the
Nation, I want to include a significant amount of detail in the rest of
this testimony on what we have done to date.
As we provide this detail about our program, I think it is
important to remember that we need flexibility in implementation. SMI
at each of our campuses will look different to account for local campus
and regional circumstances.
UC's Unique Resources for Addressing the Teacher Deficit
As the Nation's largest public research university, the University
of California has an extraordinary array of intellectual and other
resources for addressing issues such as the achievement gap in K-12
education. I believe that no issue so commands the application of those
resources as does improvement in the achievement of our youth. Let me
add that I believe we must do everything we can to identify and
encourage K-12 student talent to study and work in the fields of
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
So what can a research university like UC bring to this issue?
<bullet> The University produces almost half of all the
students earning baccalaureate degrees in science and math in
California. Research universities tend to have higher
concentrations of students in the science and math disciplines.
<bullet> UC students constitute our state's highest achievers,
and they have the potential to make enormous contributions as
science and math teachers, as well as in all other fields.
<bullet> UC has a faculty unmatched in the depth and breadth
of their expertise in science and math. We can apply this
expertise in advancing the subject matter mastery of these
students as well as the skills and content knowledge of
teachers already in the field.
<bullet> Yet, in the past, the University and most other top
research universities have not tapped their potential for
attracting science and math students into the teaching force.
Addressing that issue energetically and effectively may be the
very best way that UC and peer institutions can contribute to
the improvement of public schools and their students.
So how are we proposing to organize these resources to address this
urgent problem?
SMI Model--The University
UC's response, working in partnership with K-12 schools, CSU
Chancellor Reed, Governor Schwarzenegger, the California Legislature,
and California industry leaders, has been to launch the SMI in Spring
2006 at the nine UC general campuses. The goal of the program is the
goal the Governor and I agreed to the year before--to quadruple the
number of math and science teachers the University produces from 250 in
2005-2006 to 1,000 by 2010-2011, as CSU doubles its output to 1,500 by
2010-2011. This is a bold challenge to our faculty, staff, and
students. But the crisis is real, and we must take dramatic action to
address it.
Quantity and Quality in the Teaching Force
Of course, quantity is only one of the goals of SMI. We also are
committed to improving the preparation of teachers in ways that will
result in superior teaching and learning, and that will attract some of
our most talented and high-achieving science and math majors into a
teaching career. Specifically, SMI is developing better methods for
preparing these students as science and math teachers so that they have
an extraordinary command of their discipline and more refined
pedagogical skills in their fields. UC will attract to the teaching
force more of its undergraduate majors in science, math or engineering,
and we are creating curricula that focus on newly developed teaching
techniques specifically geared to science or math learning.
UC is developing the SMI program in consultation with a broad
spectrum of stakeholders: faculty members, inter-segmental education
partners, industry leaders, foundations, and state and national
organizations specializing in science, math, engineering, technology
and teaching. We are building upon the Community Teaching Fellowships
in Mathematics and Science program, which began at UC-Berkeley over 20
years ago, as well as a model pioneered in 1997 at the University of
Texas, Austin, which has prepared hundreds of new math and science
teachers since its inception, in response to the same pressures we feel
in California today.
Program Growth and Development--First Steps
SMI is now in its second year of operation. UC campuses began by
establishing Resource Centers in their schools of sciences and
mathematics for advising, as well as for placement, student
recruitment, and coordination with schools. Making math and science
departments the locus of the program emphasizes the centrality of
subject matter mastery, and in the preparation of new teachers, it more
directly involves those faculty most attuned to the scientific ideas
and knowledge that our citizens should master. Concurrently, UC
education faculty are collaborating with scientists and mathematicians
in new ways to identify pedagogies appropriate to various disciplines
and students.
A second benefit of locating SMI in math and science units is that
this promotes student recruitment and clearly demonstrates the
interdisciplinary aspects of the program--learning science/math and
teaching techniques as a blended effort. Having the program in the
science and math departments demonstrates this is clearly right in the
place where the students ``live.''
We supplement the program recruitment with a ``field experience''
course, beginning at the freshman level, called CaT1 courses, where
students work in local schools under the supervision of mentor teachers
and meet regularly in small seminar groups to discuss experiences and
learn from one another. These courses bring potential teachers into
direct contact with schools and students immediately so they can
experience the exhilaration of guiding students in their field while
they experience the challenges of teaching and test their own
capacities. These CaT courses extend throughout the student's
undergraduate experience.
Our early research on the outcomes of this field experience course
has demonstrated that it has a pronounced effect on student
aspirations. Many intensify their commitment to teaching, and many find
that their interest deepens in various aspects of their own science and
math learning as they work with their students' learning patterns. And
some discover that teaching is not for them, which we know is
important.
Community College Component
During this past year, UC has also expanded SMI to the California
Community Colleges. Students who transfer from community college
campuses comprise about 30 percent of UC graduates and about two-thirds
of CSU graduates. Community college students who intend to transfer to
UC or CSU represent a rich source of future teachers for California's
schools since many return to their home communities after completing
undergraduate degrees.
The University began its SMI community college work with the
Foothill-De Anza Community College district, extending its first- and
second-year SMI courses to students who plan to transfer. This project
has since expanded to include 16 community colleges (five in southern
California, three in the Santa Barbara region, five in the Silicon
Valley area, and three in the Santa Cruz/Monterey Bay region). This
academic year, as many as 100 community college freshmen are
participating in a field experience at a local school accompanied by a
follow-up seminar at their home community college.
SMI-Second Year-Current Program Components and Organization
We are now well into our second year of operation, and the model is
still evolving. At Texas, UTeach originated on just one campus. At UC,
to help address the enormous needs of California, the program is being
developed simultaneously on all nine of our general campuses. Each UC
campus has a distinctive curriculum and a different set of local
schools and educational issues, so our various campuses provide an
excellent laboratory for testing different approaches to the goal of
increased teacher numbers and improvements in preparation. Some
campuses have developed education minors with a math or science
emphasis, and faculty from across the disciplines have collaborated to
develop math and science education courses. Common elements of the
model include:
<bullet> Development of new curricula, which combines cutting-
edge content knowledge in the sciences, including field and lab
experiences, with distinctive new pedagogy specifically suited
to conveying this knowledge.
<bullet> Student recruitment, focusing on freshmen and
community college transfers, but providing student entry at all
levels of the undergraduate program.
<bullet> Lower-division academic program elements that combine
field experiences (CaT 1, 2, and 3) with seminar participation
and ``Master Teacher'' supervision, encompassing as subject
matter California's standards-based instruction, learning
assessment tools, classroom management, diversity, and learning
theory.
<bullet> Upper-division program elements that form a bridge to
the credential program by building upon the early field
experiences and math and science subject matter preparation to
connect with the University or district internships.
<bullet> Alignment of subject matter preparation with
educational course work to assure prompt and timely completion
of an undergraduate degree, a preliminary teaching credential,
and a Master's degree in five years.
<bullet> Summer STEM institutes to develop distinctive
pedagogy for teaching math, biology, physics, chemistry, and
geosciences.
<bullet> Financial incentives for student participation.
There are a number of ``paths to teacher certification,'' and I am
including illustrations from two of our campuses, UC-Irvine and UC-
Santa Barbara, to display the wide variety of ways in which students
will earn certificates and the many different paths that students may
follow when they enter the SMI program--whether as a freshman, a
transfer, or a junior or senior at a UC campus.
These two patterns also illustrate graphically:
<bullet> the capacity for students to gain deep grounding in
the knowledge and methodology characteristic of a major in math
or science gained at a research university level;
<bullet> early field experience in the classroom, combined
with seminars for reflection and analysis of the field
experience; and,
<bullet> multiple entry points to the ``pathway'' at different
times in a student's academic career, and expeditious progress
to gaining teacher certification via a number of different
routes.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Enrollment in SMI
Initial student interest in SMI has been very enthusiastic.
Campuses made initial projections of enrollment in the CaT (seminar),
and in some cases, interest has considerably surpassed the estimates.
At the UC-Berkeley campus, the number of students enrolled in the
program far exceeded projections and greatly increased the number
previously headed for math/science teaching careers. Based on
experience to date, campus SMI directors anticipate an enrollment of
1,184 students in the second CaT (seminar), and they project that
science and math teachers matriculating from UC programs will reach 800
by 2010.
We are exploring many avenues to raise that figure to our goal of
1,000. To that end, we are focusing on the issues of recruitment and
retention. Possible strategies include:
<bullet> Increasing recruitment of community college freshman
students who plan to major in STEM fields and who will transfer
into UC STEM credentialing programs. These students represent a
rich vein of potential candidates.
<bullet> Creating pathways for ``career changers.''
<bullet> Developing on-line materials to enable non-STEM
credentialed teachers to prepare and pass subject-specific
exams in STEM fields.
<bullet> Integrating, where appropriate, the California
Subject Matter Projects (CSMP) in math and science, ISME, the
California State Summer School for Mathematics and Science
(COSMOS), Teacher Fellow program, and other STEM professional
development experiences to help prepare and retain STEM
teachers.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Student enrollment in SMI shows a roughly 2-to-1 ratio of women to
men, a welcome story for young women excelling in math and science. The
ethnicity of students participating in this program conforms very
closely to the ethnic distribution of UC's undergraduate population.
Our premise that students would enter the program at all academic
levels is proven true. The number of SMI students majoring in
mathematics and biology far exceed numbers in other majors. Demand for
physics teachers is somewhat lower than in other fields. Larger numbers
of future teachers of chemistry would be valuable.
Participating Schools
To date, nearly 1,000 student placements have occurred in schools
for field experiences. This process has involved 467 teachers and 174
schools in 41 districts. We believe this will have positive outcomes
for all who are participating. We are tracking the socioeconomic
characteristics and academic performance of schools where students are
placed, and to date, they represent a wide spectrum. And, because
students bring observations back to their university classes for
discussion, they are able to compare and contrast different experiences
from different sites.
What the University Has Learned Thus Far and How It Will Respond to
Evidence Collected as Program Develops--Research
and Learning Via SMI
SMI leadership consists of a consortium of campus SMI officials
headed by Dr. Fred Eiserling, Associate Science Dean and Professor of
Microbiology at UCLA. The group meets via teleconference once a month,
and members are in regular contact by e-mail. Campus Faculty Program
Directors and Academic Coordinators also confer by teleconference
biweekly and are actively sharing information on program progress.
SMI is being implemented at our nine general campuses as a system-
wide program, one that provides flexibility for each individual campus
to grow the program within its own unique environment and curriculum.
This is a highly unusual opportunity to test the program's basic tenets
in diverse settings. Similar teaching programs have been developed at
other universities, but none has encompassed the number and type of
institutions involved in this effort. Outcomes will provide a rich
source of insights for future work in this area.
As this work develops, implementation is being approached
deliberately as a project for study.
Data Collection and Research
UC is collecting data systematically on each step of the program,
including student interviews and close monitoring of each participant.
For this tracking, UC has developed an on-line ``My California Teach''
portal. The system:
<bullet> tracks all student participants, including hours in
the classroom and other activities;
<bullet> provides students the opportunity to assess the
usefulness of their own activities in class;
<bullet> provides students an on-line journal to write about
their experiences and to begin developing their teacher
professional portfolio;
<bullet> provides programmatic information and on-line advice
to students;
<bullet> tracks all K-12 teacher participation; and,
<bullet> pays students and teachers for in-class work.
This extensive data base will allow the University to track and
study a large number of teachers as they move through the pipeline over
a period of five years. Data will provide information to allow better
testing of hypotheses about teaching and teacher preparation, including
the effect of various types of field experiences and course work that
are newly developed for this effort.
In particular, UC will study the effects and effectiveness of field
experiences and the patterns of course work being offered via SMI.
Questions that will be studied include how field experiences impact
teacher preparation and how particular courses in major fields of math
and science and also in education affect the quality and number of
teacher aspirants and graduates.
Funding
SMI has attracted financial support from the public and private
sectors. Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature are now
funding the program at both UC and CSU. In 2005-06, the State provided
UC with $750,000, which was matched by $750,000 in University funds, to
support the initial infrastructure needed to implement the new
initiative. In 2006-07, the State provided an additional $375,000,
again matched by University funds, for a total of $2.25 million for the
program. These funds are being used to develop resource centers on UC
campuses to operate the program. Using a combination of State and
University funds, each campus resource center has at least $250,000 for
program operations.
In addition, The Regents of the University of California initially
secured pledges totaling $4,024,850 from 19 foundations and
corporations toward SMI.
The bulk of those funds came from two major underwriters: the Intel
Corporation, which pledged $2 million over four years in $500,000
increments, and SBC (now AT&T), which pledged $1 million over five
years. Since those original commitments, other funds have been pledged
to other campus sites, the largest being an endowed chair for over $2
million at UC-Irvine.
Private funding agents have expressed great interest in providing
support that will help attract and retain student engagement in the
program. They also are interested in supporting teachers who either
directly mentor these students or who serve as master teachers.
The University will need to secure support for intern-credentialed
teachers from states, school districts and other sources. UC also will
need to secure ongoing funding, public and private, to make the program
affordable for under-served populations. Working with a variety of
partners will be crucial to the program's ultimate success.
The Governor's budget also proposes funding 600 assumable loans for
SMI students, loans that would be forgiven in exchange for a teaching
commitment.
H.R. 362 would greatly assist programs such as SMI
The University supports federal legislation such as H.R. 362, which
would boost funding for federal competitive grant programs that support
higher education efforts to improve the development of K-12 math and
science teachers, as well as undergraduate STEM programs. H.R. 362
would seek to expand the SMI concept from California across the Nation,
and also to focus more broadly on other elements essential to improving
U.S. math and science education.
H.R. 362 is modeled on our original idea of having students
graduate in a science and math discipline and receive their credential
within four years. However, we are finding that this stipulation runs
counter to the goal of increasing the number of highly-qualified
teachers in science and math. Even many of our best students take
slightly more than four years to complete a science or math degree. SMI
does integrate education courses long before completion of the
Bachelor's degree and streamlines the credentialing process. However,
varying teacher licensure requirements, especially in California, mean
that additional post-Bachelor of Science degree training will be
needed.
We would like to see the legislation amended to delete reference to
a four-year completion period under the Robert Noyce Scholarship
Program. Instead, we hope for flexibility in creating integrated
programs that result in a Bachelor's or even a Master's degree and a
teaching credential or license. We want to reduce the time to obtain
both the degree and the license, but we need the flexibility because of
the varying teacher licensure requirements within and across each of
the 50 states.
Two UC campuses, Irvine and Los Angeles, are current recipients of
Noyce Scholarship Program funding, and at least two other campuses,
Riverside and Santa Cruz, are preparing to respond to the latest
request for proposals. Our campuses are collaborating with local school
districts and community colleges to provide support for future math and
science teachers. Continued access to these funds would help us
implement SMI and achieve our goal of 1,000 teachers by 2010.
In the Noyce Scholarship program, in years where appropriations
fall below $70 million, no more than 15 percent of appropriations may
be used for capacity-building activities. These include academic
courses, early field teaching experiences, and stipend programs. Our
campuses have indicated that this 15 percent cap hinders program
effectiveness, and we therefore request that the cap be removed from
the program.
Conclusion
Let me conclude by reiterating my gratitude to Chairman Gordon and
the Members of this committee for addressing an issue that is so
crucial to the future of the Nation. The University strongly supports
the recommendations of the National Academy of Science's report,
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' I feel certain that we need to
take bold action. As this testimony has charted, we have taken bold
action with SMI. In California, we were willing to take the necessary
steps to address the shortage of science and math teachers. As we build
SMI, we will find better ways to do this. As we refine this program, we
urge you to make sure that legislation provides the necessary
flexibility for national implementation, because conditions will vary
in different states and localities within states.
And we must recognize that one initiative is not enough. We need
more engagement across the board between our research universities and
our K-12 public schools. We need partnerships with community colleges,
state universities, private universities, business, and industry, as
well as State and Federal Government. The University of California has
the capacity to take a leadership role in improving K-12 student
learning and achievement. It is my belief that, as a land grant
university, we have the responsibility to do that. Our campuses have
the expertise to unlock the reasons why so many young people--the
future workforce and the future hope of this country--are not being
prepared to participate fully in the economic and civic life of our
country. I believe we can change that. I know you share my belief. I
thank you again for this opportunity to speak with you.
ATTACHMENT #1
BERKELEY CAL TEACH SUMMER INTENSIVE INSTITUTE
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH BERKELEY LAB
Berkeley Lab has offered to provide a summer institute for Cal
Teach students the summer following their Junior Year.
The Berkeley Cal Teach Program goals for the summer institute are
to:
<bullet> Deepen student's content knowledge
<bullet> Develop student's pedagogical skills to transfer the
summer experience into the classroom.
Berkeley Lab developed and implemented a ten week summer
undergraduate Pre-service Teacher Intensive Research Institute in 2002
to 2005. The first of the ten weeks included orientation to the lab,
safety training, a course on journal writing and tours of research
facilities. The core experience of the institute consisted of four two-
week consecutive sessions. Each session consisted of a small group of
five to six students preparing for an experiment, collecting and
analyzing data, developing a science presentation and creating a lesson
translating the experience to the classroom. A lead Berkeley Lab
scientist typically taught the students scientific principles needed
for the experiment in the morning. An experienced teacher joined the
students as a coach. Afternoons were spent in the lab setting with the
lead scientist and his or her group. Examples of two week sessions
include, micro fingerprint analysis at the ALS Infrared beam line, A
neutron activation analysis with irradiation at a nuclear reactor,
building and testing a cosmic ray coincidence detector, and gamma ray
analysis of terrestrial radio activities as related to anti-terrorism.
The final week students prepared for their final presentations and
reports. Students received a stipend of $400/week and were expected to
work 40 hours each week.
Students all participated in:
<bullet> Weekly Friday afternoon seminar on translating
experience to the classroom
<bullet> Subject matter knowledge self assessment
<bullet> Job Hazards Questionnaire and Safety Training
<bullet> Journal/Research notebook
<bullet> Short scientific paper writing assignment with peer
review
<bullet> Weekly one on one meeting with a Master Teacher(s)
<bullet> Weekly ``Summer Lecture Series'' at noon and Lab
tours
Weekly seminars were held on Friday afternoon. Topics included:
<bullet> Favorite lessons from in-service teachers
<bullet> Vernier probe-ware workshop
<bullet> Model inquiry based lessons and instructional
materials design (Lawrence Hall of Science)
<bullet> National Board Certification requirements presented
by a NBC teacher
<bullet> Issues for New Teachers
<bullet> Scientific Inquiry and Inquiry Based Teaching and
Learning
<bullet> Professional Recognition and Grant Opportunities
Outline for Berkeley Cal Teach Summer Intensive Research Institute
Design Criteria
<bullet> 50 students per summer
<bullet> eight- to ten-week program
<bullet> Exposure to scientists and engineers at UCB and
Berkeley Lab
<bullet> Access to and use of scientific resources of the UCB
and Berkeley Lab
<bullet> Small group learning opportunities (5 students per
group)
Goals
<bullet> Deepen content knowledge for each student in four
areas--Earth, life, physical science and engineering (prepare
for breadth on the CSET Test)
<bullet> Transfer content knowledge to classroom setting
<bullet> Develop understanding of scientific inquiry and
engineering design and construction
<bullet> Encourage Understanding of the interconnection and
relationship between science disciplines
<bullet> Introduce frontier science and technology topics
<bullet> Instill view of science teaching as integral to the
scientific and engineering enterprise
Strategies (experiences common to all students)
<bullet> Orientation to research, safety, journaling and
course requirements.
<bullet> Four two-week research activities, one in earth,
life, physical science and engineering (72 hours for each two-
week session)
<bullet> Weekly seminars (four hours/wk) with master teacher
and in-service teachers on translating the research experience
to the classroom.
<bullet> Daily mentoring by scientist and resource teacher
with expertise in subject area (e.g., an experienced physical
science teacher would participate with the students in the two
week research experience led by scientist or engineer as
content coach.)
<bullet> Berkeley Cal Teach student subject matter knowledge
assessments based on high school student standards and
expectations.
<bullet> Science short paper to show understanding of research
programs.
<bullet> Power Point presentation to teacher and scientists
colleagues based on summer experience.
<bullet> Standards-based science lesson based on summer
experience.
Supporting Structures
<bullet> Program administrator responsible for organizing,
monitoring, documenting and evaluating the summer intensive
research institute.
<bullet> A master teacher for each strand, earth, life,
physical science and engineering.
<bullet> A teacher coach for each group of 10 students.
<bullet> Four lead research investigators each willing to
dedicate two weeks in the summer to teach and lead students in
research for each group of five students (one in Earth, life,
physical science and engineering for each group of five
students).
<bullet> $4,000 of stipend funds for each student.
<bullet> Program administrative funds.
<bullet> Advanced workshops for lead investigators to assist
them in developing learning objectives and resource materials.
Feasibility and cost.
With 50 students it is possible that in any one week 10 groups of
five students would be working with a lead investigator. We expect that
the program coordinator could find five of these investigators at
Berkeley Lab and five on campus.
The total annual cost of the program would be about $350K. Of this
amount $200K for Berkeley Cal Teach Student Stipends and $100K for 10
in-service teacher coaches. $25K for the Teacher Coordinator salary,
$12K for the Master Teacher and $13K for materials, supplies and other
expenses.
Biography for Robert C. Dynes
Robert C. Dynes is the 18th President of the University of
California, a post he has held since October 2, 2003. A first-
generation college graduate and a distinguished physicist, President
Dynes served as the sixth Chancellor of UC's San Diego campus from 1996
to 2003. He came to UC-San Diego in 1990 after a 22-year career at AT&T
Bell Laboratories, where he served as Department Head of semiconductor
and material physics research and Director of chemical physics
research. His numerous scientific honors include the 1990 Fritz London
Award in Low Temperature Physics and his election to the National
Academy of Sciences in 1989.
Robert C. Dynes also is a Professor of physics at UC-Berkeley,
where he directs a laboratory that focuses on superconductivity and
incorporates postdoctoral and graduate students in physics and
materials science as well as undergraduates. As a Professor of physics
at UC-San Diego, he founded an interdisciplinary laboratory where
chemists, electrical engineers, and private industry researchers
investigated the properties of metals, semiconductors, and
superconductors. He subsequently became Chairman of the Physics
Department and then Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
President Dynes is active in the national scientific arena. He is a
fellow of the American Physical Society, the Canadian Institute for
Advanced Research, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He
serves on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Council on
Competitiveness. He is a Fellow of the California Council on Science
and Technology and as a member of the Business-Higher Education Forum.
He serves on the California Commission for Jobs and Economic Growth and
the Governor's Nurse Education Initiative Task Force, and is a member
of the Oakland CEO Council.
A native of London, Ontario, Canada, and a naturalized United
States citizen, Robert C. Dynes holds a Bachelor's degree in
mathematics and physics and an honorary doctor of laws degree from the
University of Western Ontario and Master's and doctorate degrees in
physics and an honorary doctor of science degree from McMaster
University. He also holds an honorary doctorate from L'Universite de
Montreal.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Dynes. We are going to be
marking this bill, H.R. 362, in two weeks, so we would very
much like to hear your recommendations during that period, so
that if we can perfect this, we certainly want to.
Mr. Dynes. Thank you.
Chairman Gordon. Now, our next witness is Craig Barrett. He
is Chairman of the Board of Intel Corporation. He also served
on the National Academies committee that wrote the Gathering
Storm report. Before joining Intel, Mr. Barrett, or Dr. Barrett
served on the Stanford University faculty, and is currently the
Chairman of the National Academies of Engineering.
Thank you, Dr. Barrett.
STATEMENT OF DR. CRAIG R. BARRETT, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, INTEL
CORPORATION
Mr. Barrett. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hall, other Members of the
Committee, I would like to first say that I am in violent
agreement with the three commentaries from my right, even
though Dr. Dynes represents the University of California, and I
am a Stanford graduate. That shows what cooperative spirit can
do.
I applaud the recognition by the Science Committee of the
challenges the United States faces, and the introduction of
H.R. 362 and H.R. 363, to promote higher quality and quantity
of math and science teachers in K-12, and to promote increased
federal support of basic research and our research
universities, I think are critical to U.S. competitiveness
going forward.
I noticed that in H.R. 362, one aspect of that bill is, in
fact, to strengthen the Noyce Scholarship Program, which was
authorized under the NSF Authorization Act of 2002, and named
after Bob Noyce, who is a founder of Intel Corporation. I had
the opportunity to work closely with Bob through most of my
professional career at Intel, and I think he is, perhaps,
emblematic of what the committee is pondering, and what the
witnesses before you are talking about today.
Bob Noyce was an exceptional man, and when he was an
undergraduate at Grinnell University, his interest in
technology was really sparked by a physics professor, who was
very engaging, but also had contacts with Bell Laboratories,
and was able to get a few of the first transistors that Bill
Shockley and his group produced, bringing those back to
Grinnell and working with Bob Noyce, the physics professor was
able to get Bob intrigued in this topic.
Bob subsequently left Grinnell, went to MIT, received his
doctorate, emigrated to the West, went to work at Shockley
Transistor initially, but left there, founded Fairchild
Semiconductor, left there, and founded Intel Corporation in
1968. Parenthetically, Bob would have been a Nobel recipient,
aside from his unfortunate death in 1990, before Jack Kilby at
TI, co-inventor of the transistor with Bob, was awarded the
Nobel laureate.
I think Bob's career is emblematic. An engaged student, an
engaged professor, probing the edge of technology in
association with a topflight research laboratory, also probing
the edge of technology. Combining those three things together
really is what promotes U.S. competitiveness and innovation. It
is the sort of thing we have taken for granted years and years,
which is now becoming challenged as the world becomes a much
smaller place, and other countries are copying our leadership
activities.
By the way, if you want to see some wonderful examples of
innovation, I might invite any of you who are interested to the
Intel Science Talent Search finals, which are here in
Washington at the Reagan Building tonight. You will see 40 of
the brightest high school kids in the world, all of their
research projects makes my Ph.D. dissertation look like child's
play.
But there are wonderful examples of innovation still in the
United States. There are wonderful research universities still
in the United States, but we need to do more. Rising Above the
Gathering Storm was published about 18 months ago. Since then,
not much has happened, although we have increased the R&D
budget in some of the basic research activities this year, and
we are grateful, and we think that is a great first step. H.R.
362 and H.R. 363 have the opportunity to take that much
further.
We have been advocating, both at Intel and the high-tech
community, for some time, the things necessary to be
competitive in today's knowledge-based world: a wonderful K-12
education system, especially in mathematics and science; a
university system that prepares the talent for the next
generation; federal support of basic research, which is really
the seed corn for the ideas for the next generation of
products, goods, and services, and companies; a patent system
which is fair, and promotes invention in the United States; a
tax system which promotes investment in innovation in the
United States. All of these things are necessary for us to
succeed. The two bills we are talking about today are a good
first start in this particular area.
I would leave you with one other thought. I have heard
people comment sometimes that this is just another sky is
falling routine. In the 1980s, many of us complained about
Japanese companies, and the potential competition from Japan.
If you recall, Japan emphasized quality and manufacturing, and
required the entire United States manufacturing industry to
accommodate those two trends in order to compete effectively
with Japan. We did so. Since that time, the rest of the world
has recognized that it is not a manufacturing future, it is an
innovation future. And they have seen what we have done well,
and they are copying that.
And the challenge for us is to recognize that they are
copying what we did well for the last several decades. Our
challenge is to do what is necessary to be successful for the
next several decades. H.R. 362 and H.R. 363 are a good first
step in that direction, and should be applauded.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Barrett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Craig R. Barrett
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today before
the Committee to discuss the broad challenges facing the U.S. economy
from the new dynamics of global competition. I am pleased to add my
voice in support for your initiatives, H.R. 362 and H.R. 363, which
build upon prior work done in this Committee in the vital areas of K-12
teacher preparation in math and science (H.R. 362), and increased
funding for basic research in the physical sciences conducted through
the programs of the National Science Foundation, the Department of
Energy, NASA, NIST, and the Department of Defense (H.R. 363).
I note that one of the key components of H.R. 362 is strengthening
the impact of the Noyce scholarship program, established by the NSF
Authorization Act of 2002, to create incentives for colleges and
universities to improve the training of STEM teachers and increase
scholarships provided for science, math and engineering majors who
pursue teaching credentials.
I worked closely with Bob Noyce for many years and want to reflect
briefly upon his life and experience, and his contributions to
innovation in America, which are emblematic of what it is all of us
here on this panel are trying to communicate in the strongest possible
terms.
Bob Noyce thrived in the environment of learning created by a
superb and dedicated Physics Professor at his alma mater, Grinnell
College in Iowa. That professor had obtained two of the very first
transistors produced by William Shockley and his team at Bell Labs
through his relationship with the President of Bell Labs. Noyce became
enthusiastic about this new field of research, and furthered his
education at MIT, emigrated to California, and went to work for
Shockley Semiconductors. Later of course, he went on to be one of the
founders of Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel Corporation, and
acknowledged as one of the co-inventors of the integrated circuit along
with Jack Kilby of TI.
Here's the point: a good teacher, a research lab, an engaged
student--the resources that are critical to innovation, the creation of
new technologies, and new industries. America has always taken for
granted that these foundations of innovation will be there, providing
the basis for American economic success.
But we can no longer take those things for granted, which is why
the Innovation Agenda announced by the new Democrat leadership in the
House, the President's American Competitiveness Initiative, and your
legislation, are so important.
The Gathering Storm report has now been out for about 18 months.
The proclamation we released just before this hearing is another
attempt to focus the Congress on the need for action. We've had enough
reports--perhaps now that elections have passed, Congress can get down
to business. Your bills are important first steps, in education and
research. The recently approved, substantial FY '07 funding increases
for NSF, NIST, and DOE represent a critical down payment on the need
for expanded research in the physical sciences, and I thank our
Democrat leadership in Congress, particularly Speaker Pelosi, for
making that happen.
Intel has been pushing hard for these things for many years, long
before the Gathering Storm report. All the pieces of the innovation
system have to work right together--
<bullet> K-12 education, with good teachers well prepared in
math, science, and engineering
<bullet> University research and teaching programs that build
talent for the future
<bullet> Government-funded basic research that provides seed
corn for new technologies
<bullet> Ability to hire and retain the highly talented
foreign students who study in the U.S.
<bullet> a strong, balanced patent system that produces
quality patents and fair results in the courts
<bullet> A tax system that fosters investment in applied
research, and creation of new manufacturing capabilities in
America.
Those are the keys to long-term American economic success. And it
is, I think, indisputable that we have allowed these important
foundations of innovation to erode.
<bullet> We have come close to having critical research
facilities--such as the Brookhaven heavy ion collider--close.
<bullet> We have had close calls on funding for the Focus
Center Research Program, which is key to expanding the
frontiers of knowledge in semiconductor manufacturing.
<bullet> And university graduate programs are threatened for
lack of research funds and U.S. students.
Some say ``we've heard this before--Japan was going to overtake us
in the 80's.'' And this is the most important point, one I hope all
Members of the Committee will take away from this hearing.
In the 80's, the challenge was quality in manufacturing. We rose to
that challenge in the decades of the 80's and 90's. Today, however, the
challenge is knowledge creation--and which countries will be the
leaders in discovery and speeding discoveries into the marketplace. The
rest of the world has caught on to our strengths--and is imitating what
we have done right for the past century.
The real question before us today is, will we do it right in the
next century?
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Chairman Gordon. Thank you very much, Dr. Barrett.
Next, we have Dr. Neal Lane, a Malcolm Gillis University
Professor at Rice University, and Senior Fellow at the James
Baker Institute for Public Policy. Dr. Lane is a former
Director of the National Science Foundation and Director of the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Dr. Lane
also chaperoned a two week trip that former Chairman Jim
Sensenbrenner and I took to the South Pole. I sometimes wonder
whether that was a science experiment, just having us together
for two weeks, but I am--and we are glad you are here.
So, thank you, Dr. Lane.
STATEMENT OF DR. NEAL LANE, MALCOLM GILLIS UNIVERSITY
PROFESSOR, AND SENIOR FELLOW OF THE JAMES A. BAKER III
INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY, RICE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Lane. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking
Member and fellow Texan, Ralph Hall, Members of the Committee.
I also want to thank you for your support, in the effort
the NSF was making at that time to secure the funds to rebuild
the South Pole Research Station, which I think has happily come
to pass. It takes a while to build things at the South Pole. We
greatly appreciate that. That was very important for science
and for the Nation.
Thank you, also, for inviting me to join this very
distinguished panel to address a matter of considerable
urgency, as the Gathering Storm report, I think, made quite
clear. And that report put forward some bold, and I think very
reasonable specific actions, and I applaud you, Mr. Chairman,
and your fellow co-sponsors, for legislation, House Bill 362
and 363, which will move much of that bipartisan agenda along.
And I say that not on behalf of the science community, but
rather, out of concern for my four grandchildren, aged four to
sixteen, and their happiness and their well-being in the Nation
that they will inherit. Our generation, happily, has enjoyed
the fruits of six decades of considerable public and private
investment in research, much of it carried out in our
universities, which produce cutting edge science discovery,
path-breaking technologies, and a science and engineering
workforce second to none, including many talented men and women
who have come here from other parts of the world. Thank God we
invited them to come.
But in recent years, the U.S. has been reluctant to make
the kind of long-term investments necessary to secure a bright
future for Americans. We seem to have other priorities. My
grandchildren and their generation will inherit a different
America, and they think, perhaps, a bit worn-out or used-up
America, and that doesn't seem fair, somehow.
I was privileged to work for President Bill Clinton, who
was fond of saying there is nothing wrong with America that
cannot be cured by what is right with America, and indeed,
there are things that we can do, and we can do them now, to
assure our young people the future they deserve. We should not
fail them.
So, Mr. Chairman, that then brings me to the specific
legislation you have put forward to address some of these
matters. In H.R. 363, you authorize substantial increases for
basic research in the physical and mathematical sciences and
engineering for the National Science Foundation, Department of
Energy's Office of Science, NIST, NASA, and the Department of
Defense. These agencies have supported excellent research, much
of it in universities. Increasing funding for their research
programs will pay big dividends in the future, as it has done
in the past.
NSF has the broadest mission of these agencies, to promote
progress in all areas of science, mathematics, and engineering;
and studies in social, behavioral, and economic sciences can be
just as relevant as the physical sciences to the process of
innovation and American industrial competitiveness, by helping
us understand people and organizations. NSF should be given the
flexibility to set its priorities among all its directorates
and programs.
In addition to these agencies, I believe your bill should
also include NOAA, which in a fundamental way, is also relevant
to innovation and competitiveness. NOAA supports much of the
research on weather and climate change, and its National
Weather Service applies the latest science and observations,
including data and weather satellites, to make weather
forecasts. Accurate forecasts can save lives, and they can save
money. Katrina cost us well over $120 billion and immeasurable
human costs. These costs are likely to be higher in the future.
Funding for NOAA should be increased, and its planned
cutbacks in university support should be reversed. The same is
true for NASA. Furthermore, NASA, the agency with the
capability to design and launch satellites, should not be
allowed to define away its responsibility by dropping Earth
observations from its mission statement.
Now, turning to your second bill, H.R. 362. I want to
commend the committee and you, Mr. Chairman, for your
leadership in moving forward to address the serious problem of
K-12 science education and math education. We will not be able
to address the workforce need without improving our schools and
teaching in those schools.
In your letter, Mr. Chairman, you asked me specifically to
address the appropriateness of the proposed role of the
National Science Foundation in administering the science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics programs contained in
H.R. 362. So, let me give you three reasons, Mr. Chairman, why
I consider NSF to be the right agency for this important task.
First, NSF has decades of experience working with school
districts and teachers, for example, through the much-heralded
Summer Institutes, such as the ones you propose. Department of
Energy is also in a good position to organize excellent teacher
institutes. Second, NSF has funded much of the pedagogical
research that has been done in this country, and can, I
believe, best connect the products of that research with the
teachers and the classrooms. Third, NSF has a close
relationship with most of the Nation's researchers in the
physical sciences and engineering, and colleges and
universities where our science and math teachers get their
education, and can best influence the quality of teacher
education. And I should add a fourth, namely, that the NSF
program uses competitive peer review to select only the most
meritorious proposals for funding.
Mr. Chairman, this committee has long been a bipartisan
voice of reason, for advocacy for high standards in research
and education, and in the defense of integrity of science, and
I thank you for that, all of you, and I congratulate you for
moving forward with this important legislation.
I have one last request, Mr. Chairman, something I would
like to see the committee put on its future agenda, and that is
to study how the whole federal science and technology apparatus
works, and how government-wide research priorities are actually
set in science, engineering, and education. And the NIH, that
has seen flat budgets for four years running, should be a part
of that discussion. And I recognize this committee has an
oversight responsibility for many agencies, including NIH. I
would like the Committee to address the question, in our
current system, is the whole really greater than the parts? I
personally believe America can do better, our grandkids deserve
better, and given the urgent tone of the Gathering Storm
report, we may not have all that much time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lane follows:]
Prepared Statement of Neal Lane
Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member (and fellow Texan) Ralph Hall,
Members of the Committee:
Thank you for inviting me to testify today in this important
hearing ``Science and Technology Leadership in the 21st Century Global
Economy,'' which deals with a matter of considerable urgency.
This committee has long been a champion for U.S. science and
technology and research and education. It has been a bipartisan ``voice
of reason'' in Washington. I particularly appreciated the guidance and
support this committee gave me when I was NSF Director and during my
time as Director of OSTP. It is always a pleasure to appear before you.
I also feel very honored to be part of today's distinguished panel.
Norm Augustine, who chaired the committee that wrote the National
Academies' report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' has been
ringing alarm bells throughout this town and the Nation about the
enormous challenges our country faces in this century. The findings in
that report are frightening and the recommendations are both bold and
compelling. I join many others who believe that there is great urgency
in putting those recommendations into action.
And I applaud you, Mr. Chairman, and your fellow co-sponsors of
legislation (H.R. 362 and H.R. 363) to move much of that agenda along
by authorizing significant growth in the research budgets of several
agencies and funding for several innovative programs to improve the
teaching of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in
this country.
I might also mention that the ``Gathering Storm'' report has gotten
the attention of many in my state of Texas. The Academy of Medicine,
Engineering, and Science of Texas (TAMEST) has, with the encouragement
of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, taken on the task of determining how
the education recommendations of the report might be implemented at the
State level. I suspect other states are doing the same.
Earlier, I used the word ``urgency.'' So, let me tell you why I
believe the Congress should waste no time in moving this and other
relevant legislation along. And, I ask your indulgence to let me
personalize my testimony. Since the Chairman has talked about his five-
year-old daughter, expressing some concerns similar to my own, I hope
you will indulge me as I talk about my four grandchildren, Jessica,
Matthew, Allia, and Alex, ages four to 17.
Over the past 60 years, my generation--and the baby boomers who
came behind us--have enjoyed the fruits of considerable public and
private investment in research, much of it in universities, where
millions of bright young men and women have learned how to think, how
to discover and invent--how to turn knowledge into wealth, jobs, and a
standard of living for Americans that is the envy of the world.
No less important, as a part of this success, were the thousands of
men and women who came to America from other parts of the globe to
obtain their education in our universities. And many of them stayed and
became a critical component of the most highly skilled science,
engineering and technical workforce in the world. Thank God we welcomed
them to our communities.
Well, the baby-boomer scientists and engineers are beginning to
retire; and the pipeline does not have sufficient numbers to replace
them. Furthermore, fewer of the brightest young people from other parts
of the world are choosing to study and make their careers in America.
They are finding excellent opportunities elsewhere.
These past six decades have been a golden age for America, in part
due to our leadership in science and technology. But, looking to the
future, things do not look so golden. Much has changed in recent
decades. And many, if not most, of the factors that enabled the United
States to be so successful no longer apply.
The ``Gathering Storm'' report presents frightening statistics and
logical implications that should be a ``wake up'' call to all
Americans.
My grandchildren, and your grandchildren and children, are
wondering how their lives will compare to the lives we have enjoyed. I
think they are concluding that they may not have it so good.
Their generations are looking at a very different world than the
one I saw as a naive physics student in the 1960's.
When I was a teenager, we didn't worry about the energy supply. It
seemed to be endless. Well, today, we realize that it is not.
When I was a teenager, we couldn't imagine that humans could be
changing the climate, and along with it, the weather for future
generations. Well, today we realize that the energy we use and the fuel
we burn are changing the climate. And our concerns grow more serious
with each passing day.
When I was a teenager, it seemed that the United States would
always be the unrivaled economic power on the globe. Well, today, we
realize that we could well lose that position. In many ways, the
handwriting is on the Great Wall.
And I think it would never have occurred to us that our performance
in school would rank well down the list of nations, by almost any
measure you could name.
So, my grandchildren face enormous challenges. But, the news is not
all bad. There are things we can do right now to help--and it would be
irresponsible not to do them.
The reality, of course, is that there is no simple solution, no
magic bullet, as the ``Gathering Storm'' report points out. Progress
will require a number of difficult strategic decisions and investments
of taxpayers' money. It will take vision, political leadership, perhaps
even courage. My hunch, however, is that the American people know that
we're in big trouble, and they are willing to do their part, provided
their government tells them the truth and puts forward sensible plans.
Fortunately--and it is a big plus--we have the strong institutions
needed to implement the recommendations in that report and contained in
your proposed legislation.
We have outstanding state and private colleges and universities all
across the country that collectively make up what is by far the
strongest system of higher education in the world. And one of the
principal reasons for this success is decades of federal investment in
research and higher education. I do not believe that these institutions
can remain strong if that investment is allowed to continue to slide
downward.
And we have many outstanding federal agencies, which, given the
resources, flexibility and effective leadership can do their part.
So, Mr. Chairman, that brings me to the specific legislation you
have put forward to address some of these matters. In H.R. 363, you
authorize increases of 10 percent per year (for five years) for basic
research in the physical and mathematical sciences and engineering for
NSF, DOE's Office of Science, NIST, NASA and DOD with special emphasis
given to: early career development, integration of research and
education, interdisciplinary research, and infrastructure enhancement.
In the case of NSF, you also authorize increased funding to promote
research on the process of innovation and teaching inventiveness, which
would involve NSF's social sciences and educational research programs.
I want to state unequivocally that if this bill passes and funds
are appropriated for these important efforts, and provided the agencies
are given flexibility in implementing them, America's future
competitive position in the world will look much brighter than it does
today. Our grandkids should be pleased.
Let me comment, specifically, on NSF, DOE/OS and NIST. What do
these three agencies have in common? In a word ``excellence'':
<bullet> Excellence, in the research they support (all have
garnered Nobel Prizes);
<bullet> Excellence in the quality of their programs and
staff; and
<bullet> Excellence in their contributions to advancing the
Nation's position of leadership in science and technology over
the past half century.
In the case of DOE, the agency has the mission and wherewithal to
connect the research results of the researchers it supports with the
future carbon-free energy and fuel needs, as well as the security, of
our country.
In the case of NIST, the agency has the mission and wherewithal to
provide U.S. industry: (a) with appropriate support to bring high-risk
emerging technologies closer to market and (b) well researched and
tested industrial standards that reflect the results of excellent
research and the latest technological innovations.
In the case of the NSF, the agency has the relationship with our
institutions of higher education to effectively integrate research and
education to deliver new knowledge at the frontiers of science and
engineering and tomorrow's technically trained workforce so vital for
the future of the Nation.
Your bill also addresses DOD and NASA. I believe it should also
include NOAA.
DOD has, in the past, been a prime investor in basic research.
Indeed defense agencies invented the process of competitive peer review
that is the hallmark of excellence in research. In recent times,
however, defense priorities have shifted to short-term mission-specific
goals. Your legislation sends a strong signal that this situation
should be reversed.
NASA has made extraordinary contributions to science in such fields
as astronomy, astrophysics, space, planetary, and Earth science,
including satellite observations of the Earth's atmosphere, land and
sea. The recent shift in NASA priorities has placed science well down
the list in order to make room for an aggressive drive to go back to
the Moon, and perhaps beyond. Whether returning to the Moon is a good
idea or not, sacrificing critically important science to do it clearly
is unwise.
That brings me to one more issue I would like the Committee to
consider--how one understands and frames innovation and
competitiveness. It is in this context that I mention NOAA.
One of the major costs of doing business is weather and weather-
related events--storms (hurricanes and tornadoes), blizzards, floods,
droughts, and other disruptive acts of nature. We already suffer
billions of dollars a year in losses due to weather events. Hurricane
Katrina cost well over $120 billion and immeasurable human loss. These
financial and human costs could be considerably reduced with more
accurate and timely forecasts. The management of Jet Blue could
probably attest to that need based on the problems they and their
customers suffered during the ice storms of Valentine's Day last month.
Furthermore, global warming and climate change will alter the
patterns of the past and may lead to more frequent and more disastrous
events. We need the research to improve our understanding of climate
and weather, provide better forecasts, as well as invent the
technologies to cope with the impacts.
In addition to the research supported by NSF and DOE's Office of
Science, the work of NOAA and NASA are central to our understanding of
climate and weather. NOAA, in particular, the National Weather Service,
has the responsibility to produce official forecasts, and NOAA experts
need the observational data and computer modeling capability to this
well.
NASA is the agency with the capability to design and launch the
satellites that provide much of that observational data. It is
incomprehensible to me that NASA would remove ``Earth observations''
from its mission statement at a time when we are facing staggering
future weather-related costs and when our weather satellites are aging
and the plans to replace them are not going well.
It is also disturbing that both NASA and NOAA are cutting back on
their extramural research support, where the competitive process of
peer review can be used to select the most meritorious and promising
ideas. Moreover, the kind of research these agencies support (for
example, the geosciences, or climate science) in universities involves
students in complex problem solving that trains them to work in
interdisciplinary teams. This is precisely the kind of technical
workforce industry says they need. Cutting back on university support
in these disciplines does not bode well for the future.
The recently released National Academies' report Earth Science and
Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and
Beyond raised alarm bells about our deteriorating system of weather and
climate observations and ability to protect our nation's citizens and
businesses from natural disasters. The report has received an enormous
amount of attention.
Both NOAA and NASA's science and Earth observation programs will
need your support for the additional funding required to meet these
critical societal needs, as well as your continued protection of those
agencies from earmarks that in the past have made it hard for them to
do their jobs.
Before I leave the topic of federal support for research, I would
be remiss if I did not mention that many federal agencies have
important research programs that deserve attention and increased
support. Even though NIH is not strictly under the jurisdiction of this
committee, it is important to note that its budget has been essentially
flat for four years running. That can't be good public policy.
Now, turning to your second bill (H.R. 362), I want to commend the
Committee--and you, Mr. Chairman for your leadership--in moving forward
to address the serious problem this country has in K-12 education.
Your bill, H.R. 362, addresses the critical need to improve the
quality of the teaching of science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) in our schools, colleges and universities. The
programs you authorize with this legislation are important steps to
take as the Nation deals with this enormous educational challenge. The
bill should be strongly supported by all Members of Congress.
Mr, Chairman, in your letter you asked me to specifically address
the appropriateness of the proposed role of the National Science
Foundation in administering the science, technology, engineering and
mathematics education programs contained in H.R. 362.
Let me give three reasons why I consider that to be the right
decision:
<bullet> First, NSF has decades of experience working with
school districts and teachers, for example, through much
heralded summer institutes such as the ones you propose. (I
cannot count the number of occasions when teachers came up to
me and said the most important thing that happened to them
during their early teaching years was the NSF summer science
institutes.)
<bullet> Second, over the years, NSF has funded much of the
pedagogical research that has been done in this country. Only
by getting the researchers, themselves, into contact with the
schools and teachers will it be possible to apply what has been
learned to improve teaching and learning.
<bullet> Third, NFS (and DOE's science program) have a close
relationship with most of the researchers in the physical
sciences and engineering in colleges and universities where our
science and math teachers get their education. Given the green
light and the funding, these agencies, working with
universities and colleges, can dramatically improve the
education (and re-training) of future math and science
teachers.
<bullet> And, I should add a fourth: namely, that the NSF and
DOE's science program use a process of competitive peer review
to select only the most meritorious proposals for funding. They
keep the standards high. And I want to emphasize that I am not
criticizing the Department of Education, which has an excellent
staff and a hard job to do. But it is a different job. They
have neither the experience nor the staff to take on the role
of NSF and DOE's Office of Science.
In summary, I congratulate the Committee for moving forward with
this important legislation and want to express my appreciation for
holding this hearing and allowing me to share my views.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Biography for Neal Lane
Dr. Neal Lane is the Malcolm Gillis University Professor at Rice
University. He also holds appointments as Senior Fellow of the James A.
Baker III Institute for Public Policy, where he is engaged in matters
of science and technology policy, and in the Department of Physics and
Astronomy.
Prior to returning to Rice University, Dr. Lane served in the
Federal Government as Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy, from August 1998 to January 2001, and as Director of
the National Science Foundation (NSF) and member (ex officio) of the
National Science Board, from October 1993 to August 1998.
Before becoming the NSF Director, Dr. Lane was Provost and
Professor of Physics at Rice University in Houston, Texas, a position
he had held since 1986. He first came to Rice in 1966, when he joined
the Department of Physics as an assistant professor. In 1972, he became
Professor of Physics and Space Physics and Astronomy. He left Rice from
mid-1984 to 1986 to serve as Chancellor of the University of Colorado
at Colorado Springs. In addition, from 1979 to 1980, while on leave
from Rice, he worked at the NSF as Director of the Division of Physics.
Widely regarded as a distinguished scientist and educator, Dr.
Lane's many writings and presentations include topics in theoretical
atomic and molecular physics and science and technology policy. Early
in his career he received the W. Alton Jones Graduate Fellowship and
held an NSF Doctoral Fellowship (University of Oklahoma), an NSF Post-
Doctoral Fellowship (while in residence at Queen's University, Belfast,
Northern Ireland) and an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Fellowship (at Rice
University and on research leave at Oxford University). He earned Phi
Beta Kappa honors in 1960 and was inducted into Sigma Xi National
Research Society in 1964, serving as its National President in 1993. He
served as Visiting Fellow at the Joint Institute for Laboratory
Astrophysics in 1965-66 and 1975-76. While a Professor at Rice, he was
two-time recipient of the University's George R. Brown Prize for
Superior Teaching. Dr. Lane has received numerous prizes, awards,
including the AAAS Philip Hauge Abelson Award, the AAAS William D.
Carey Award, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers President's
Award, the American Chemical Society Public Service Award, the American
Astronomical Society /American Mathematical Society/American Physical
Society Public Service Award, and many honorary degrees.
Through his work with scientific and professional organizations and
his participation on review and advisory committees for federal and
State agencies, Dr. Lane has contributed to public service throughout
his career. He is a fellow of the American Physical Society, the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences (member of its governing
council), the American Association for Advancement of Science, the
Association for Women in Science and a member of the American
Association of Physics Teachers. He serves on several boards and
advisory committees.
Born in Oklahoma City in 1938, Dr. Lane earned his B.S., M.S., and
Ph.D. degrees in physics from the University of Oklahoma. He is married
to Joni Sue Lane and has two children, Christy Saydjari and John Lane,
and four grandchildren, Allia and Alex Saydjari, and Matthew and
Jessica Lane.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you very much, Dr. Lane.
Interesting that you mentioned that. We are in a period of
scarce resources or limited resources, and I have been
concerned, whether it is the National Labs, or different
agencies that are maybe trying to do the same thing, are we
really focusing our money best? And I think that does need to
be an area of review. I don't want to micromanage, but we do
want to get our best bang for the buck, and I think we need to
find out where we can get our best synergy. And we will be
having that oversight hearing in the future.
Now, we have Ms. Deborah Wince-Smith, who is President of
the Council of Competitiveness. She was the former Assistant
Secretary of Technology Policy in the Department of Commerce,
and served as an Assistant Director at the Office of Science
and Technology Policy.
Welcome, Ms. Wince-Smith.
STATEMENT OF MS. DEBORAH L. WINCE-SMITH, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON
COMPETITIVENESS
Ms. Wince-Smith. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hall, Members
of the Committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to
appear before you today on the critical issues of U.S.
competitiveness, the skills of all Americans, and ensuring that
our nation continues to invest in R&D at the forefront of
knowledge.
Since the Council on Competitiveness issued its report,
Innovate America, in December 2004, there has been a drumbeat
for action on a national innovation and competitiveness agenda,
with the National Academies' Gathering Storm report and the
work of the Business Roundtable as an example. We talk about
innovation being multi-disciplinary, and I will say that all of
these reports really have taken the best ideas, and come
together, really, in a very coordinated way now, to push this
through as a very important national priority.
I might just mention that this morning, I attended
Secretary Paulson's summit that he has underway on
competitiveness of capital markets, and Warren Buffett and Jeff
Immelt, and Chairman Greenspan were all talking about the
importance of having U.S. leadership in capital markets, access
to liquidity, everything that fuels our innovation. And what
was very interesting as the discussion unfolded; the three
issues that came to the top of the agenda were the importance
of our math and science education, the need for systemic
immigration reform, and the importance of investing in R&D at
the frontier.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to really thank you and the
Members of this committee for keeping the pressure on Congress
to really look at competitiveness legislation as a whole. And I
know that while the private sector is doing many, many
important things at the end of the day, Congress and the
Administration must act as if we are going to continue to
ensure that our children have a legacy of prosperity in the
years to come.
And the Council is very much in favor of H.R. 362 and H.R.
363. I have submitted a written statement for the record, and
what I really wanted to do this afternoon is just very briefly
focus your attention on four very powerful data points from the
Council's recently released Competitiveness Index: Where
America Stands. This is a quantitative and qualitative look at
the state of the U.S. economy vis-a-vis our global competition,
and the trends in the future.
[Chart]
The first chart that I want to show you is the importance
of small and medium-sized businesses. These are our job
drivers, our job creators for the future. This really shows
that over the last two decades, 80 percent of the total net new
jobs in this country have come from small and medium-sized
firms. The entrepreneurial engine is what is going to drive our
future. We know that our large global corporations are global
enterprises, they are optimizing their investments, their
search for talent, their R&D, all in global supply chains. And
this adds tremendous value to the U.S. economy, but in terms of
job creation, it is the entrepreneurial economy that will drive
our future, and they will be the game changing innovators, just
as Bob Noyce some years ago exemplified the entrepreneur
creating a global enterprise such as Intel. So, clearly, STEM
education and increased investment in basic research are the
key drivers for entrepreneurial business development. These
will be the assets on which our entrepreneurs will build the
businesses of the future.
Access to risk capital, seamless technology transfer, and
accelerated deployment, and enhancing our collaboration between
business, academia, and our National Laboratories, are really
the essential building blocks that also have to be improved if
we are going to capitalize on these investments in basic
science, and the people that will make all of this happen.
[Chart]
The second chart I want to show you is how higher order
skills are the skills of the future. The investments that we
are talking about through these two pieces of legislation are
really going to be the investments to develop the skills that
are going to be important as we go forward in this 21st Century
economy. Routine manual and cognitive skills, any job that can
be digitized, those jobs have declined in importance, and it is
going to be complex communication, expert thinking, judgment,
intuition, and idea generation capacity that will create the
innovation future for America. And again, STEM education is at
the heart of all the jobs in the American economy.
And I will also mention that it is these types of skills
and higher order thinking that are going to be instrumental in
increasing the intangible assets on which our economy also
depends. Our work has shown that the value of intangible assets
now is about $1 trillion, equaling that of tangible investment,
and again, that relates to STEM education, and investment in
R&D.
[Chart]
This next chart on high wage, fast growth occupations
clearly shows that again, we have to have higher levels of
education, and we have to have education that combines STEM
education, literacy and engineering skills, with language,
humanities, and social sciences, so that Americans will have
the skills that drive creativity. The thing that is really
important on this chart is to look at the big blue circles,
because the big blue circles are showing high value, high skill
jobs with high value income for American citizens.
So, these three charts really paint a very powerful picture
on why the legislation before this committee is so important,
and why we must focus on the skills America needs to fuel our
entrepreneurial economy.
[Chart]
And let me conclude with one last chart. This may seem a
conundrum, but it is actually very, very interesting, that in
the United States we have tremendous job churn. It highlights
that our economy destroys nearly as many jobs as it creates
each year, about 30 million. That is right, 30 million jobs are
destroyed each year and about the same are created. This is
creative destruction, and it is a fact of life in the American
economy. It is a testament to the incredible ability of our
country to destroy and create jobs at an amazing pace, as
innovation permeates throughout the economy.
Other countries find themselves locked and saddled with
rigid, inflexible labor markets and high unemployment. Now,
this job churn also is a source of tremendous anxiety, as each
lost job represents an individual who is faced with uncertainty
for his or her future, regarding health care benefits, and
pension. But what it shows is the likelihood of this person
getting another job, and that likelihood is high, but it is
only going to be high in the future if they have the skills,
and the skills, again, depend on our STEM education, our
investments in R&D, accelerating our entrepreneurship, and
ensuring that we have a society that has high performance
correlation learning.
So, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I urge you
to take action on these bills and others in the panoply of
competitiveness legislation. And I commend you for your
leadership. And I am pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wince-Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Deborah L. Wince-Smith
Good afternoon, I'm Deborah Wince-Smith, the President of the
Council on Competitiveness. Thank you, Chairman Gordon, Congressman
Hall, and the Members of the Committee, for this opportunity to present
testimony on the importance of implementing a national competitiveness
agenda, and, in particular, increasing funding for long-term basic
research, supporting America's high performance computing capability,
and enhancing science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
education.
The Council on Competitiveness is the only group of corporate CEOs,
university presidents and labor leaders committed to the future
prosperity of all Americans and enhanced U.S. competitiveness in the
global economy through the creation of high-value economic activity in
the United States. Starting at the top with our Chairman, Chad
Holliday, the CEO of DuPont, our members recognize that the world has
changed and America's current place as an economic superpower is not
guaranteed. In this new conceptual economy, ideas and technological
development will not be enough to ensure our continued success. We must
find innovative ways to apply new knowledge, work across disciplines
and add high value jobs. We cannot and should not seek to compete for
low wage, low cost opportunities--that time has passed us by. An
underpinning of strong STEM education will be critical across a myriad
of occupations if Americans are going to thrive in this new economy.
Yet despite spending more per student than almost any other country,
American students perform poorly in relation to their international
peers in math and science.
Since the Council on Competitiveness issued its private sector call
for action, Innovate America, in December 2004, there has been a steady
drum beat for action on U.S. competitiveness, punctuated by similar
proposals from the National Academies, congressional leadership, the
Administration and the Nation's governors. All of these efforts have
benefited from broad support by the private sector, including the
personal involvement of many of the country's top CEOs and university
presidents, as evidenced by the panel here today. At a similar hearing
last year, I commented that I believed there was a critical confluence
of support for action on competitiveness, if only policy-makers would
take advantage and act. Some important progress has been made, but
there remains much to be done. We are at a critical juncture as a
nation and as a people. A scatter shot approach to innovation and
competitiveness risks accomplishing little, while a comprehensive
innovation agenda can set the country on a foundation for long-term
success that will help ensure the next generation looks back with
pride--as we do to the men and women on whose backs and minds our
current prosperity rests.
THE CONCEPTUAL ECONOMY
At the beginning of the 21st century, America stands at the dawn of
a conceptual economy in which insight, imagination and ingenuity
determine competitive advantage and value creation. To succeed in this
hyper-competitive, fast-paced global economy, we cannot, nor should we
want to, compete on low wages, commodity products, standard services,
and routine science and technology development. As other nations build
sophisticated technical capabilities, excellence in science and
technology alone will not ensure success.
The United States must focus on its strengths--on what it means to
be American. We must innovate and embrace the opportunities of the
rapidly emerging, high-value conceptual economy. It is increasingly
clear that the most important competition is being fought in the arena
of ideas, learning, and delivering new kinds of value to the
marketplace. Looking back at the tremendous growth of America's gross
domestic product over the past half century, information and ideas have
been equally, if not more, important than materials and manpower to
sustaining America's economy.
In the conceptual economy, our success will be measured by our
ability to transform industries, reshape markets old and new, stay on
the leading-edge of technology creation, and fuse diverse knowledge,
information and technology. This new global economy will be much
different than the industrial economy of the 20th century, or even the
information economy of the past two decades. The conceptual economy
will favor nations that reach globally for markets, and those who
embrace different cultures and absorb their diversity of ideas into the
innovation process. It will be fueled by the fusion of different
technical and creative fields, and thrive on scholarship, creativity,
artistry, and leading edge thinking. The investments, infrastructure
and talent necessary for Americans to succeed in this new global
paradigm require public and private sector action. We cannot assume our
past success will guarantee future prosperity.
As my colleagues with me at the table know well, the private sector
can and will continue to look inward to how it can best compete in
today's global economy. We also can sound the alarm--and we have tried
to do that to the best of our ability--but it is Congress and the
Administration that must act if Americans are going to continue to see
a rising standard of living in the 21st century.
I want to call your attention to four data points from the
Council's recently released Competitiveness Index: Where America
Stands, which is a comprehensive look at the state of the U.S. economy
vis-a-vis our international competition.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
This first chart highlights the importance of small and medium-
sized businesses as job creators in the United States. This is not to
say that large corporations do not generate value to the U.S. economy--
they unquestionably do--but job creation is coming from smaller
enterprises and the power of entrepreneurship. Central to the ongoing
success of these smaller firms is to leverage and accelerate the
entrepreneurial spirit that so defines the American way of life; and
that has been so central to our country's history of discovery,
creativity and transformational value. Clearly enhanced STEM education
and increased investment in basic science research are key drivers of
small business development and key assets for entrepreneurs, but they
must be supported by an innovation infrastructure that enables value
and job creation and market penetration. Access to capital, seamless
technology transfer, mentoring and strategic business/academic
collaboration are essential building blocks that must be constantly
improved to take full advantage of our nation's investments in science
and people this committee is considering.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
And make no mistake; those investments are exactly what is needed,
as this next chart demonstrates. Routine manual and cognitive skills
have declined in importance since the late seventies, while complex
communication and expert thinking have increased markedly. Again, the
importance of STEM education as a grounding for so many jobs in the
American economy is emphasized by this data. This chart is a visual
representation of the challenges policy-makers face in helping to
prepare Americans for the jobs that employers are seeking to fill over
the next two, five or 10 years. The skills that are valued are not
those of the 20th century assembly line or the commoditized textile
factory and that is not where the comparative advantage or opportunity
lies either.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The blue circles in the upper right hand corner of this chart are
the circles that matter, as they represent high wage, high growth jobs.
Here is why what this committee is working on is so important and why I
and my colleagues at the table are so committed to leading this
imperative. High wage, high growth jobs require higher skills! That's
STEM education. That's language skills and humanities and social
sciences. That's entrepreneurship. The orange circles are yesterday's
economy. Will those jobs disappear or become irrelevant to our day-to-
day lives? No. But we do a disservice to the American people if we
spend our time fighting for the orange circles, when a world of
opportunity is within our grasp if we harness the potential of
innovation to power our future.
Taken together, these three charts paint a very clear picture as to
why this committee and the Congress in general must focus on U.S.
competitiveness and the skills Americans will need to compete and
prosper.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The job churn chart highlights that the U.S. economy destroys
nearly as many jobs as it creates each year--about 30 million. Talk
about creative destruction. Churn is a fact of life in the American
economy. It is healthy. It is a testament to the incredible ability of
our country to destroy and create jobs at an amazing pace as innovation
permeates throughout the economy. Other countries are saddled with
rigid, inflexible labor markets and high unemployment.
But, job churn also is the source of tremendous anxiety as each
lost job represents an individual who is now faced with uncertainty for
his or her future. Uncertainty regarding health care benefits, and
retirement. The chart shows that the likelihood of this person getting
another job is very high, but it does not say how long it might take
and whether it will pay as well. This again should reinforce the
Committee's focus on STEM education as critically important, because it
recognizes that the American people will be better prepared to handle
these transitions, if they have the foundation to engage in lifelong
learning and higher order skills necessary for the jobs of the future.
THE INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM
The Innovation Agenda outlined in the Council's Innovate America
report and echoed by the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report, the
President's American Competitiveness Initiative, the Democratic
Innovation Agenda, and many other important initiatives, recognized
that there are three foundational platforms or building blocks to
innovation--Talent, Investment and Infrastructure. This comprehensive,
or ecosystem, approach to innovation best ensures a return on
investment for the American people in the form of jobs, social benefits
and wealth creation.
Talent addresses our human capital needs including building the
base of scientists and engineers by enhancing K-16 STEM education,
pioneering an extensive portable graduate fellowship program and
attracting the best and the brightest students and workers from around
the world by reforming our immigration system. We also must empower
workers to succeed in the global economy by reforming federal job
training programs to enable them to have the flexibility to target the
skills needed for the jobs of the 21st century.
Investment in innovation addresses the balance between risk and
reward and the incentives--or disincentives--for people and
institutions to invest in innovation. Priorities here should be to
revitalize frontier and multi-disciplinary research by increasing
federal funding of basic research, making the R&D Tax credit permanent
and seeking to catalyze Innovation Hot SpotsTM at regional locations
across the United States through public-private partnerships explicitly
focused on supporting regional innovation.
Investing in innovation also demands adherence to two fundamental
principles: a willingness to accept risk and a willingness to wait for
the return on investment. Although America's entrepreneurial economy
understands and embraces these principles, the much larger financial
mainstream may be now moving in the opposite direction. Investment time
horizons are getting shorter. Long-term innovation strategies remain
under-valued. And business executives in publicly held companies now
face a regulatory climate that is blurring the line between business
risk and legal risk. Intangible assets, which represent an increasingly
large percentage of the value of corporations, still don't show up on
the balance sheet, reducing incentives to invest in creating more
value. How we measure innovation remains a challenge without a
solution.
Innovation infrastructure covers not only the physical
infrastructure that supports innovation but also the political,
regulatory and legal infrastructure that facilitates innovative
behavior. We must create a 21st century intellectual property regime,
strengthen America's advanced manufacturing capacity and put in place a
national, coordinated innovation policy with representatives from the
public and private sector.
It is with great optimism that as I testify here today that a
tremendous amount of progress has been made in the past two years, but
we are still far from the finish line.
A GOOD BEGINNING
The Council--under the leadership of its Chairman, Chad Holliday,
its Vice Chairmen, Wayne Clough, President of Georgia Tech and Doug
McCarron, President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners; and with the support of Craig Barrett, Intel Chairman, and
William Brody, President of Johns Hopkins, who head our National
Innovation Leadership Council--have invested substantial time and
energy to ensure that the recommendations of Innovate America and
subsequent reports do not gather dust on the shelf. Thanks to the
strong leadership of Members of Congress and many people in the
Administration we can look back today at several encouraging steps that
have been taken to better position the United States to compete in the
21st century global economy.
<bullet> With the passage of the FY2007 Continuing Resolution
in February 2007, agencies including the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Standards and
Technology (NIST) and the Department of Energy's Office of
Science received significant funding increases for long-term
basic research--a critical underpinning of an innovation
economy. The FY 2008 budget request continues this important
trend, though attention must be paid to other key research
agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and the
Department of Defense. Research has become inherently multi-
disciplinary, so while an argument can be made that the
physical sciences have been under funded over the past several
years, any ``catch-up'' funding should not come at the expense
of the life sciences.
<bullet> Late in 2006, the Congress passed and the President
signed another extension of the R&D Tax credit that included
various enhancements to the credit. This important step,
particularly the enhancement, which updated the credit to
better reflect marketplace realities, should be built upon in
2007 and the credit should be extended permanently.
<bullet> Both in the House and Senate, a number of bills have
been introduced that would implement various pieces of the
innovation/competitiveness agenda. Many of these bills have
received strong bipartisan support and this committee has
already acted on a number of them.
<bullet> Consistent with the call in Innovate America for
better integration between workforce and economic development
programs, in early 2006, the Department of Labor awarded $195
million in grants to thirteen regions across the country
through its Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic
Development (WIRED) program. The WIRED program embraces the
Council's focus on innovation as the key to regional economic
development and will foster much needed coordination among
regional workforces and economic development programs. The
WIRED program has already expanded beyond the original thirteen
regions and is becoming a model for regional economic
development and coordination. The Council serves as a technical
advisor to the Department on this program.
<bullet> Just last week, the Patent Office announced that it
is ``starting a pilot project that will not only post patent
applications on the Web and invite comments but also use a
community rating system designed to push the most respected
comments to the top of the file, for serious consideration by
the agency's examiners. A first for the Federal Government, the
system resembles the one used by Wikipedia, the popular user-
created online encyclopedia.'' The Council's report called for
the patent system to be a resource for innovation and while
time will tell how successful it might be, this announcement is
an important first step in opening up the process to greater
transparency and collaboration.
<bullet> Enhancing U.S. competitiveness is not solely a
federal issue and states play a pivotal role. They are better
positioned to integrate strategies and respond to many of the
challenges facing Americans. In July of 2006, Governor Janet
Napolitano, the Chair of the National Governors Association
(NGA), announced that the NGA would make innovation in the
states its priority for her term as Chair. This recognition
that states and regions are the cauldrons of creativity in the
United States has laid the groundwork for important policy and
regulatory changes to be put in place that will catalyze
collaboration, enhance STEM education and better align
workforce training with workforce opportunity. The Council is
pleased to be a partner in this effort.
THE ROAD AHEAD
Now is no time to rest on the laurels of past accomplishments--many
of which require continued action or even the short-term benefit could
be lost. There is clearly broad private sector support for a
comprehensive innovation package as evidenced by the Innovation
Proclamation delivered to the Hill today with over 270 organizations
represented. In addition to those actions detailed above that must be
taken to maintain the progress made to date, Congress must address the
following areas:
<bullet> A central focus of this hearing is the importance of
enhancing STEM education in the United States and a cornucopia
of proposals have been put forward to address this critical
issue. Without delving into the details of any specific
proposal, it is a top priority of the Council's 180 private
sector leaders that action be taken in this area by federal,
State and local leaders. Enhancing STEM education is critical
to the ability of our citizens to compete globally and to fuel
the creativity that will drive American competitiveness in the
future. Solutions must include improving teacher quality
through better training and performance-based incentives.
<bullet> Entrepreneurship and risk taking are the bedrocks of
American creativity and small business development. Policy-
makers must take into consideration the impact regulations, tax
policy and liability concerns have on innovation and the
creative process. Anecdotally, we are seeing foreign capital
markets attracting interest for new IPOs. Liability, health
care and exorbitant tort costs that now exceed our national
investment in research and development continue to be a concern
for many small- and medium-sized businesses, as the costs to
them are disproportionably higher. And in parallel, we place
significant costs burdens on U.S. global enterprises conducting
high value commercial activity, thereby impacting decision-
making regarding investing in next generation manufacturing
facilities and operations in the U.S.
<bullet> While federal programs like WIRED are making strides
in coordinating workforce and economic development priorities,
much remains to be done in aligning federal and State resources
with the 21st century needs of the American worker. Workforce
resources are sub optimized and not addressing regional
realities. Proposals to provide greater flexibility and focus
in the various workforce programs have been put forward by the
Administration, Members in the House and Senate and by the
National Governors Association, but to date, no final action
has been taken.
<bullet> While most of the attention on immigration reform has
been placed on the issue of what to do with illegal immigrants,
there are several critically important provisions under
consideration that would encourage more legal immigrants with
advanced degrees in science and engineering to stay and work in
America. We often say that America attracts the best and
brightest to study and work here, but that assumption is being
tested around the world as research parks spring up in China
and top-notch universities open in India. Once the appropriate
background checks are completed, we should staple a green card
to the diplomas of those immigrants who acquire advanced
degrees in STEM disciplines and commit to work in America for a
significant period of time.
<bullet> Lastly, the Committee's continued support of high-
performance computing is critical to American competitiveness
and I encourage you to ensure that our National Labs have these
critical tools. Supercomputing is an important ingredient in
our nation's innovation infrastructure and a linchpin to the
country's competitiveness. It reduces time to discovery and
accelerates the innovation process, and has become essential to
the business survival of many of our most competitive
companies. Unfortunately, Council research has shown that we
lack the talent we need to take full advantage of these
innovation accelerating tools. . .both within our national labs
and within the private sector. Advancing the math and science
capabilities of today's students will be vital to ensuring that
we, as a nation, are able to take full advantage of these
nationals assets.
In conclusion, I want to urge the Committee and the Congress to
take action this year on a comprehensive competitiveness agenda that at
a minimum includes increased research funding, enhanced STEM education,
high skilled immigration reform and permanent tax incentives for
investment in research and development. State and local governments and
leaders in the private sector must do their part as well, but setting
the agenda for the Nation lies with the Congress and the
Administration. One path takes us down the road of opportunity and
continued global economic leadership while the other is a path down
which we follow rather than lead and opportunity passes us by.
Thank you.
Biography for Deborah L. Wince-Smith
Deborah L. Wince-Smith is the innovative force behind a premiere
group of CEOs, university presidents and labor leaders committed to
driving U.S. competitiveness. Most notably, she has spearheaded a
national campaign that made innovation a top-tier national policy
issue. She is recognized in the global business community as a ``go
to'' person for strategic counsel, as exemplified by her recent
appointment to the Board of Directors of the NASDAQ Stock Market.
As President of the Council on Competitiveness, Wince-Smith's
expertise in technology policy, economic development and global
competition is frequently sought after by government, industry and news
media.
She has more than 20 years of experience as a senior government
official, including as Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy in the
Department of Commerce during the first Bush administration. Most
recently, she was appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed
by the U.S. Senate to serve as a member of the Oversight Board of the
Internal Revenue Service. During the course of her career, she has
testified before several committees of the U.S. House and Senate. She
also serves on or chairs four Cabinet-level advisory groups, including
a task force on nuclear energy for the Secretary of Energy.
Following her government tenure, Wince-Smith became active in
governance of various national scientific labs. She sits on the Board
of Governors for Argonne National Laboratory and the University of
California President's Council for Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratories. Wince-Smith was also a consultant for several
Fortune 100 companies. Her practice focused on global competitiveness,
R&D partnerships and international development agreements.
She has appeared on several international broadcast networks,
including CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, and Canada's Report on Business
Television. She is regularly interviewed by major newspapers like The
Washington Post and Wall Street Journal as an expert on economic,
science and technology policy. Her opinion pieces have appeared in
publications such as The Hill, a leading newspaper that covers
Congress, and she is a regular contributor to Innovation Magazine.
Throughout her career she has been in the vanguard of the global
competitiveness debate. During the Reagan Administration, Wince-Smith
served as the Assistant Director for International Affairs and
Competitiveness in the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy. She designed and negotiated the landmark 1988 Head of
Government Science Technology Agreement with Japan and developed
President Reagan's 1988 Competitiveness Initiative. She later directed
President George H.W. Bush's National Technology Initiative. She began
her career as a Program Director for the National Science Foundation
from 1976-1984 where she managed U.S. research programs with Eastern
European countries and U.S. universities.
Wince-Smith earned a degree in classical archaeology and graduated
Magna cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Vassar College. She earned her
Master's degree from King's College, Cambridge University. In December
2006 she received an honorary Doctor of Humanities degree from Michigan
State University. She volunteers her time on the Board of Directors of
the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology
and is a trustee of the National Inventors Hall of Fame.
Discussion
Chairman Gordon. Thank you so much, Ms. Wince-Smith, and
thank all of the panelists for a very informative hearing here.
As I told you earlier, when I introduced H.R. 362 and H.R.
363, it wasn't a Democratic bill or a Republican bill. I wanted
to make it a reflection of Rising Above the Gathering Storm,
because I wanted to get something done.
So, I have a couple of questions that I don't want you to
think of in a partisan context, but we are at a time now of
limited resources, so we have got to get this right. It is
going to be hard to come back next year and say we want some
more money. And I am very pleased that, with Sherry Boehlert
and Vern Ehlers, they have really prodded the Administration to
come forth with the President's American Competitiveness
agenda, and I am glad that he has.
But there are a couple of differences, and I just want to
explore those today. First, in my bills, I put the emphasis on
teacher education, trying to improve the capabilities of the
new and in-service math teachers. The President has put 70
percent of his money in K-12 math curriculum. Now, again, I am
not really--I don't want to put you in an awkward position of
taking sides, and I hope there are not really sides here. We
are all trying to get to the same place, but I would like to
hear from Dr. Barrett and Mr. Augustine on why, in your report,
you put such an emphasis on teacher math/science education.
Mr. Augustine. I will begin, and Dr. Barrett can correct
me. The National Academies study made 20 specific
recommendations with regard to actions to be taken, as you
know.
Our number one priority was to produce more teachers with
degrees in mathematics and science. The reason for our emphasis
on math and science teachers was fairly straightforward. Math
and science teachers are where the leverage is. Every one of
them affects a large number of students every year, and during
the course of a career, there is a multiplier effect.
We all have experience in which a teacher has changed our
lives. It certainly was true of me. So, our basic emphasis was
on teaching, and we think there is great room for improvement,
because today, the chance that a child will have a teacher with
a degree or certificate in math and science is very small. We
take a physical education teacher, and tell them to teach
physics. They are intimidated by it, they don't enjoy it. That
is very contagious to the children.
Furthermore, anecdotal evidence shows that young people who
are turned off by math and science are turned off by the fourth
grade, and so, the early teachers are critically important, as
well as the ones along the way. That is why we rated it as
number one on our list.
Mr. Barrett. People have been teaching mathematics for
centuries. When it is done well, it is done well with a good
teacher. It is as simple as that. A qualified, accredited
teacher who is motivated can motivate young children to
succeed. Organizations like the National Science Foundation
have many studies in place on the pedagogy of how to do this.
There are all sorts of studies on how to do this.
The fundamental thing is, unless you have a good, qualified
teacher, it doesn't work, so the National Academies, I think,
recognize that, and I think all of us have recognized that in
our past. We have all, somewhere in our educational process,
been impacted by a good teacher, who has driven us to exceed
our own personal expectations on what we can accomplish. That
is what we want for every child in the area of mathematics and
science.
Good teachers come first. They are the magic in the
classroom.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Barrett. You know, I was
stunned the other day to learn that over 50 percent of the math
teachers in this country have neither a major nor a
certification to teach math, and over 90 percent of the
physical science teachers have neither a certification nor a
major.
Now, I am going to abbreviate my, I am going to stop here.
Let me tell you what is going on, members, if you would just
hold your horses just a moment. We are getting ready to have
the last votes, I think there are going to be three votes, the
last votes of the day. I am sure some of the old-timers on our
committee have unfortunately run into this before. What I would
like to do is stop my questioning, let Ranking Member Hall have
an opportunity to ask a question, because we have 15 minutes.
After that, if the panel members that can stay, if you
would adjourn to our cloakroom, there is some, I think some
sandwiches that could hold you over, and all of the members
that can come back, we would appreciate you coming back.
Mr. Hall, you are recognized.
Mr. Hall. For one minute.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. My time is up. I want to extend the Chairman's
questions about capabilities and who ought to teach it, and
what area you should begin in, and I surely agree with your
answers there.
I will ask all of you, I will ask Mrs. Wince-Smith, so much
of what we are talking about today boils down just to simple
need to strengthen education, and put an emphasis on math and
science. But the solution doesn't seem to be as easy as
producing more people with math and science degrees because we
know in countries like China and in countries like India, they
are meeting world demand with probably equally well educated,
but a lot of lower cost workers.
How do we compete with this, and what can our workforce
offer in terms of added value to offset skilled but lower cost
foreign workers, because that is a major problem. It is a major
problem to pricing our goods, after we have taught them how to
use the goods or produce the goods.
Mrs. Wince-Smith, do you have a comment on that? And I will
ask it to anyone.
Ms. Wince-Smith. Well, my comment would be that we aren't
going to be able to compete on commoditized work, and the
extent to which we will succeed is when we can build higher
value around products and services, that can command a premium
globally. And that is why we have to really get a handle on it
ensuring that all of our children, no matter what fields they
go into, have quantitative skills, and have the math and
science that is infusing virtually all activities. It is not
necessarily that they will be research scientists, but in order
to perform in any area, you have to have these quantitative
skills.
And one issue that I would say that I think needs to be out
on the table, and perhaps at another hearing, I might recommend
inviting the very dynamic new head of the American Federation
of Teachers Union, Mr. McElroy, because getting some of the
reform and innovation in that system is going to be really
critical for pay for performance to attract these teachers that
have the commitment to teach our young people.
Mr. Hall. Well, I guess I was hoping I would hear, when you
read about the statistics of the number of engineers that China
produces, it dwarfs our engineers, or even India. I would like
to hear that well, they are not producing the type of
engineers, they are not the grade, they are not the quality
engineers, they are not complete engineers as we are.
I haven't heard that. I would like to hear it, and Dr.
Barrett, maybe you are going to tell me that.
Mr. Barrett. I think you have been--we have been perhaps
not articulating this as clearly as we might. The basic
strength the United States has is today certainly is not the K-
12 education system. Our unassailable strength today is in our
research universities, and the quality of the education, the
combination of research and education, and the product that
they put out, both the student as a product, and the research
as a product.
It is critical to build upon that. It is critical to build
upon it with increased funding of those research universities,
to make them the most, keep them the most competitive in the
world. All of the dialogue about K-12 education is to promote a
greater capability in our inherent workforce, and also, to
provide a greater feedstock, if you will, to our universities
and children, who are knowledgeable and capable and interested
in math and science.
We will never compete on quantity alone, and should not
expect that. We have to compete on quality. We have the best
universities in the world. It is a national treasure. We ought
to do everything to support them.
Mr. Dynes. If I could add to that, I am glad that Dr.
Barrett said it, rather than me. But in my travels around the
world, in countries like India and China, and compare them with
the research universities here in the United States, the
strength that we have here is that we integrate education and
research, so that we are actually teaching young people how to
be innovative. We are teaching them to take risks, and that is
something that doesn't happen in the rest of the world.
All the discussion of science and math teaching training is
to continue that pipeline, so that when new companies are
created from the innovative people that come out of the
research universities, those companies have a workforce that
can speak the language. But our real strength is our ability to
take risks.
Mr. Hall. I think my time is probably up, but I am hoping
that I hear that the huge numbers of people in China and in
India would dwarf our numbers, and we can have an expectation
that they would have more in numbers, but hopefully not in
quality, and I--the Chairman is hitting my knee here just now,
I think my time is up, and I yield. If it is not up, I want to
yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall, you are 29 over, but
it was a good 29. Mr. Baird, would you like to try to work in
before we go?
Mr. Baird. Very quickly. First of all, what a distinguished
panel we have here today. We are humbled at your presence, and
grateful for your leadership in working on this.
It seems one element that we haven't talked much about that
just seems so important is sort of a cultural change in our
society. If you talk to the average parent of young people and
say we want them to study more math and science, they will
probably say that is a good idea. But if those kids come home,
and say mom or dad, can you help me with my quadratic
equations, they will run screaming from the room and turn on a
videogame as a distraction.
I don't know how we address that, but I would be very
interested in your thoughts about that, trying to change the
culture, and especially help parents, empower parents to help
their kids, as the kids take on more difficult subjects than
the parents took. That would be part one.
Part two would be: We hear a great deal from industry about
the need to expand H-1B visas and limit the cap. I understand
the logic for that, but I would also be interested myself in
finding some way to link that to an increased responsibility on
the part of businesses seeking H-1Bs to participate in the
endeavor to train our own domestic workforce, so we need to
rely less on H-1Bs. I fully understand the need for more H-1Bs,
but it seems to perpetuate the problem if the businesses don't
also invest in educating our workforce.
And I would welcome any response to that.
Mr. Barrett. Let me try very quickly on both. The most
significant thing, in my opinion, to get young children
interested in mathematics and science, and the knowledge base
they will need for the 21st Century, is to have teachers who
are engaged, knowledgeable, and can enthuse the children with
the wonders of the universe. A PE coach teaching physics is not
going to hack it. Someone who is teaching mathematics and
doesn't understanding mathematics is not going to hack it. You
need good teachers in the classroom.
The second comment is on the H-1B visa issue. One of the
beauties of our university system is that it is the best in the
world. It attracts people from all around the world, the best
and the brightest. That is why it is a national treasure, the
virtual research university.
If we are going to invite those people to come to our
country, pay for their education at taxpayer's expense, and
then require them to go home and compete with us, it doesn't
make a lot of sense, so I personally think, you know, and ten
years ago, I might have been one of the first to suggest we
staple a green card to every advanced degree given to a foreign
national from a U.S. university. I still think that that is
such a simple law that even Republicans and Democrats could get
together to pass it.
But aside from that, the effort we are making to improve K-
12 education is to get more kids interested and qualified to
study engineering, science, mathematics, at the university
level, to perhaps decrease the need for H-1B visas. But I think
the whole debate on H-1B visas and green cards is a good debate
for us to be having, because it means we are attracting the
best and brightest minds in the world to the United States,
which is exactly what we need to be competitive.
Chairman Gordon. Excuse me. We have one minute. Does
someone else want to address that?
Mr. Baird. Just one brief followup. I agree with that
entirely, except that there are companies in my district that
are working very hard to be involved in the high school and
college education program, and frankly, they are freeloaders.
They pay their $1,500, but if you ask them to do anything with
the local school district to help out, they are AWOL. And
somehow, to put some skin in the game for those companies,
versus just go out and recruit abroad, seems to be consistent
with your goals, and I think we might want to try to do a
hybrid there. But I appreciate the points.
Chairman Gordon. The committee will be in recess for
hopefully no more than--oh, not 45 minutes, will it be? Okay,
25, it will be at least 30 minutes, so we hope that you can
stay.
[Whereupon, at 2:19 p.m., the Subcommittee recessed, to
reconvene at 2:50 p.m.]
Chairman Gordon. In consultation with the minority staff, I
have been given permission to start to move on. We are just
finishing up votes, so folks will be coming in periodically. It
was the last vote of the day, and folks are going to markups in
other committees.
I also know that some of you have trains, planes, and buses
to catch, so permission is not necessary. Please leave as you
need to. We are just grateful that you are here today.
Let me--I will start off, and I would like to explore a
little bit more--and maybe Dr. Lane, the NSF education
programs, we were talking earlier, and I am disappointed that
they have been cut almost 50 percent in the last few years. You
might explain a little bit about what they do, and then, I
would like the committee to give some thought to--I am not
anti-Department of Education. I think there is probably a role
for both, so maybe you could--we could talk a little bit about
how that role in both agencies could help us get our goal--but
Dr. Lane, if you would, please, start and tell us a little bit
about those programs, and what you have seen as success or
failures within those programs.
Mr. Lane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also would want to say
I am not anti-Department of Education, either. They have a big
job to do. It is a different job from that of the National
Science Foundation. I think that is what you want me to
address.
The National Science Foundation has this broad mission to
ensure the progress of science, engineering, mathematics,
across the country, and they do that in various ways, and it is
not limited to research. It is all about knowledge creation and
knowledge transfer, to and among people, and to the
marketplace, where things can be applied to benefit the
American people in broader ways.
So, where the NSF, I think, really shines is through its
programs to bring innovation to the classroom, and to help
teachers try new things, help schools try new ways of teaching.
Summer camps that enable teachers to take the time to get
together, learn from one another, new approaches to
mathematics, new approaches to curriculum. They have been doing
that for decades and decades. And then, they got involved, in
the last 15 years or so, in systemic reform of our schools,
where they would work in partnership with cities, school
districts, cities, states, regions, to not tell the state or
the region how to teach, but simply to try to connect what has
been learned about pedagogy, what has been learned about
teaching and learning, with on-site, large-scale
experimentation.
They have the authority to do that from the Congress.
Department of Education cannot really do that. NSF uses peer
review to review and respond to proposals, and select the best
ideas and the best people, the best get funded, and the others
don't. The Department of Education can't really do that. The
National Science Foundation has this direct relationship with
the best--many of the best scientists and engineering
researchers in the country, and can tap into that knowledge-
base and that experience, and those skills, to try to help to
get that in front of the teachers, help the teachers pick up
the passion for science and for learning, that they can then
pass along with their students.
So, NSF is about innovation. It is about research. It is
about high risk, if you like, taking those kinds of
opportunities, and investing this money in a way that can then
be evaluated, and be responsive to the American people.
So, it is a special agency, I think, in that regard. It is
not that it is better than the Department of Education, it is
different, and has a different role, which I believe it does
very well.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Lane. Dr. Dynes is going to
have to leave. If you want to make a swansong, and then, you
could be excused.
Mr. Dynes. Well, let me address this issue first. A
swansong, no. No, I am not ready for my swansong, Mr. Chairman.
But let me say something that I have said before, and I
really believe this, and that is the strength of the American
universities is that we integrate education and research. Those
two are coupled together, and the more I have traveled in China
and India, the more I have seen that until they learn to copy
that, they are going to be behind us. And we should be leading
with our strengths, and that is our strength.
And insofar as the NSF nurtures that part of our mission,
it is an important place to put resources. It is not that it
is--that I am opposed to the Department of Energy--I am sorry,
Department of Education--I have energy on the mind--the
Department of Education, they have a very, very important
mission. But we can't lose sight of the integration, of what we
have learned in our research transferring to education.
And with that, I will bid adieu and pledge my support for
these bills.
Chairman Gordon. Again, thank you for making a coastal hit
and run. Would anyone else like to address that topic?
If not, I am going to yield five minutes to the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Lampson, Chairman of our Energy Subcommittee.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I remember sitting in this room a few years back in another
life and listening to testimony from one of our federal
agencies about what we could do to keep employees at that
agency. And most of the things that were being talked about
were financial incentives. And I got up and walked down from
here, and sat out in the midst of a bunch of students, who I
asked, huddled them up, and said if you all were testifying
right now, what would you say? And almost to a person, it was--
it wouldn't be about money, it would be about giving us
something to dream that we can achieve. Give us something to
work on that gives us satisfaction, to know that we are
accomplishing something with our lives.
So--and another part of that is that my youngest daughter
just quit her sixth grade math teaching, she was teaching math,
honors math classes, and she has left that. But how do we
tackle the problem that teaching isn't an attractive career
option in the United States? The work is hard, the pay is low,
compared to what a strong math and science student can make
outside of teaching. What national policy actions can turn the
tide on this?
Mr. Augustine. I will take a crack at that one.
Mr. Lampson. Please.
Mr. Augustine. Certainly one of the significant problems we
face in encouraging young people to teach and stay in teaching
is compensation. It seems to be a failing of our free-
enterprise system that we undervalue teachers, nurses, and
soldiers, and overvalue CEOs, rock stars, athletes, and so on.
That is something you probably won't solve with legislation,
nor will I solve it by talking about it.
I would, however, add two things. One, with regard to
compensation, however, I don't think we will change the basic
compensation structure of the Nation, but I do think that it is
possible to offer some incentives to teachers at the federal
level. We proposed some of these in Rising Above the Gathering
Storm. For example. . .the program that is going to be
sponsored by ExxonMobil has some incentives for teachers that
make a difference to the math and science teacher, to the good
teacher, to the one that remains for a long time.
True, we who are scientists and engineers--I am an
engineer--have failed to convey to young people the excitement
of what we do. Part of the result is that the teachers in the
lower grades, who are not scientists and engineers, don't have
that fire, that passion. I look at my own career. I played a
very small part, and I mean a small part, in sending 12 of my
friends to the Moon and bringing them back. But how good does
it get? How many people can say that they did something like
that? That is heavy. And we need to convey to young people that
this kind of thing is exciting. Certainly, we need to pay a
decent wage, but we don't want teachers that are there only for
the money.
Mr. Lampson. The Gathering Storm report emphasizes the need
for increased funding for research in physical sciences,
computer science, engineering, and math. Why are these subjects
seen as the priority areas, and should funding be diverted from
other fields?
Mr. Augustine. I will address that from the Gathering Storm
report, and my colleagues would care to add to it. Basically,
we looked at a large number of studies that showed that 50-85
percent of the growth in the gross domestic product of America
in the last half-century was attributable to math and science.
We found that the creation of new jobs was attributable to
math and science. The return from investments in math and
science was huge. What we have is a shortage of mathematicians
and scientists and engineers. Candidly, not lawyers and
accountants and CEOs and athletes. That is why we don't want to
underestimate for a minute the importance of such subjects as
reading. I attended a liberal arts school to study engineering,
and I did it for a reason; but in any case, America's future is
going to depend to a very large degree on our prowess in math
and science.
Mr. Lampson. Anyone else want to make a comment? My time is
just about up, and--Ms. Wince-Smith first, and then----
Ms. Wince-Smith. I would just add--and I would offer as a
model what is going on in our military academies, which I think
have a very, very advanced process for how they are fusing
math, science, and engineering with the liberal arts and
humanities and languages. And so, you have young people that,
no matter what field they are going to go into, whether it is
history or languages, they also are coming out with engineering
degrees, so what Norm was saying about infusing more math and
science and engineering into the traditional undergraduate
liberal arts curriculum in our four year colleges, I think, is
very, very important.
And the other thing that I would want to add on the teacher
issue is I really do think we have to have some flexibility now
to tap into the tremendous resources of people who are now in
their fifties, sixties, that want to give back, and are willing
to come in and teach in schools. I mean, I know in my case, I
had a math teacher that was 70 years old and retired from
Goodyear Rubber Company, and you know, he was teaching junior
girls, a little girls school, we were doing advanced calculus,
and you know, we loved it. We loved having him there. That is
not really allowed in most of our schools today, so we don't
have that flexibility, and we are losing a whole cadre of
people who have the skills and the love, and they would like to
be with young people.
Mr. Lampson. Mr. Chairman, can Dr. Barrett and Dr. Lane
both respond?
Mr. Barrett. Two quick comments. I think the concept of
meritocracy in the K-12 public school system is absolutely
needed, and that is a pay for performance issue. Higher
performance of teachers, they ought to get paid more for it, as
opposed to just--for time and service. I think every example
where that has been used shows that, and every study of the
education system has suggested that as a way to motivate more
people to participate in the K-12 teaching area.
As far as the areas that the Rising Above the Gathering
Storm singled out for increased R&D spending, I think that
those are the fundamental areas that have been driving the U.S.
economy for the last half-century, and they also are the areas
where the funding has been flat, in an absolute dollar
standpoint, for the last two or three decades. So, in essence,
they have been defunded over the last 20 years, on the basis
that the funding has been flat, and inflation has eaten into
the investment in those areas.
Mr. Lane. Mr. Lampson, on the issue of teacher respect, let
me just mention something I think you know that we are doing in
Texas. The Texas Academy of Medicine, Engineering, and Science,
an institution that really was stimulated by the interest of
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, has taken on an education
project, really being prompted by the Gathering Storm report,
and the way they are addressing--we don't know how they are
going to address K-12 education in general. They are just
starting to have a look at it.
But one thing they are doing is bringing teachers from the
schools into contact with Nobel laureates, members of the
National Academies, at their annual meetings, and having them
sit and dine with them, hearing from them and their comments,
making it clear that the scientists and engineers, the
technical professionals, believe these people are important,
that they have got an important job to do, and they care about
what their problems are, so it doesn't involve any money in
that particular case. I completely agree with Dr. Barrett in
terms of merit salary considerations. This is yet a different
kind of thing that one can also do, just to show you care, just
to show it makes a difference.
Mr. Lampson. There is a program, Mr. Chairman, at NASA,
that had to do with a camera on the International Space
Station, that could be operated by elementary school students,
and that program, which was a minimal or almost no cost, is
going to go away. And finding simple little things like that, I
believe, adds to the opportunities that teachers have to
inspire young children at the ages that we need them to be
inspired.
Thank you very much for your extra time.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you.
Mr. Lampson. And thanks to the panel.
Chairman Gordon. The gentleman's time has expired. Looking
to my right, I see no one, so Mr. Lipinski, you are recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for holding this hearing, and bringing together this
panel. Thank you all for your testimony.
It is really an issue that hits close to my heart, but
unfortunately, I just felt a little guilty there. Mr. Augustine
was talking about the, for example, how the engineers have to
let young people know, you know, the excitement of their
profession, and every time I hear something like that, I think
about the fact that I left engineering behind to go into
political science, and then, to come here, and I sort of feel
guilty that maybe I am not giving that, talking about that
excitement of being an engineer, although it just didn't turn
out to be what, the road that I was going to go down, but I
always think that that education was the best education I could
have gotten.
One thing, in Mr. McGraw's testimony, you had said that the
key to America's competitiveness challenge is innovation, and
there is a bill that we passed on the House floor yesterday
that I authored, to help the metals industry, steel, aluminum,
other metals industries, by providing federal funding that
would go to colleges, universities, other research
institutions, and would be matched with a 70 percent federal,
30 percent industry match, to do research and spur innovation,
for the metals industry to be able to be more efficient, more
environmentally friendly, and I think this is a rather unique
way of going about funding R&D.
And is this something that you think is a good way of going
about it, is this a good example of what we can be doing?
Mr. McGraw. I think it is a start. I think if you take a
look at most successful companies, and especially on the
technology side, they are doing a tremendous amount of
cooperative alliances with various research universities,
university labs and the like, and so anything that will tie the
academic and the business world together, will let you see
those most innovative and most creative ideas. So, anything
that would spur that, I would think would be a good thing.
Mr. Lipinski. And do you think this is lacking right now,
or do you think there are any other ways we can incentivize
this, or there--is this not the best direction to go, in terms
of innovation?
Mr. McGraw. Well, you know, I think you are either going to
go there or you are going to be gone, and it is going to be
very difficult to survive in this kind of global environment
with the kind of competition you are facing, if you are not
innovating. And I think you want to take a look at any company,
in terms of how they are using their free cash flow, how do
they generate free cash flow, and then, what are they doing
with it?
And now, I think we have gotten to the point where we have
over-financially engineered some of our organizations, and I
think some of the climate that all goes well for the short-
term, and less for the longer-term puts certain public
companies in a very bad light.
And, this is key, you want to take a look at what a company
is generating in terms of organic growth. And I would say to
you that for basic industry today, organic growth is way too
low, and that is a result of the business climate and the
environment and the financial markets, and less of a
willingness to take risk, and so forth. So, yes.
Mr. Lipinski. Sort of leads into my next question.
Recently, BP gave a $500 million grant to build and operate an
energy biosciences institute, and unfortunately, Dr. Dynes is
not here any more for me to compliment. Berkeley, both
University of California-Berkeley and the Lawrence-Berkeley
Lab, along with the University of Illinois, have a partnership
that was awarded this $500 million grant. They are going to
research biomass.
What else can we do to incentivize this type of grant
giving, this kind of work by private companies, to help further
with innovation?
Mr. McGraw. On the energy sector, you are using the BP
example? Well----
Mr. Lipinski. Or anywhere else.
Mr. McGraw. For a public company, you have to have enough
balance within your overall business portfolio, such that you
can take those kind of risks. And eventually, you have got to
get returns out of that, so when you start talking about a $500
million fund that BP is talking about, actually, that is not a
very good example. They have not done a very good job at
investing in alternatives, and yet, their core infrastructure,
in terms of some of their oil and gas abilities, has not gone
very well. They haven't reinvested in some of the existing
equipment.
But to encourage, incentivize people that way, you have got
to have a path towards a return. Otherwise a public company,
you know, is going to be less inclined to do that.
Chairman Gordon. Dr. Barrett, the gentleman's time has
expired. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to congratulate you on just getting a running start in
your new job as Chairman with this legislation, and I like the
idea that you are moving forward, trying to provide a benefit,
educational benefit, but at the same time, requiring some kind
of service in exchange for the benefit, which I think is
something that will actually be a twofer.
Whenever you move forward, you should at least try for a
twofer. When we are here in this job, we are not only helping
some young person get an education, but we are also providing,
perhaps, a service to schools that need a science or
engineering or mathematics teacher. We are providing them
someone who could help them for a few years.
So, I will be looking very closely at this legislation, to
see if it is exactly what I can support, but it is certainly
going in the right direction, and we will see.
With that, I, you know, a couple times during the
testimony, I couldn't help but hear, and maybe Mr. Bilbray may
have already brought this up, I couldn't help but over-hear and
just sort of shoved into the discussion concepts like H-1B
visas, and getting students from overseas here. Let me just
note that when you take a look at the supply and demand and
wages, and things like that, the very last thing we need to do
to encourage our young people to get involved in science,
mathematics, or engineering, is to provide the hundreds of
thousands of H-1B visas, which are being asked for for
business, in order to keep down wages.
You know, every time we turn around, you are saying we need
to get more immigrants into this society to do those jobs that
Americans won't do. Well, we are talking about jobs that are
high paying jobs that Americans should want to do, and the very
last thing you need to do is bring the pay level down on those
jobs, or put a lid on it by having more people come in from
overseas.
So, I would submit that as just for the record, as
something that whatever, if we can talk about giving, you know,
providing more classroom and more classes, and more science
teachers, but unless the kids know that, in high school in
particular, that there are good jobs that are available, that
they can afford to live in a nice home and raise their family,
as compared to just people who want to be lawyers, you end up,
all the lawyers end up in the nice houses, and the engineers
end up not being able to be renters some place in a place that
is not so nice, you are not going to get more quality young
people into that profession.
So, again, I think the secret, Mr. Chairman, that we people
always overlook, because it requires coming up against power
structures, is pay more money to engineers and scientists and
mathematicians, pay more money to science, mathematics, and
engineering teachers, and you are going to get more of them.
And if you insist on having basket-weaving and gymnasium
teachers getting the same amount of money as someone who is
teaching engineering and math, then you are not going to get--
you are not going to have the quality people that you want, and
it just comes down to that.
One last note, and again, it was just sort of thrown in
here about, and I think it was Mr. McGraw who mentioned it, but
maybe might have mentioned as well, something about, you know,
we don't want kids to drop out of college. We don't want--we
want kids to get that bachelor's degree, or the AA degree from
a junior college. In my area, we have got a junior college of
20,000 kids. They only have 180 kids in that program who are
involved in the nursing or healthcare training program. Yet,
all the kids who end up getting out are going on to get a BA,
they can get great jobs at $30,000 or $35,000 when they get
out, but if they get trained as a healthcare person, they can
end up getting a $50,000 to $60,000 a year job.
So, I would submit that we need to be training our young
people for things that are, for jobs that are going to give
them a good livelihood, and jobs that are necessary and pay
well, as compared to just try to--oh, everybody is going to
need a BA. Well, everybody--well, I don't think everybody does
need a BA. I think we need to get some training in there, and
anyway, those are some thoughts. I would be happy to have the
panel shoot me down or whatever.
Mr. McGraw. Well, let me take a quick crack.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGraw. You know, it is--and I would hope, Mr.
Chairman, that you could find a bridge to the education agenda,
because I think there would be a lot of shared thoughts that
could be very helpful.
But you are talking about, you know, a landscape that is
very, very different. When we are talking about dropout rates,
we are talking about in our inner city schools, our largest
inner city schools, 45 to 50 percent dropouts.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I thought you were talking about college
and dropping out.
Mr. McGraw. And college as well, but coming back to your
saying let us get more teachers and all that, you know, there
are so many things that go into, so many socio-economic things
that go into why that is.
But I come back to a comment that we were talking offline
with the Chairman about, and that is that if you really want to
get after a more serious rigor--and we are not just talking,
you know, the highest level of scholar and science achievement,
we are talking about math and science skills at the high school
level, so that you are proficient--then you have got to focus
on reading. Because the problems are all coming back to
reading, and that is why you see all of the emphasis in the
early parts of No Child Left Behind focused on the reading
achievement. Because if you lose, after a year, if I lose a
student after a year, I have probably lost him. And if it is
two years, it is done, on my part.
And what we are finding now is that it is not just at the
early childhood learning aspect, it is at the middle school, in
particular, because most of those people are coming now with
reading deficiencies that can't get them into the other
disciplines. They can't get into the higher math and the higher
science, and they don't have those comprehension levels. So,
the focus has got to be on reading to get the higher math and
science capabilities. One of the things that was very
disappointing in the NAEP test that we mentioned, 35 percent of
seniors in this country that are graduating, are not
proficient, or 35 percent are proficient in reading, the rest
not. At math, it was 23 percent are proficient. I mean, these
are horrible outcomes, for you know where we are as an advanced
nation. And we have to do a better job.
But I would come back to you that the first thing that we
have to focus on is the reading capability.
Chairman Gordon. The gentleman's time has expired. I think
Dr. Barrett wanted to address Mr. Lipinski, but we are going to
wait just a moment, be patient. Ms. Giffords has been here for
quite a while, and I warn you, she is ready. She has a copy of
the Gathering Storm, and it is even tabbed and underlined, so
she has taken her assignment very well.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of all the committee
hearings that I believe we are going to have this year, I
honestly think this is probably the most important one, and so,
I just want to appreciate you all being here. This is really
important, and it is really serious stuff that we are talking
about, and I just commend you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing the
panel together, and continuing to highlight that this document
is one of the most important documents that this Congress is
going to face. This really is serious, this brewing crisis we
have.
Quick story. I was in Scotland a couple of years ago,
actually with a group called the Global Enterprise Challenge,
which are young high school kids who are tasked to put together
an entrepreneurial program all across the world. Groups from,
you know, from South Africa to Antarctica, I mean, really all
over the planet, these high school groups competing. It was
fantastic.
And I met with a woman named Lady Strathmore, related to
the Royal Family, who told me about this wonderful woman in
Arizona, Barbara Barrett, so you even have to sometimes go to
the other side of the world to learn about some of the
resources that you have in your own home state. So, it is good
to see you, Dr. Barrett.
I am going to just throw out a couple of questions. It is
hard with five minutes, but these are issues that are important
to Arizona that are not addressed in the document, and I just
want to know whether or not you have taken any of these issues
into consideration.
Our world is different. When I look back to the 1960s and
1970s, President Kennedy's vision, sending a man to the Moon,
why we pushed forward in innovation, those days are gone.
Families are no longer like those families. Our schools are
different. Our society is really different. So in a lot of
ways, you know, we are looking at a totally different world. In
Arizona, the proficiency in terms of just English, the
proficiency in just literacy levels, I mean, the whole world is
different. The family structure is different.
So, my first question I have is what is going to be the new
Apollo mission? I believe it could be energy. I mean, I keep
trying to get people excited about the way that we heat and
cool our homes, and we move around this planet. I really think
that we could get that next generation of kids excited about
that. And I am curious whether or not, you know, if you all, as
a group, have thought about that spark, something that is
really going to stimulate, you know, young people's minds.
The second question, and I don't think this is addressed in
the document, is early childhood development. All the data and
research that I have seen shows that if you don't get kids at
the really early levels--it is not--I am not saying it doesn't
matter what you do at K-12, because it does, but if you don't
get the, you know, the 0 through 3, the 0 through 5, it is
tough to go back and take those minds, and do the developmental
work that needs to be done.
Third question, and there was an article just a couple days
ago in the paper about this, women working in the United
States, where other industrialized societies have realized that
population growth is decreasing because more women are deciding
to have a career. I am a good example of that. So with that,
with professional women now choosing not to have children, we
see populations declining, but not a big move by this
government to realize that if we want professional people to
have children, that we are going to have to make some
accommodations in the workforce, because you just can't have it
all. So, that is my third point.
And fourth point, as we know, girls tend to drop off in
math and science at about the sixth, seventh grade, and this, I
don't believe this document really addresses what we can do for
that next generation of really targeting girls in math and
science, and re-looking, reexamining what we can do in that
arena.
Mr. Barrett. Could I try real quickly? Arizona, is it?
Right on on energy. Energy is a math, science, engineering
intensive problem, with the U.S. wanting to be independent from
its energy requirements--program--it is a softball waiting to
be hit by either party. I am surprised it hasn't been hit to
date.
Second, there is--there have been many interesting studies
about early childhood development, and the latest one that I
have seen is all-day kindergarten versus not. By the third
grade, it is a wash. It turns out the longer kids stay in the
K-12 education system, the worse they do. You either have to
fix the K-12 education system, ultimately, or it is a perfect
filter. It filters out the kids that we want to succeed in math
and science going forward.
So, there is not a simple answer anywhere, but there are
things that I think the United States could rally around. The
Gathering Storm suggested the DARPA energy focus, primarily
because we thought energy could be a national focus to get
kids, and the political air cover to get kids interested in
math and science going forward.
Mr. Augustine. I might just add to that. You asked a group
of really good questions.
What could be the spark? I agree with Craig, and that was
the view of the National Academies as well, that energy is the
issue. Not only is it heavily dependent on the kind of math and
science we were promoting, but as you know, it affects
everything from the environment to the economy to national
security.
With regard to your point about affecting children at an
early age: that is critical. We found that often children were
lost to math and science by the time they were in fourth grade.
We can't, I am afraid, always count on parents. Today, 70
percent of parents of high school children believe that the
math and science their children are getting is adequate.
Parents are comfortable. I think the teachers and the schools
are going to have to provide that spark. Again, if we could
bring people in that would teach those younger children, and I
think there are a lot of people who would. In my own case, when
I took early retirement, so I could teach, I couldn't teach in
our public schools. I can't teach fourth graders, so I taught
engineering in Princeton instead. There seems to be something
wrong with that.
My last comment is to strongly endorse your remark about
women. Women are 18 percent of engineering graduates in this
country. Minorities are far more under-represented: less than
five percent. If we are going to compete in the world market,
having over half our population not participate, it is a
handicap we can't endure.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you.
Mr. Baird. [Presiding] Dr. Lane, it looked like you might
have a comment, and then I will call on Mr. Rothman.
Mr. Lane. And let me mention this, because we haven't
mentioned the word technology in the context of education, I
think, in this hearing. And Ms. Giffords, among the many things
that have changed in the environment that our young people are
growing up in is technology, and so, you know, my little
grandkids and medium grandkids, they talk on cell phones, and
they have computers, and they do all that stuff.
I am connected with a not-for-profit in Texas called
Reasoning Mind, that has an extraordinarily exciting online
math technology availability that we are experimenting with in
Houston, and it has had wonderful success. You know, it has an
onscreen little genie, helpful, it addresses all kinds of
different levels. My point about it is that we do, of course,
need wonderful teachers, and we need more of them than we have
right now, but we are probably never going to have enough of
those teachers, but what they don't need, that some of the
tools, that technology can deliver. And we haven't had great
success getting technology in the classroom. I think, though,
we should not ignore the fact that our young people are growing
up in that kind of environment. And there are some tools, I
think, that can be provided to even the best teachers to enable
them to reach more students than they are currently able to do.
So, I would put in a plug for the more innovative technologies
that we can find to support.
Mr. Baird. Thank you very much. Mr. Rothman, I am going to
let Mr. Rothman proceed. Did you feel like--Ms. Wince----
Ms. Wince-Smith. Oh, well, I just wanted to comment on the
issue of women, and there is an initiative underway that has
tremendous outcome metrics now for encouraging women to
actually be involved in this entrepreneurial economy that I
talked about, and that is professional science masters. These
are programs that a number of schools are starting. Georgia
Tech has one that is fantastic. Women and minorities are
getting, in terms of the numbers, very high numbers of these
degrees. For instance, in the Georgia Tech case, they have a
degree in nanodevice fabrication, and then, they have
accounting, business, all the skills you need to actually go
out and take this knowledge and create something and deploy it
for commercial value.
And it is very interesting, when you look at the trends,
that the majority of graduates of professional science masters
are women and minorities. So, something is going on there that
is enabling a very systemic type of thinking, and also, the
skills that you need to go out and create something in the
business world. I would urge you to look at professional
science master's, and particularly the linkages with women.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Rothman.
Mr. Rothman. Thank you. First, let me apologize for being
late. I have three hearings scheduled at the same time. I am
sure I am not unusual in that regard, with the rest of my
colleagues. So I apologize for being late, and if I have
asked--I am about to ask a question that you have already
answered.
And I hope this is not too far afield from this subject,
but you are all great scholars and successful people, so I
thought I would ask you.
Is there something about our culture, our American culture,
that is preventing greater success in our public education
system? And if you have any thoughts on that subject, I would
like to know, or any--in particular, any suggestions as to what
we can do to counter either the negative trends in our culture,
or to enhance the positive aspects of our culture that would
improve the educational performance of our student body? That
is number one.
Number two, you know, depending on what you read, you know,
you have people saying oh, we are doing just fine. Our
expectations are too high, to expect Ph.D.s from every single
one of our children, and everything is just unreasonable. I
would like to have your thoughts on that.
And the third thing is the role of parents. I have five
kids now, and the role of parents, I think, is critical, but
not everyone has the luxury of spending the time with their
kids, or coming in and becoming a part of the school family,
school community, that raises the expectation level for the
teachers and administrators, as well as their own children. So,
what do you do about those kids whose families are not, that
don't have that extra time to devote?
Mr. McGraw. Well, first of all, the educational system in
the United States worked. It gave us the largest economy in the
world. It gave us technological excellence. It gave us the
highest productivity levels, and so, it worked. The issue, and
what changed, was a world grew up, and what we are seeing is a
global economy in the works, with increasing worldwide
competition.
And we have come to the realization that, we have to bring
more people along, better skills, and better capabilities, and
we have taken our foot off the accelerator, and we have got to
put it back on. And you just aren't going to do that overnight.
And that is why programs like H-1B visas or anything in the
short-term, to be able to jumpstart some of these things, is
very important.
I think--a conversation we had a little earlier, you know,
it was governors in the '80s, that were running deficits in
some of their large cities, and in their state, and it was
them, that was--to survive politically, it was about achieving
economic growth, and if it was about achieving economic growth,
it was reaching out to the private sector. It was about jobs.
It was about the right kind of skill sets, and therefore, it
was about your education system.
That is the first time, the first time that the achievement
of economic growth and the education system has been linked.
The system has been in reform, really, only a very short period
of time, and now, with the realities of what we are facing, in
terms of a world competition, we have to get moving again.
And so, a lot of these things are wakeup calls, and I think
H.R. 362 is, H.R. 363 is, but again, the tide the Chairman was
talking about, back to the education agenda, the problems are
enormous. You know, in 1997, only a third of the states had
academic standards. No Child Left Behind, which was fabulous in
terms of landmark legislation. Is it perfect? Has it put all
the weights in the right spots? No, but it started aligning
federal, State, and local education. Today, all 50 states have
academic standards. It would be nice if some of them were more
common, but all 50 have them, and what you are starting to see,
in terms of instruction, is that standardized instruction is
starting to go up, which means you are coalescing around
academic standards. In other words, I am going to buy reading
materials for every class in every school, and we are going to
get behind research-based, proven-to-work kinds of product.
There is no way to have everybody doing things in different
fashions. You can do remedial and intervention, but you are
going to get to more standardized instruction. So, I think it
is pretty clear that if you fast forward, we are on a path
right now that you are starting to see all the concerns and new
thinking starting to take place, but it is going to take us a
while. That is why I think some of the comments about
alternative certification are interesting. I mean, the fact
that Norm can't teach a fourth grade class. We have got to get
into those kinds of issues. We have to encourage people that
have done well to find other ways to give back, as we all live
longer.
So, the other one is, is that you have got to tie it to the
job market, and you know, we can talk about math and science at
the high school level, and having those kind of competencies.
You can talk about scholarly work at the National Science
Foundation and the like, but in terms of getting those
capabilities, you have really got to tie it to a job market,
and I think the comment about churn was so right. Every three
months, we lose seven to eight million jobs. Every three
months, we gain seven to eight million jobs. Change is taking
place so quickly that skills have got to be able to match some
of those new capabilities.
Chairman Gordon. The gentleman's time has expired. Does
anyone else on the committee want to take on that monumental--
yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wince-Smith. Well, I think it is interesting to link
this question, also, to regional economic development, because
throughout the country now, for the first time, we are
beginning to see an alignment between investments and workforce
skills. You know, we are spending about $15 billion going out
to workforce boards. Public education reforms must be aligned
with economic development strategy, because people are choosing
to live and stay and work and build their lives in communities
where there are high performing schools.
And so, education is becoming a very important asset for
not just keeping people, but also, attracting within our
country people that want to live and work in areas that are
considered high value entrepreneurial regions. So, the area
that I think is the Achilles heel to all of this is how much
localization do you have in determining these standards in
performance. If you look at the current school system, and you
compare it to any private enterprise, you know, the
productivity levels are worrying. We are spending more per
child than any other country but Switzerland, approaching $600
billion, and yet, in terms of these outcomes, we are not really
seeing progress.
So, I think the school boards have to really take some
ownership here. I mean, they are approving contracts, they are
approving the contracts for teachers who have no math, science
skills, but are teaching math and science. And the parents are
on these school boards, so it is a whole continuum, and I think
until communities come together in an integrated way, we are
going to continue to see these things being looked at in
stovepipes, and that is very bad for the country and for our
children.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Augustine.
Mr. Augustine. You mentioned three issues: culture,
parents, and expectations. My view is that the culture has
changed. And that change is closely related to the role of
parent. My parents never had the opportunity to go to college.
Obviously, neither was a scientist nor an engineer, but they
darn well understood the importance of an education, and they
made it clear to me. Another cultural change that somehow has
been missed in all this is that the great teachers I had were
almost all women. Today, those teachers are probably lawyers
and doctors and bankers. In those days, they didn't have much
choice, other than to be teachers, and there has been a
profound change that you don't hear much about.
With respect to culture, it becomes a matter of priority to
a very great degree. Many of our children place more emphasis
on being great athletes than great students. Our society
promotes that. About two years ago, I was visiting an Asian
country that had just been hit by the tsunami. There was
wreckage everywhere, but there was also a school outdoors in
the jungle, where it was extremely hot and ten-year-old
children were sitting there eight hours a day going to school.
We probably wouldn't have seen that here.
With regard to expectations, clearly, the intent of the
Academies was not primarily to promote huge numbers of Ph.D.s
in math, science, and engineering. The thought was that Ph.D.s
are important because they do the basic research that is going
to create jobs for the rest of us; but the rest of us have to
be at least articulate enough to understand fundamental math
and science.
Chairman Gordon. Well, I think--Mr. Bilbray was here most
recently, but Mr. Bartlett was here earlier, and so, Mr.
Bartlett, we yield to you for five minutes.
Mr. Bartlett. I'm on? Okay. Apologize for not being here
during the questioning. I don't know whether this issue has
come up or not.
I think the really big challenge we face is a cultural one.
What you are proposing is fine. These two bills are okay, but
they really won't solve our problem. A society gets what it
appreciates, and we just do not appreciate people who are in
these technical areas. A bright young guy is now called--when I
was in school studying science, we were what, squares? Now,
they are geeks and nerds, and the pretty girls have to play--I
mean, bright girls have to play dumb to get a date.
I think that I will have some confidence that the culture
is changing when the White House invites academic achievers in
and fawns all over them the way they do sports figures.
Clearly, what we need is an appreciation of the contribution
that these professions make in our society. It just isn't
there. And what concerns me is that it is there in countries
like China and India that are going to eat our lunch if we
aren't careful. China this year will graduate at least, they
will graduate more English-speaking engineers than we graduate,
and about half of our English-speaking engineers are Chinese
students.
What can we do to change the culture in our country,
because that is the real problem? I remember when we put a man
on the Moon, and there was a little cartoon that came out,
which said the whole thing. A little buck-toothed, freckle-
faced young fellow, and he said: ``Six months ago, I couldn't
even spell engineer, and now, I are one.'' Everybody wanted to
be in this, because it was culturally, it was the thing to do,
and it was really appreciated.
What can we do to change the culture? Because I know all
these other things are just nibbling at the margins, Mr.
Chairman. Until we change the culture, we are not going to get
there. What can we do to change the culture? Dr. Lane.
Mr. Lane. Well, I don't want to make a political comment in
a place like this. But you mentioned President Kennedy. I
believe the American people are looking for vision and
leadership of that kind. I mean, we will have a chance, we have
elections coming up. We will have a chance to see whether such
a leader emerges or not, but I really believe the people, with
all the changes that have occurred, I think at a fundamental
level, there is an anxiousness on the part of the American
people to find an exciting idea, an individual that can really
follow where the case kind of makes itself. And maybe the
answer will be around something like energy and environment.
I don't know what the issues will be, but it is going to
require, I think, leadership at the highest levels in our
government, in branches of government, and you know, again, I
applaud you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership, and the room is
full of leaders now and in the past, attempting to do that. I
think we need that. I am looking for that. I think that is what
is going to help my grandkids that I talked about earlier in my
testimony, and I am not sure what, short of that, actually
would cause the entire country to begin to move in a different
direction.
Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Bartlett. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hall. Dr. Lane, would it be the time, then, for
somebody to come riding in on a great big beautiful white
horse? Knowledgeable, with a track record, solid citizen,
leader, handsome----
Chairman Gordon. I think Ralph is announcing.
Mr. Hall.--success, totally successful, has been appointed
by every President to lead studies, has been a leader in
everything that is good and successful and wholesome for the
United States of America. Is it time for Norm Augustine to make
his announcement? We are looking for an Eisenhower somewhere
now.
Mr. Lane. I second that nomination.
Mr. Hall. I yield back my time.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you. I just wanted to note that if
having a lot of descendants makes you more cognizant of the
problems we have, I have--we have ten children and fifteen
grandchildren and two great-grandchildren, and I am here
because I was concerned that the world I grew up in, the United
States I grew up in, was not going to be the United States they
were going to live in. We have too darn much government. It
regulates too much. It taxes too much, and we don't have enough
respect for careers in these technical areas, and you know,
help us decide what we can do here in the Congress to make this
change.
Leadership is really, really what we need, Mr. Chairman. We
can do some things from the Congress, but you know, we really
need that leadership from the highest levels of government.
They are enormously more effective than we are.
Chairman Gordon. The gentleman's time expired. Mr. Bilbray
is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you. Maybe we will start having
television shows about engineers rather than lawyers, then, Mr.
Chairman.
I think that the perception of the cultural challenges we
face, but I just say that, because let us face it, how many
engineers shows have you seen over the last 30 years, and how
many about lawyers? And frankly, if you look at where our kids
are going, they are following the cultural line.
I just have to point out that when we talk about the
culture, the '57 Sputnik created an urgency and a perception of
threat, and we responded to that urgency, that perception of
threat, and that the people working, becoming engineers then
were perceived as being the guy who may save America from the
Great Red Horde that was coming. There was--and it was a
misperception, that somehow the race for space was about
national defense.
But that aside, let me sort of move back to the--some of
the discussion. I have got a question here. I come from San
Diego County. I have the high techies in my district, and I
have seen where the cooperation between educational
institutions and the private sector has made a huge
breakthrough. In fact, let me just throw up an item there.
There is a classic example, one of the few locations where I
see that academia doesn't think it is illegitimate to aim
straight for economic opportunity from an education. There is
too much, I think, in academia that somehow, they need to be
above the economic realities, and jobs should be a secondary
issue, not the primary. But I think that if you look at our
universities, and their cooperation with the private sector, it
has been a big plus.
Mr. Chairman, there is another big plus that isn't used,
and that is building on the success that we have in San Diego
of the spin-offs of those who were in the military, who have
learned engineering, learned a lot of this kind of high tech
stuff with federal funds, and actually have gone in and filled
the gaps in our economic need for these opportunities with the
private sector.
I actually just want to ask you, along with that high tech,
we have biotech, and if we look at the challenge of fuel, of
alternative fuels, though in the past, providing, fueling
America took civic engineers and geologists. The future may be
biologists, but genetically altered enzymes may be the secret
to developing fuel independence that we don't know about.
Is there a reason why the life sciences aren't being
highlighted here?
Mr. Augustine. With regard to the National Academies' work,
we view the life sciences as of enormous importance, not only
for the reason you cite, but because of their impact on health
sciences and many other things.
The reason we did not emphasize those fields was due to the
good work of this committee and others in recent years. We saw
a doubling of the budget in the life sciences, and the
biosciences, whereas the physical sciences, math, engineering,
have been flat, in real terms. So, we felt it was time to give
the physical sciences, math and engineering, the same emphasis
that the biosciences have already received. And we have been
careful to always say that we don't want this emphasis to be at
the expense of the biosciences, to let them atrophy by not
accounting for inflation; not increasing their budgets would be
a mistake. We are just now reaping the benefits of that growth
in the budgets for the biosciences. In no way do we diminish
the importance of those sciences. It is just that the physical
sciences were left out for the last 20 years.
Mr. Bilbray. Okay. Let us talk the H-1Bs. There is the
issue--my colleague from the other half of the Surfing Caucus,
Mr. Dana Rohrabacher, was pointing out the threat of H-1Bs on
employment opportunities for certain groups.
It is kind of interesting, Mr. Chairman, that when it is an
engineer and a college graduate who may have their jobs
threatened with an immigration policy, they come unglued. If it
is blue collar working people, it is not a big issue. I think
there is a real opportunity here, though, to expand the H-1Bs
within the realm of logical immigration policy.
And a good example was the fact that we have a thing
called, and I would ask the Chairman to really look at this,
the lottery, the immigration lottery, which is really a just
let us see who comes up with the lottery, 55,000 a year, people
without any qualifications that we need in this country, people
coming from countries that are the highest risk for terrorism,
and I think this is one place that this committee and Judiciary
ought to sit down and say does it, is it logical for this
country to set aside 55,000 slots for somebody with--don't
identify we need, when we have H-1Bs over here that aren't
being serviced? And maybe, we want to shift our priorities and
say, first priority should be to what America needs first, and
then, and only then, after that, do we talk about what somebody
in a foreign country may want to immigrate or may not want to
immigrate.
And I think, I just ask comment on that, is setting these
priorities within the existing immigration policy, do you guys
agree that there may--we ought to be more aggressive about
looking for those opportunities?
Ms. Wince-Smith. I would comment on that, because I think
beyond the H-1B and particular technical skills, we should be
looking for highly skilled people across a whole range to come
to the United States. That was really the discussion this
morning around capital markets, that our immigration policy,
overall, is one that is not relevant to what we need for the
21st Century, and of course, there is a humanitarian issue that
is part of being American, but I would agree with you that
there ought to be some look at that.
The other thing I wanted to make a comment on, and maybe my
colleagues from industry could answer this, I have spoken
before about the shortage of engineers, and what is going on in
China. There was recently a group of investors in New York, and
they said well, what you are saying is completely poppycock,
because if we needed engineers so much, why aren't they being
paid? Why aren't they getting the salaries? Why aren't
companies paying them? Why aren't they paying scientists and
engineers the same kinds of signing bonuses that lawyers get?
And I didn't really have the answer to that, so I don't know
what is the answer.
Chairman Gordon. The answer is they are being outsourced,
because, as Mr. Augustine pointed out, the world is flat. Get
it on the Internet. That is the problem that we are having.
Ms. Wince-Smith. If they are lower value engineers, but the
higher ones, the ones that have Ph.D.s, I didn't have the
answer.
Mr. Augustine. I think it is true; engineering, like many
other things, is being commoditized on a world basis, and the
salaries of engineers are being determined more and more by
what engineers in India and China can be bought for, and that
is not going to be true only of engineers; it is going to be
true of a lot of other people before we are done here.
Chairman Gordon. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Baird was shortchanged a little earlier, and so, I would like
to recognize him again.
Mr. Baird. Thanks very much, and I appreciate the panelists
for coming back after the delay. Sorry about the interruption,
but you know, the question is, Mr. Chairman, many of us have
talked about culture, Mr. Bartlett did. I think we might want
to look at our own house. It would be troubling, I would
warrant, that if we were to look at the number of memorial
resolutions we pass under suspensions honoring sports teams,
movie stars, et cetera, versus scientists, engineers, and
teachers, it would be a symptomatic disproportion. So, we may
be guilty of it as well.
But Dr. Augustine, I was very interested in a couple
things, and these are both potentially controversial, but I am
going to put them out for actually any of the panelists. One
is, there is a brief allusion in the Gathering Storm, to the
possibility of a voluntary national curriculum in the sciences.
I am actually pretty intrigued by that. We have school
districts in my district that have 40 percent turnover every
year, so you have got a kid who comes in one year, gone the
next. And ironically, under No Child Left Behind, they somehow
may be failing, even though 40 percent of the kids haven't been
in the district.
But setting that aside, every time they move districts,
move states, they may have to somehow get into a different
sequence of education, a different textbook, et cetera, and I
would be interested in your thoughts about the inefficiencies
there. That is point one.
The second question, and this is really possibly a third
rail, is--it is clear to me, almost by definition, that at some
level, the colleges of education are not doing the job of
turning out qualified teachers. And we tend not to talk about
it. It may be an easy target, and overly convenient, but I
wonder, I know that there seems to be an increasing awareness
that we need to involve the disciplinary colleges in the
sciences, in coordination with the colleges of education, but I
don't think the colleges of education alone can do this, for a
variety of reasons, and I would open up both of those to the
panelists for their commentary.
Mr. Augustine. Those are two very good questions. With
regard to the voluntary curriculum, the reason we proposed that
is that it was our observation that within math and science,
the curricula in many school systems are, frankly, not very
good, not very demanding, and we thought that math and science
lend themselves to a standardized curriculum. Until you just
mentioned it, I had never thought of the impact on the mobile
society; it is a very important secondary impact that we
overlooked.
With regard to the colleges of education, our proposal was
that through competitive scholarships, we find young people who
want to study math and science, and in return, agree to teach
for five years, in the hope that they will stay beyond that.
That is our way to get around the fact that many of the
students in the colleges of education just aren't interested in
math and science. We would like to give incentives to children
into those fields.
Mr. McGraw. They are very good questions, and they are very
thorny, because of the way things are funded. And one, we have
already started to see experimentation in standardized
instruction, but the issues that you raise, in our inner city
schools, because of some of the housing requirements, even,
what you are seeing is just a tremendous amount of churn, and
if you don't have any kind of standardized instruction,
somebody could be learning reading in a whole language
approach, and then go over here, and be doing it on a phonics
basis, and you have got big issues there. You really have to
get after states to be more willing on that.
But on the teacher quality, you have got 3.2 million K-12
teachers in America. Over the next five to seven years, you are
going to see two million new teachers replacing current
teachers. Unfortunately, they are going to be equal to or less
than those that are leaving. We are not talking just about our
teacher colleges, but they are coming from all over, and they
are not as skilled, and they are not as prepared. And it is a
very, very difficult situation.
Mr. Baird. Dr. Lane.
Mr. Lane. I think, certainly I agree with the idea of some
level of national and voluntary standards in science and
mathematics. There isn't any kind of, you know, Texas math and
Oklahoma math and New York math, well, there actually is, but--
that is just a joke, I mean.
And the same thing is true in science. I mean, there is not
this kind of East Coast biology and West Coast biology.
Mobility is just extremely important to our nation, as it is to
other parts of the world that are wrestling with a similar kind
of issue. And by having these kinds of problems that you are
addressing present in our system, we are just sort of shooting
ourselves in the foot. How far you go with that now really begs
a lot of detailed questions that I am not qualified to answer,
but I think that is an extremely important issue, and we do
need some sort of national standards.
On the issue of quality of teacher education at
universities. I have wrestled with that for a long time. Often
on a campus, many of us grew up on campuses where the teacher
ed department was over there somewhere, and if you are a
physics major, chemistry major, math major, you probably never
got over there, nor did you ever see any of them in your
classroom. It was just a different kind of an institution. It
is them and us. Now, things have improved enormously in many of
our campuses, but maybe not far enough. And beyond that, I
think the universities have a--I don't know if you want to call
it a responsibility to deal more directly with the K-12
challenge than has been the case in the past.
The point was made earlier that the quality of those
universities and their products depends on who comes in the
front end. They have a stake in this. It is important to all of
them what goes on in the K-12 classroom, not only in their own
region, but around the country. Also, there is a knowledge base
there that can be tapped into in ways we really haven't done
before.
So, I recognize there would be a lot of resistance to it,
but these partnership kind of efforts, that I think this
committee favors, I think it would be carried much, much
further, and our universities can take a larger degree of
ownership, I guess I should say, for this enormous national
challenge, than we have done in past years.
Chairman Gordon. The gentleman's time has----
Mr. Baird. Two quick comments. One, I note that many of the
countries that are now scoring higher than us on some of these
international standardized tests, in fact, have national
curricula. Now, some are below, so that may not be the only
variable for sure, but many have national curricula.
The second point is, I have talked to some folks in
colleges and universities who have said if you really want to
get the sciences involved in teacher education and producing
more scientists, link NSF grant applications to productivity of
science and math educators, and suddenly, the science
departments will get very interested in working with the
education departments.
Chairman Gordon. If I could, Dr. Lane, within our
legislation, it provides for the universities to set up
integrated programs where they bring together the math and
science and education, and that is a part of the scholarship. I
mean, you have to agree to teach for five years.
The Chair yields to my friend from Texas.
Mr. Hall. Just one question, and I won't even ask the
effect of it or what you think about it. I have heard that at
least half the Ph.D.s issued in the universities of this
country are issued to foreigners. Is that true or untrue?
Mr. Augustine. No, it is--in engineering, it is 56 percent.
It is more than half.
Mr. Hall. More. Would that just be in engineering? Would--
Ph.D.s in general?
Mr. Augustine. In science, it is slightly less than 56
percent. I don't know for non-engineering and science, the
answer, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Bilbray. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Hall. Yes.
Mr. Bilbray. What is--is it the economic motivation for
these institutions to encourage foreign nationals to come here
to go to school? Are they making such a huge profit?
Mr. Hall. That is what I agreed not to ask them.
Mr. Lane. I could comment on that. There are many, I think,
different kinds of answers to that, but if you are a university
that aspires to be a major research university in this country,
for all the reasons we have heard, it is a contribution that
these institutions are making to America, then your research
programs have to be strong. Your laboratories have to function.
You have got to be able to attract faculty who can do their
research programs. And frankly, when they look around for
students to get their education in the university, get their
degree, graduate, even post-docs, they don't find nearly enough
American-born men and women, for the other reasons that we
talked about today.
So, it may sound self-serving, and maybe it is, in a way,
but it is all about maintaining the strength of American higher
education. It has been a result of efforts to do that, and the
net result is what we have just heard. There are other reasons,
but that is one reason.
Mr. Bilbray. May I--yield--Mr. Chairman, I just bring it
up, and as the ranking member of--the American people are doing
a lot of subsidizing for this higher education, and I think we
have a right to ask why are we subsidizing the education of
foreign nationals, and I keep hearing well, it is money, but I
think the voters will be saying money, too, and you are saying
it is essential, because we just don't--aren't producing this
resource in America, so we must import it to fill our
universities, to create the engineers.
Chairman Gordon. I think in fairness that we need to point
out that many of these Ph.D.s that are created stay here,
develop products, develop companies, and create jobs. So, this
is a higher level of entrant.
Let me----
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hall. I think it might be a good study, and a good
hearing, to look into that, and see, really, if we are getting
our dollar's worth, what are the facts on how many stay here,
and what are the facts as to where they come from, and to where
they go back to, and what are the benefits.
This might be the time to look at it, because we are at war
for knowledge. We are in a knowledge war today, and our war is
fighting for our little troops to start carrying a gun in the
first grade, in the second and third grade, and learn to march
and all that. And we need to teach them science and math, and I
think that would be a good thing to think about.
Mr. Bilbray. If the gentleman would yield, I would just say
that I am sure there are kids in the Northeast over here, that
if they had the foundation, and if they, you know, there are
many American kids in working class neighborhoods, that would
die for the opportunity, but just don't have the tools. And
this issue of importing our students because our domestic
sources just cannot compete, should be the big warning sign,
and not accept this as being the best we can do, and so, I
would ask that we take a look at that hearing.
Chairman Gordon. Well, I would suggest that we have two
answers, and two answers are H.R. 362 and H.R. 363, and would
hope everyone would support that. Let me also say to Mr. Hall,
he has put up with a lot of our hearings, and so, I would
welcome his, any recommendation that he wants to have, to put
one together. We will participate with him in a hearing.
And let me say to the panel, are there any closing remarks
that anyone would like to--Mr. Augustine.
Mr. Augustine. Mr. Hall raised an important question, and I
would just throw out one statistic. Of all the basic
researchers with Ph.D.s in math, science, and engineering in
this country, 38 percent are foreign-born. One-third of the
Nobel laureates in America in math and science in the last 15
years were foreign-born. Our science enterprise in this country
would hardly function today without foreign-born people. You
raise a very important question.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. McGraw.
Mr. McGraw. Well, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
leadership in H.R. 362 and H.R. 363, and the business community
supports it, and we look forward to see its passage.
I would say that some of the comments that you have made
earlier on are some of the areas that I think we need to focus
on even further, and that is the whole role of public/private
sector cooperation.
Now, I think when you start to see what ExxonMobil has
done, in terms of the funding issues, I think there is an awful
lot of coordination that could take place around some of these
ideas, that would allow it to be more efficiently done.
Chairman Gordon. Any other comments?
Well, let me say that this panel now holds the Science and
Technology Committee indoor endurance record. And I think it is
indicative of the importance of this panel, and also, of the
issue.
We thank you for being here, and the witnesses are excused,
and this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
<SKIP PAGES = 000>
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Norman R. Augustine, Chair, Committee on Prospering in the
Global Economy of the 21st Century, Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy, Division on Policy and Global
Affairs, the National Academies; Former Chairman and CEO,
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. The Gathering Storm report places a strong emphasis on the
importance of increasing funding for basic research, particularly in
the physical sciences, engineering and mathematics.
Q1a. Did your National Academy of Sciences committee, in its call for
increased research funding, intend to include the portion of NASA's
budget that supports basic research?
A1a. The committee included all the basic research in the physical
sciences, engineering, and mathematics research funded across the
Federal Government. You will see that in the committee's cost estimate
on p. 508 of the report which is based on an NSF analysis, this
includes NASA. According to NSF's analysis, NASA funds 21 percent of
the Federal Government's support of these fields.
Q1b. As you know the President has proposed substantial budget
increases for NSF, the DOE Office of Science, and NIST, but not for the
science components of the NASA budget. Do you believe this is a
mistake?
A1b. The committee did not attempt to construct an actual ``bottoms-
up'' budget, but rather sought to identify overall disciplines
deserving increased funding. The allocation within agencies would
require further study, but there was certainly no intent NASA (or DOD)
be excluded.
Q1c. Also, the NASA aeronautics budget has declined by 70 percent from
the FY 1994 funding level to the FY 2008 request. Could you comment on
how aeronautics is related to the future economic competitiveness of
the United States? Would you consider aeronautic research as one of the
fields that should be part of efforts to increase research funding for
enhanced U.S. competitiveness?
A1c. The committee I chaired did not address this issue, although it
clearly is an area having a significant impact on the balance of trade.
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. The ``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds'' bill amends the Noyce
Scholarship program, which reminds me of the UTeach Program at the
University of Texas. Noyce provides competitive awards to encourage
talented science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors and
professionals to become K-12 math and science teachers.
I am concerned the commitment to high-need schools isn't strong
enough to really make a difference. Do you think the program would be
better if recipients were required to teach in high need schools for
five years following graduation? Rather than just the one-year
commitment reduction for working in high need schools?
A1. The committee recommends a $10,000 bonus every year to
participating teachers in under-served schools in inner cities and
rural areas. There is no limitation on the number of years this bonus
is received. We did, of course, recommend a five-year teaching
commitment in exchange for the scholarship support.
Q2. H.R. 363, ``Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering
Research Act,'' is well-designed to assist early-career researchers by
supporting their work during a critical time. Young scientists and
engineers struggle to earn grant funding and obtain tenure. However,
the bill does not contain a provision to develop our domestic workforce
of under-represented populations such as women, Blacks and Hispanics.
Do you think such a grant program should contain provisions to
encourage under-represented minorities to apply and/or be given
preference?
A2. The committee did not address this specific issue in its report
other than to note the under-representation of those groups in the
science and technology workforce. The National Academies Committee on
Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) that oversaw the
development of the ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report may well
address this issue in its potential study, requested by several members
of the Senate, that will focus on the issue of under-represented
groups. This potential study is now in the fund-raising stage.
In addition, a workshop conducted on May 3-4 by the Academies Board
on Life Sciences and sponsored by the NIH will focus on the issue of
``Understanding Interventions that Encourage Minorities to Pursue
Research Careers: Major Questions and Approaches.''
Q3. With regard to Action Item A-3 of the Gathering Storm report,
would Advanced Placement exam rebates and AP ``mini-scholarships'' send
the wrong message or really make a difference? What model systems have
used this approach successfully?
A3. This recommendation is based on a very successful program in
Dallas. You can see more information on this program at the following
website: http://www.nationalmathandscience.org/programs/dallas.htm
Quoting the most recent data from their website (prior data is in
the Gathering Storm report):
``When the Dallas Independent School District (DISD) started a
training and incentive program for AP courses in 10 schools in
1996, the number of students scoring a three or higher on AP
mathematics, science, and English exams was just two-thirds of
the national average. At these schools, where half of students
receive free or reduced price lunch and 60 percent are African-
American or Hispanic, the number of AP exams with scores of
three or higher increased over 700 percent from 1995 to 2006
and increased by over 1,700 percent for African-American and
Hispanic students over this time period. In 2006, the students
at these schools earned scores of three or higher at a rate
that was 68 percent greater than the national average. More
impressively, African-American and Hispanic students at these
DISD schools surpassed the national average of these
ethnicities by almost 200 percent.
The success in the original 10 schools has led to all 23 high
schools in DISD adopting a similar training and incentive
program. At five particularly disadvantaged DISD schools, where
more than 70 percent of students receive free or reduced price
lunch and more than 90 percent are African-American or
Hispanic, the number of students graduating from college in
four years is on track to at least double since the inception
of its training and incentive program.''
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. Thank you for chairing the committee charged with drafting this
very timely and eye-opening report. It has truly served as a blueprint
for the Science and Technology Committee as we have worked to advance
our competitiveness agenda. You mention in your testimony that studies
have shown that between 50 and 85 percent of the Nation's growth in per
capita GDP during the last half-century can be attributed to science
and engineering progress. This is an astonishing figure that
illustrates just how critical our discussions and actions today are to
the long-term health and vitality of our country. Can you give some
specific examples of progress in the 20th Century that led to this
growth, and elaborate on current advancements that are contributing to
the Nation's GDP today?
A1. Thank you for your comments. On page 44 of the full Gathering Storm
report, you'll see a summary of the Twenty Great Achievements of the
20th century as identified by the National Academy of Engineering. It
is reproduced below:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
With regard to current, promising advancements, any list would
certainly include nanotechnology, biology and information technology.
Q2. I am pleased that Dr. Dynes mentioned the University of Illinois-
Urbana-Champaign/UC-Berkeley/Lawrence-Berkeley National Lab partnership
in his testimony. Having recently won the global competition for BP's
$500 million grant to build and operate an Energy Biosciences
Institute, the three partners will focus on one of the most pressing
issues currently facing our country--reducing our dependence on fossil
fuels--by researching biomass. This is a great example of how public
and private entities can collaborate to solve critical problems in our
society. How can Congress entice others in the business community to
follow suit?
A2. The committee recommended the creation of the Advanced Research
Project Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) that would support out-of-the-box
transformational energy research to meet the Nation's long-term energy
challenges. It would encourage industry and universities to become
partners in such research activities. As you know, the committee
identified energy research as a centerpiece of the proposed effort, for
the reasons cited in the report.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Harold McGraw III, Chairman and CEO, The McGraw-Hill
Companies; Chairman, Business Roundtable
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. The ``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds'' bill amends the Noyce
Scholarship program, which reminds me of the UTeach Program at the
University of Texas. Noyce provides competitive awards to encourage
talented science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors and
professionals to become K-12 math and science teachers.
I am concerned the commitment to high-need schools isn't strong
enough to really make a difference. Do you think the program would be
better if recipients were required to teach in high need schools for
five years following graduation? Rather than just the one-year
commitment reduction for working in high need schools?
A1. Business Roundtable is a strong supporter of the Robert Noyce
Scholarship Program authorized in the National Science Foundation
Authorization Act of 2002. By encouraging science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate majors to pursue
teaching careers, and by requiring that scholarship recipients teach in
a high-need local educational agency after graduation, the program
directly addresses two Business Roundtable priorities: recruiting math
and science teachers with disciplinary content knowledge and closing
the achievement gap in student performance.
Business Roundtable has endorsed H.R. 362, the ``10,000 Teachers,
10 Million Minds'' Science and Math Scholarship Act, including section
104 amending the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program. The amendments
included in H.R. 362 will, if enacted, strengthen the Noyce Scholarship
Program.
Business Roundtable shares Representative Johnson's concern about
the need to close the achievement gap in high-need school districts. We
believe that reducing the term of service for those who choose to teach
in high-need school districts, as provided for in H.R. 362, will
provide added incentive for new teachers to make that choice. Imposing
a five-year commitment upon scholarship recipients could create the
unintended consequence of discouraging students from participating in
the Noyce Program.
Q2. H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering
Research Act, is well-designed to assist early-career researchers by
supporting their work during a critical time. Young scientists and
engineers struggle to earn grant funding and obtain tenure. However,
the bill does not contain a provision to develop domestic workforce of
under-represented populations such as women, Blacks and Hispanics.
Do you think such a grant program should contain provisions to
encourage under-represented minorities to apply and/or given
preference?
A2. Business Roundtable has endorsed H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds
Through Science and Engineering Research Act, including sections 3 and
4, which authorize early career research grants programs at the
National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, respectively.
H.R. 363 contains a provision that requires broad dissemination about
when and how to apply for early career research grants, including
outreach to minority-serving institutions. Business Roundtable believes
that outreach and inclusion are important aspects of these grants
programs as authorized in H.R. 363. We would be hesitant, however, to
recommend adding preferences to this program because the NSF has other
excellent programs that are specifically designed to address the need
to increase participation of under-represented groups in science and
engineering.
Q3. With regards to Action Item A-3 of the Gathering Storm report,
would Advanced Placement exam rebates and AP ``mini-scholarships'' send
the wrong message or really make a difference? What model systems have
used this approach successfully?
A3. Business Roundtable supports efforts to train additional Advanced
Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), and pre-AP-IB math
and science teachers, as recommended in Part 3 of Action Item A-2 in
the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report.
Published data indicate that students who participate in AP and IB
programs have significantly higher college graduation rates than
students who do not. The model program for training AP, IB, and pre-AP-
IB math and science teachers is the AP Incentive Program in Dallas,
Texas. The University of California's College Prep Program, which
offers AP courses to high school students, has also been viewed as a
successful model.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. You state in your testimony that the U.S. ranks 17th in the world
in the proportion of the college-age population earning a degree in
science or engineering. As an engineer by training, and one of the only
nine current Members of Congress educated in the vocation, I must say
that this statistic is very worrisome to me. In order to draw attention
to the profession and good work done by our nation's engineers, earlier
this Congress I, along with Members of this committee, sponsored and
passed a bill to recognize and honor our nation's engineers. Now more
than ever our country requires the service, and we should do everything
in our power to see that our institutions of higher learning are
producing increasingly greater number of engineers. Back to the
ranking, is America 17th place holding steady, or is this ranking
increasing or decreasing in the context of other countries? Do you
believe this is a direct affect for the off-shoring of American
industries to other countries? Could you elaborate on other factors
contributing to this low ranking?
A1. The U.S. ranking, in terms of the proportion of the college-age
population earning a degree in science and engineering, has declined
compared to the rest of the world. The other nations have developed
their higher education sectors and produced increasingly higher numbers
of graduates with Bachelor's degrees in science and engineering.
Whether the U.S. ranking will continue to decline depends on the
actions of all interested parties to encourage more Americans to pursue
science and engineering studies. Highly capable American students have
more choices than some of their international counterparts. Careers in
business and law beckon high-performing U.S. students with greater
potential earning power and social status than technical careers. It is
not clear that structural changes in the economy, including the impact
of globalization on workers and industries, have an impact on students'
choice of undergraduate major. However, fundamental market forces may
eventually influence students' decisions. Acute shortages of science
and engineering talent will drive up salaries and thereby attract more
people to the field.
Q2. As you mention in your testimony, the key to America's
competitiveness challenge is innovation. It is clear that technological
innovation drives productivity growth, creating new products and
processes and generating high-wage employment and a higher standard of
living for all Americans. I worked to pass a bill in the House earlier
this session to make our metals industries more competitive and
innovative. The Legislation provides grants to universities, with
additional funding from industry, to develop new technologies to spur
innovation and give our steel and aluminum industries a competitive
advantage in the global marketplace. I believe this Congress must
continue to lead by giving our industries the tools necessary to
compete in the increasingly competitive world economy. Can you give us
a picture of the current innovation indicators of the United States? Is
our innovative growth rapidly declining, or are we suffering from a
gradual change like the frog being slowly boiled in a pot of water
where may be too late to act by the time we notice a problem?
A2. By every measure, the United States is the world's innovation
leader. The problem is that America's lead is slipping. Other economic
competitors around the world, including India and China, are following
the U.S. model of advanced economic development by investing in their
capacity to innovate. They are investing in science and engineering
research, investing in math and science education, opening their doors
to top science and engineering talent from around the world, and
creating tax incentives for research and research infrastructure
investments in their countries. It is important to note that China has
more than doubled its research and development spending as a percentage
of gross domestic product (GDP) from 0.6 percent in 1995 to 1.4 percent
today, and the EU set a target by 2010 to invest three percent of its
GDP into research and development, up from the current rate of just
over 1.8 percent of GDP. More importantly, in the U.S., federal funding
for research and development has declined from 1.25 percent of GDP in
1985 to 0.75 percent today. This trend has to change.
Q3. I am pleased that Dr. Dynes mentioned the University of Illinois-
Urbana-Champaign/UC-Berkley/Lawrence-Berkeley National Lab partnership
in his testimony. Have recently won the global competition for BP's
$500 million grant to build and operate and Energy Biosciences
Institute, the three partners will focus on one of the most pressing
issues currently facing our country--reducing our dependence on fossil
fuels--by researching biomass. This is a great example of how public
and private entities can collaborate to solve critical problems in our
society. How can Congress entice others in the business community
follow suit?
A3. Business Roundtable is proud of our member companies' contributions
to America's innovation capacity, including the BP America, Inc.
collaboration with Lawrence-Berkeley National Laboratory, the
University of California, and the University of Illinois to establish
an energy biosciences institute. We are also proud of the ExxonMobil
Corporation's $125 million commitment to the National Math and Science
Initiative, a nonprofit organization created to facilitate the national
scale-up of programs that have a demonstrated impact on math and
science education in the United States.
Business Roundtable believes that the most effective action
Congress can take to encourage business's continued investment in
American's capacity to innovate would be to enact the policy agenda
outlined in the American Innovation Proclamation:
<bullet> Renew America's commitment to discovery by doubling
the basic research budgets at the National Science Foundation,
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the
Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the Department of
Defense;
<bullet> Improve student achievement in math and science
through funding of proven programs and incentives for science
and math teacher recruitment and professional development;
<bullet> Welcome highly educated foreign professionals,
particularly those holding advanced science, technology,
engineering, or mathematics degrees, especially from U.S.
universities, by reforming U.S. visa policies; and
<bullet> Make permanent a strengthened R&D tax credit to
encourage continued private-sector innovation investment.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Robert C. Dynes, Professor of Physics and Material
Science; President, University of California
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. The ``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds'' bill amends the Noyce
Scholarship program, which reminds me of the UTeach Program at the
University of Texas. Noyce provides competitive awards to encourage
talented science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors and
professionals to become K-12 math and science teachers.
I am concerned the commitment to high-need schools isn't strong
enough to really make a difference. Do you think the program would be
better if recipients were required to teach in high need schools for
five years following graduation? Rather than just the one-year
commitment reduction for working in high need schools?
A1. The University's experience, and that of other institutions as
well, is that providing incentives for work in high need schools yields
better outcomes than does a requirement. Students are often reluctant
to accept funds that unduly limit later vocational choices, since so
many other life choices can be affected by such commitments. Current
federal loan forgiveness programs that require teachers to perform
services in high need schools for five consecutive years have not
yielded desirable outcomes. So, I would encourage that we treat these
forgiveness programs as incentives to students, rather than
requirements.
Q2. H.R. 363, ``Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering
Research Act,'' is well-designed to assist early-career researchers by
supporting their work during the critical time. Young scientists and
engineers struggle to earn grant funding and obtain tenure. However,
the bill does not contain a provision to develop our domestic workforce
of under-represented populations such as women, Blacks and Hispanics.
Do you think such a grant program should contain provisions to
encourage under-represented minorities to apply and/or be given
preference?
A2. I believe early career award programs, like the ones that would be
established by H.R. 363, can play an important role in providing
support to young scientists and engineers and those at early stages in
their careers. It can be difficult for such individuals to obtain grant
support, and an award program like the one promoted by H.R. 363 can
help encourage and sustain our next generation of scientists.
Encouraging under-represented minorities to apply for such awards is a
worthy goal, and the bill takes a step in that direction, at least, by
directing that information about the awards be disseminated broadly and
that officials responsible for the programs should conduct outreach to
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and minority institutions.
Drawing talented individuals from diverse backgrounds into careers in
science and engineering is important. I believe the effort needs to
begin early, by improving math and science education in K-12 and in
ensuring that children from all backgrounds are well prepared and
encouraged to pursue higher education in science and math, so that they
will then be well positioned to be part of a highly-trained domestic
STEM work force.
Q3. With regard to Action Item A-3 of the Gathering Storm report,
would Advanced Placement exam rebates and AP ``mini-scholarships'' send
the wrong message or really make a difference? What model systems have
used this approach successfully?
A3. Mini-scholarships used to encourage students to enroll in AP
courses and to take the exams related to these courses have proven to
be effective inducements to low-income students. However, it is
important that the funds be made available at the time payment is
required of the student. Rebates are much less effective because the
family must make the initial payment, but they often do not have the
ready cash to do so. In addition, families feel uncertain that the
rebate will actually be received to cover the cost of the exam.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. I am pleased that you mention the University of Illinois-Urbana-
Champaign/UC-Berkeley/Lawrence-Berkeley National Lab partnership in
your testimony. Having recently won the global competition for BP's
$500 million grant to build and operate an Energy Biosciences
Institute, the three partners will focus on one of the most pressing
issues currently facing our country-reducing our dependence on fossil
fuels--by researching biomass. This is a great example of how public
and private entities can collaborate to solve critical problems in our
society. Do you believe the United States should encourage more of
these types of initiatives from private industry in order to achieve
these objectives? How can Congress entice others in the business
community to follow suit?
A1. Land Grant institutions like the University of California and the
University of Illinois have a long history of collaborating with
industry in support of instruction, research, and public service. I do
believe that partnering with industry is increasingly important, in
part to ensure that research innovations discovered by University
scientists can be developed into useful services, technologies,
products, and therapies that can benefit the public. Collaborating with
industry helps ensure delivery of research from the bench to the
patient's bedside, to the farmer's field, and into the community
generally where the public can enjoy its benefits. In addition to the
crucial role industry plays in technology transfer, industry also
provides a critical source of funding for research, and collaboration
across departments, disciplines, institutions, and sectors (i.e.,
public/private) is increasingly important in addressing the ever more
complex scientific and societal issues we all face. Federal patent and
tax laws can and do encourage University-Industry collaboration, and
can provide incentives for industry to invest in research. There are
also federal grant programs that encourage University-Industry
cooperative research. And it would be my hope that these kinds of
programs would continue to receive federal support.
Of course, federal funding is by far the most important source of
support for University research, and we would not want to see industry
funding, which is often more targeted and less likely to be directed to
basic research, looked to as a replacement for robust federal
investment in university research, which remains critical for our
nation's competitiveness.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Craig R. Barrett, Chairman of the Board, Intel Corporation
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. The ``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds'' bill amends the Noyce
Scholarship program, which reminds me of the UTeach Program at the
University of Texas. Noyce provides competitive awards to encourage
talented science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors and
professionals to become K-12 math and science teachers.
I am concerned the commitment to high-need schools isn't strong
enough to really make a difference. Do you think the program would be
better if recipients were required to teach in high need schools for
five years following graduation? Rather than just the one-year
commitment reduction for working in high need schools?
A1. I believe that the program would indeed be strengthened by a multi-
year commitment requirement, to teach generally, in order to obtain
full benefit of the investment made in the student. What is important
is getting the properly trained teachers into the school systems, and
that is true for all schools, not just high-need schools.
Q2. H.R. 363, ``Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering
Research Act,'' is well-designed to assist early-career researchers by
supporting their work during a critical time. Young scientists and
engineers struggle to earn grant funding and obtain tenure. However,
the bill does not contain a provision to develop our domestic workforce
of under-represented populations such as women, Blacks and Hispanics.
Do you think such a grant program should contain provisions to
encourage under-represented minorities to apply and/or be given
preference?
A2. I believe that the program should be available to all researchers,
and awards should be based upon the merits of their work. I have no
opinion on the questions of preferences, this is in the expertise of
Congress.
Q3. With regards to Action Item A-3 of the Gathering Storm report,
would Advanced Placement exam rebates and AP ``mini-scholarships'' send
the wrong message or really make a difference? What model systems have
used this approach successfully?
A3. Rebates and scholarships would serve as a further inducement to
students to apply themselves to the AP discipline. It is one among many
incentives we propose to motivate students to tackle math and science.
I am not aware of specific program experiments in this regard.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. You stated that we have come close to having critical research
facilities close, such as the Brookhaven heavy ion collider. As you may
know, Fermi Laboratory, with assistance from DOE, has put in a bid for
the International Linear Collider. Could you elaborate on the positive
impacts of the creation of new facilities such as this? In the same
vein, can you expand on the potential consequences were the United
States fail to be awarded crucial facilities, such as the ILC, this
decade?
A1. New facilities that are on the cutting edge of research, such as
the ILC, if located in the U.S., are a benefit to U.S. scientists and
engineers and to the constellation of industry users that are
interested in the research. The siting of such facilities in the U.S.
also stimulates interest in the U.S. university programs that
inevitably are partners in the research.
Q2. I am pleased that Dr. Dynes mentioned the University of Illinois-
Urbana-Champaign/UC-Berkeley/Lawrence-Berkeley National Lab partnership
in his testimony. Having recently won the global competition for BP's
$500 million grant to build and operate an Energy Biosciences
Institute, the three partners will focus on one of the most pressing
issues currently facing our country--reducing our dependence on fossil
fuels--by researching biomass. This is a great example of how public
and private entities can collaborate to solve critical problems in our
society. How can Congress entice others in the business community to
follow suit?
A2. Congress can entice the business community by providing policy
direction to the labs to pursue such cooperative research, and
providing to businesses the proper financial incentives to make the
investment in uncertain basic research--such as by making permanent the
Research and Development Tax Credit, which is reauthorized every one or
two years on an ad-hoc basis. This does not provide for the stability
of resource planning that business needs to make these investments over
the long-term.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Neal Lane, Malcolm Gillis University Professor, and Senior
Fellow of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy,
Rice University
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. The Gathering Storm report places a strong emphasis on the
importance of increasing funding for basic research, particularly in
the physical sciences, engineering and mathematics.
Q1a. Should the portion of NASA's budget that supports basic research
be part of initiatives to increase basic research funding?
Q1b. As you know the President has proposed substantial increases to
double the budgets of NSF, the DOE Office of Science, and NIST, but not
for the science components of the NASA budget. Do you believe this is a
mistake?
A1a, b. NASA support for basic research in space and earth science has
been a very important part of the U.S. effort. It is being cut in order
to find funds for the President's Moon-Mars exploration program. I
believe that these are flawed priorities. NASA should cleanly separate
out its basic research programs, build a firewall between those and
human exploration, and ask the President to include NASA basic science
in the American Competitiveness Initiative. But, if the basic science
funding cannot be protected from human exploration, then it should not
be included--in any manner--along with NSF, DOE Office of Science, and
NIST, lest some of those agencies' research funding be tapped (at the
appropriations committee level) to shore up the exploration program. I
would also point out that, in addition to cuts in basic research, NASA
is also cutting back on its satellite Earth observation programs
(including basic research in Earth sciences). In this case, we lose the
scientific information that is critical to improving our ability to
improve weather predictions (e.g., hurricanes) and as well as monitor
climate change.
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. The ``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds'' bill amends the Noyce
Scholarship program, which reminds me of the UTeach Program at the
University of Texas. Noyce provides competitive awards to encourage
talented science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors and
professionals to become K-12 math and science teachers.
I am concerned the commitment to high-need schools isn't strong
enough to really make a difference. Do you think the program would be
better if recipients were required to teach in high need schools for
five years following graduation? Rather than just the one-year
commitment reduction for working in high need schools?
A1. I believe that the length of service in high-need schools deserves
further discussion. I do not feel qualified to say that one year is too
short and five years is the right tenure. One must consider how best to
develop the career of the young teacher as well as insure that the
students in the high-need schools get the education they deserve. Such
a decision needs to be based on pedagogical research findings; and if
those data and analyses do not exist, then pilot programs, if done in
conjunction with relevant research, could help answer the question.
Q2. H.R. 363, ``Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering
Research Act,'' is well-designed to assist early-career researchers by
supporting their work during a critical time. Young scientists and
engineers struggle to earn grant funding and obtain tenure. However,
the bill does not contain a provision to develop our domestic workforce
of under-represented populations such as women, Blacks and Hispanics.
Do you think such a grant program should contain provisions to
encourage under-represented minorities to apply and/or be given
preference?
A2. The need to develop our science and engineering domestic workforce
certainly should emphasize the special challenge of attracting more
women, African-Americans and Latino men and women as well as members of
other under-represented communities to careers in science and
engineering. Of course, this is not an unrecognized need. Many federal
agencies, e.g., the National Science Foundation, have designed and
implanted programs over the years to do just that; but progress has
been slow, especially for under-represented minorities. I do believe
that some significant effort should be made to encourage members of
unrepresented groups to apply for any of the early-career programs.
However, that should be done, only if effective mentorship arrangements
are in place at institutions applying for these funds to assure that
all young scientists and engineers are given a fair chance to succeed.
Retention is just as important as recruitment and learning to succeed
in the highly competitive environment that characterizes excellence in
academic research and education is especially challenging for young
people from under-represented groups and for women in general.
Q3. With regards to Action Item A-3 of the Gathering Storm report,
would Advanced Placement exam rebates and AP ``mini-scholarships'' send
the wrong message or really make a difference? What model systems have
used this approach successfully?
A3. AP exam rebates have been successfully used by the State of Texas,
for instance, to reduce exam fees across the State. In addition, Texas
has refunded the district professional development funds used by
teachers to develop their content knowledge in select AP summer
institutes mostly held by universities across the State. The summer
institute model serves as a good model of collaboration between the
College Board and universities in implementing high-quality and
reliable professional development opportunities. Both of these actions
have resulted in a significant rise in the number of exams taken
statewide by AP students in public schools.
Question submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. I was pleased to hear the University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign/
UC-Berkeley/Lawrence-Berkeley National Lab partnership in Dr. Dynes's
testimony. Having recently won the global competition for BP's $500
million grant to build and operate an Energy Biosciences Institute, the
three partners will focus on one of the most pressing issues currently
facing our country--reducing our dependence on fossil fuels--by
researching biomass. This is a great example of how public and private
entities can collaborate to solve critical problems in our society. How
can Congress entice others in the business community to follow suit?
A1. It is increasingly clear that reducing this nation's dependence on
fossil fuels is among the top few most critical needs in the new
millennium and that biomass offers an important option to address this
need. This new $500 million partnership to manage the Energy
Biosciences Institute is an excellent example of how the priorities of
a major energy company can come into alignment with the missions of
major universities and federally funded research laboratories to solve
large national, indeed world problems. Biomass is a most promising
energy technology, but much research remains to be done. With this as a
model, other universities and companies can partner to take on a large
research agenda in many areas of energy R&D, e.g., solar, wind, nuclear
in addition to biomass. Congress should hold hearings showcasing
programs and partnerships underway and inviting companies and agencies
to propose new ways to move forward. The energy crisis is real and the
need for alternative approaches is urgent.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Deborah L. Wince-Smith, President, Council on
Competitiveness
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. The ``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds'' bill amends the Noyce
Scholarship program, which reminds me of the UTeach Program at the
University of Texas. Noyce provides competitive awards to encourage
talented science, technology, engineering and mathematics majors and
professionals to become K-12 math and science teachers.
I am concerned the commitment to high-need schools isn't strong
enough to really make a difference. Do you think the program would be
better if recipients were required to reach in high need schools for
five years following graduation? Rather than just the one-year
commitment reduction for working in high need schools?
A1. I believe a significant commitment of time is justified, as that
would allow for a more stable, continuing curriculum for the students
and represents a tangible expression of priorities by the Congress.
Q2. H.R. 363, ``Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering
Research Act,'' is well-designed to assist early-career researchers by
supporting their work during the critical time. Young scientists and
engineers struggle to earn grant funding and obtain tenure. However,
the bill does not contain a provision to develop our domestic workforce
of under-represented populations such as women, Blacks and Hispanics.
Do you think such a grant program should contain provisions to
encourage under-represented minorities to apply and/or be given
preference?
A2. This grant program should encourage under-represented minorities to
participate in the program. Minorities make up an integral and
expanding part of our workforce and we need to ensure they have the
skills to succeed, especially in science and engineering.
Q3. With regards to Action Item A-3 of the Gathering Storm report,
would Advance Placement exam rebates and AP ``mini-scholarships'' send
the wrong message or really make a difference? What model systems have
used this approach successfully?
A3. I believe programs of this type have been successful in encouraging
AP participation in certain areas of the country. Importantly, cost
should not be a barrier to achievement, so if mini-scholarships or
rebates can increase access to AP or similar programs, we should
explore these opportunities.
Question submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. I am pleased that Dr. Dynes mentioned the University of Illinois-
Urbana-Campaign/UC-Berkeley/Lawrence-Berkeley National Lab partnership
in this testimony. Having recently won the global competition for BP's
$500 million grant to build and operate an Energy biosciences
Institute, the three partners will focus on one of the most pressing
issues currently facing our country--reducing our dependence on fossil
fuels--by researching biomass. This is a great example of how public
and private entities can collaborate to solve critical problems in our
society. How can Congress entice others in the business community to
follow suit?
A1. Public-private partnerships will be critical to America's effort to
find and commercialize alternate energy sources. BP's efforts
demonstrate the power of the private sector to encourage this type of
research, but the government also can and should create incentives for
collaboration.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
<SKIP PAGES = 000>
Section-by-Section Summary of H.R. 362,
``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds''
Science and Math Scholarship Act
Summary
The bill implements most of the K-12 science education
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report,
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America
for a Brighter Economic Future.'' It establishes a teacher education
program at the National Science Foundation (NSF) to encourage math,
science and engineering faculty to work with education faculty to
improve the education of science and math teachers and to provide
scholarships to science, math and engineering students who commit to
become science or math teachers at elementary and secondary schools;
authorizes summer teacher training institutes at NSF and DOE to improve
the content knowledge and pedagogical skills of in-service science and
math teachers, including preparing them to teach Advanced Placement and
International Baccalaureate courses in science and math; requires that
NSF include support for Master's degree programs for in-service science
and mathematics teachers within the NSF Math and Science Partnerships;
and authorizes funding for the NSF STEM Talent Expansion program and
expands the program to include centers for improving undergraduate STEM
education.
Sectional Summary of Bill
Section 1
Table of Contents.
Section 2
Findings on the role of NSF in K-12 and undergraduate STEM
education.
Section 3
Definitions used in the bill.
Title I--Science Scholarships
Section 101
Short Title of the bill.
Section 102
Findings relating the bill to the NAS report recommendations.
Section 103
Policy objective of the bill--to increase by 10,000 annually the
number of capable K-12 science and math teachers.
Section 104
Amends the NSF Noyce Scholarship program, established by the NSF
Authorization Act of 2002, to create incentives for colleges and
universities to improve the training of STEM teachers and increases the
size and duration of the scholarships provided for science, math and
engineering majors who pursue teaching credentials:
<bullet> Provides competitive awards to institutions of higher
education (or consortia of such institutions) that (1)
establish cross-department faculty teams (science, math and
engineering faculty along with education faculty) to develop
courses of instruction leading to baccalaureate degrees in
fields of science, math and/or engineering and also preparing
graduates to become certified or licensed to teach in a K-12
classroom, and (2) administer scholarships for students during
their sophomore through senior years and summer internships
during their freshman years.
<bullet> Requires early field teaching experiences for student
teachers in the program under the supervision of highly
experienced and effective teachers.
<bullet> Requires awardees to provide professional development
and mentoring support to scholarship recipients, after
matriculation.
<bullet> Sets scholarship amounts at the cost of attendance at
particular institutions, not to exceed $10,000 per year, and
provides up to three years of scholarship support for any
individual.
<bullet> Requires scholarship recipients to commit to teaching
for up to six years following graduation (the period of
teaching commitment is based on the number of years of
scholarship support), reduces the commitment by one year for
individuals who teach at high-need schools, and converts the
scholarships to loans if the teaching commitment is not met.
<bullet> Authorizes the NSF to accept donations from the
private sector to help support scholarships and internships.
<bullet> Authorizes $70 million for NSF for FY 2008, $101
million for FY 2009, $133 million for FY 2010, $164 million for
FY 2011, and $196 million for FY 2012.
Title II--Mathematics and Science Education Improvement
Section 201 amends the NSF Math and Science Education Partnerships
program established by the NSF Authorization Act of 2002:
<bullet> Specifies that priority for awards under the program
be given to applications that include teacher training
activities as a main focus.
<bullet> Authorizes teacher training activities to prepare
teachers to teach Advanced Placement and International
Baccalaureate science or math courses and provides for
mentoring by professional scientists, mathematicians and
engineers.
<bullet> Authorizes the development of Master's degree
programs for in-service science and math teachers.
Section 202 addresses teacher institute programs at NSF and DOE:
<bullet> NSF is directed to establish a grant program to
support summer or academic year teacher institutes and
authorizes summer teacher institutes as a component of the NSF
21st Century program. Such summer institutes are required to
include teacher training activities to prepare teachers to
teach Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate
science or math courses.
<bullet> Authorizes $32 million for NSF for FY 2008, $35.2
million for FY 2009, and $38.7 million for FY 2010, $42.6
million for FY 2011, and $46.8 million for FY 2012.
<bullet> The following amounts are authorized for the existing
Laboratory Science Teacher Professional Development program at
DOE: $3 million for FY 2008, $8 million for FY 2009, and $10
million for each year FY 2010 through FY 2012.
Section 203 requires NSF to ensure that, under the Math and Science
Partnership program, Master's degree programs are developed and
implemented for in-service math and science teachers, who attend on a
part-time basis and who will be able to complete the degree
requirements within two years. The programs have the following
features:
<bullet> Provide stipends to defray the cost of attendance for
teachers in the program.
<bullet> Allow for support for the development of the courses
of instruction and related educational materials and equipment
(offering of online learning is an option).
<bullet> Require the distribution of awards among institutions
of different sizes and geographic locations.
Authorizes $46 million for NSF for FY 2008, $50.6 million for FY
2009, $55.7 million for FY 2010, $61.2 million for FY 2011, and $67.3
million for FY 2012.
Section 204: (1) establishes a national panel of experts to identify
and collect K-12 science and mathematics teaching materials that have
been demonstrated to be effective and to recommend the development of
new materials in areas where effective materials do not exist; and (2)
directs NSF and the Department of Education to develop ways to
disseminate effective materials and support efforts to develop new
materials, in accordance with the recommendations of the national
panel.
Section 205 amends the NSF STEM Talent Expansion program established
under the NSF Authorization Act of 2002 to create centers for
improvement of undergraduate education in STEM fields, including:
<bullet> Development of undergraduate curriculum and teaching
methods and training for faculty and teaching assistants in
effective pedagogical practices.
<bullet> Assessment of the effectiveness of the centers and
dissemination of information about materials and methods
developed.
Authorizes $44 million for NSF for the STEM Talent Expansion
program for FY 2008, of which $4 million is available for centers; $55
million for FY 2009, of which $10 million is available for centers; and
$60 million for each year of FY 2010 through FY 2012, of which $10
million is available in each year for centers.
Section-by-Section Summary of H.R. 363,
Sowing the Seeds Through Science
and Engineering Research Act
Summary
H.R. 363 implements recommendations related to strengthening long-
term basic research contained in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Economic Future. It authorizes 10 percent
increases per year in funding for basic research in the physical
sciences, mathematical sciences, and engineering at the principal
federal agencies supporting such research; provides grant support
through programs at NSF and DOE for outstanding researchers in the
early stages of their careers of $80,000 per year for five years;
establishes a floor of 1.5 percent of research funding appropriated for
NSF for an existing program supporting graduate students in
multidisciplinary fields of national importance; establishes a
presidential innovation award to stimulate scientific and engineering
advances in the national interest; and establishes a national
coordination office to identify and prioritize research infrastructure
needs at universities and national laboratories and to help guide the
investments of new infrastructure funds authorized for NSF and DOE.
Section-by-Section
Section 1 is the short title of the bill.
Section 2 authorizes appropriations for basic research activities in
the physical sciences, mathematics and computer sciences, and
engineering at four agencies and authorizes appropriations for all
basic (6.1) research at the Department of Defense. The funding levels
increase by 10 percent for each year:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Of the amounts authorized, eight percent are designated for support
of high-risk, high-payoff research to be selected by technical program
managers at each agency.
Section 3 authorizes NSF to carry out a grant program for awards to
scientists and engineers at the early stage of their careers in
academia or in nonprofit research organizations. The NSF's existing
Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) program may be designated as
the mechanism for awarding these grants. The awards will go to
outstanding researchers at the beginning of their careers and are
intended for individuals from a variety of types of institutions,
including minority serving institutions. The grants provide five years
of research funding support at a minimum of $80,000 per year per award.
NSF is required to designate at least 3.5 percent of funds
appropriated for Research and Related Activities to the grant program
for each of FY 2008 through FY 2012.
Section 4 authorizes DOE to carry out a grant program for awards to
scientists and engineers at the early stage of their careers in
academia or in nonprofit research organizations to conduct research in
fields relevant to the mission of DOE. The awards will go to
outstanding researchers at the beginning of their careers and are
intended for individuals from a variety of types of institutions,
including minority serving institutions. The grants provide five years
of research funding support at a minimum of $80,000 per year per award,
and priority shall go to proposals involving collaborations with
researchers at DOE national laboratories.
Authorizes to DOE $25 million for each year for FY 2008 through FY
2012.
Section 5 directs NSF to allocate at least 1.5 percent of the amounts
appropriated for Research and Related Activities to the Integrative
Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program, which
provides support for graduate students in fields relevant to national
needs. It requires NSF to coordinate with other agencies to expand the
interdisciplinary nature of the IGERT program and authorizes NSF to
accept funds from other agencies to carry out the program.
Section 6 establishes the Presidential Innovation Award presented
periodically, on the basis of recommendations from the Director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, to citizens or permanent
residents of the U.S. who develop unique scientific or engineering
ideas judged to stimulate scientific and engineering advances in the
national interest, to illustrate the linkage between science and
engineering and national needs, and to provide an example to excite the
interest of students in science or engineering professions.
Section 7 establishes a National Coordination Office for Research
Infrastructure under the Office of Science and Technology Policy to
identify and prioritize deficiencies in research facilities and
instrumentation in academic institutions and national laboratories and
to make recommendations for use of funding authorized. The funds
authorized are to be used for competitive, merit-reviewed projects for
construction and maintenance of research facilities, including
instrumentation, computing and networking equipment and other physical
resources. Authorizes $333 million per year for NSF for FY 2008 through
FY 2012, and $167 million per year for the Department of Energy for FY
2008 through FY 2012.
Section 8 authorizes NSF, in carrying out its research programs on
science policy and the science of learning, to support research on the
process of innovation and the teaching of inventiveness.