107th Congress

EPSCoR Legislation

H.R. 973

Background

By mandate in 1978, the National Science Foundation (NSF) established the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), a merit-based program designed to expand the scientific and technological capacities of States with developing research infrastructures. Enabling language for NSF states that the purpose of the program is to "assist those States that 1) historically have received relatively little Federal research and development funds, and 2) have demonstrated a commitment to develop their research bases and improve science and technology (S&T) research and education programs at their universities and colleges." In 2000, NSF funded research in 21 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In addition to NSF, EPSCoR or EPSCoR-like programs were implemented in the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

In House Report 102-708, which accompanied the Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations bill (H.R. 5677), the NSF program was cited as an effective mechanism for developing the research capacity of regions in the country that do not currently participate fully in science research and development (R&D). The committee urged the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to consider establishing an EPSCoR-like program at NIH. This was followed by action from the authorizing committees. On June 10, 1993, the President signed the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-43), which established in statute a "program to stimulate competitive research." This became the National Center for Research Resources' (NCRR) Institutional Development Award Program (IDeA). Since that time, the NIH IDeA program has grown such that $100 million was earmarked for the program in FY 2001 appropriations. Since its establishment, Members from IDeA and EPSCoR States, particularly Members from the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees, have urged growth for this program and included appropriations report language to that effect each year.

According to the most recent figures released by NSF's Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS) on April 4, 2001, R&D spending in the United States is highly concentrated in just a few States. These figures show a tight correlation between NIH investment and State R&D spending. According to NSF SRS data from 1998—the most recent data broken down by State—the 20 highest-ranking States in R&D expenditures made up 85 percent of the national total, while the lowest 20 accounted for only 4 percent. By far the largest R&D spender, at $44 billion, was California, which alone accounted for 20 percent of the $215 billion total U.S. R&D spending. California's expenditures, plus those of the next five highest States (New York, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Texas), constituted almost one-half of the national R&D effort. Meanwhile, the top 10 States (adding Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Maryland) made up almost two-thirds of the U.S. R&D spending by State. Comparing the NSF data with the latest NIH awards by State shows a tight correlation. Of the NSF top 10 in 1998, 8 were among the top 10 recipients for NIH grants and awards in 2000. California came in first once again at $2.1 billion. New York fell to third place at $1.3 billion, to be replaced by Massachusetts, which received $1.5 billion last year from NIH.

Provisions of the Legislation/Impact on NIH

On March 13, 2001, Representative Ernest Istook, Jr. (R-OK) introduced H.R. 973, the National Institutes of Health EPSCoR Program Act of 2001, a bill designed to amend the Public Health Service Act to create an EPSCoR program at NIH similar to that of NSF. This bill would have 1) replaced the current NIH authority for the IDeA program supported by NCRR with an EPSCoR Program, and 2) divided the $200 million in authorized funding between an infrastructure program where the funds would be divided equally among the 26 designated EPSCoR States as a block grant (for buildings, equipment, and training to use the equipment) and a cofunded program for these States with NIH Institutes for grants using the traditional peer-review system. In addition, the bill would have set aside $20 million of the $200 million for technical assistance. H.R. 973 was cosponsored by Representatives Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) and Roger Wicker (R-MS). H.R. 973 was virtually identical to a measure introduced by Representative Istook and the companion bill introduced by Senator James M. Inhofe (R-OK) in the 106th Congress.

• Eligibility: The bill would have defined eligible States based on a percentage of NIH extramural grant programs support to that State's institutions averaged over a 5-year period. (In practice, this would have included all current IDeA States plus Utah and Iowa.)
• Authorization Level and Conditions: For FY 2002, the EPSCoR authorization level would have been $200 million, with 10 percent of that reserved for technical assistance by NIH (and such sums as necessary through FY 2005). Technical assistance would have included 1) helping researchers from EPSCoR States prepare applications, 2) assisting institutions in preparing proposals, and 3) assisting in implementation of State EPSCoR plans.
• Infrastructure and Co-funding: The remaining authorized amount ($180 million) would have been divided between an infrastructure program and a program for research grants. For the infrastructure program, one award would have been made per State. The amount of the award would have been determined by dividing the total amount available by the number of States. These awards were to build research capacity by supporting faculty enhancement and development programs; construction and renovation of facilities; obtaining equipment, including infrastructure; and other activities deemed appropriate by the Director of NIH. For the infrastructure awards, the bill would have prohibited any matching requirement as a condition of award. The program for research would have required that an EPSCoR award be made only if the project in question had been through the regular NIH peer-review process. The concept was that if the grant has not been funded because it fell below the payline, funds from this program, in conjunction with Institute/Center funds, could be used to allow the project grant to proceed. For FY 2002, the first year of the program, 80 percent of the funding would have been designated for infrastructure, with 20 percent for research. The next year the percentage would have dropped by 10 percent to 70-30; then to 60-40; and 50-50 for FYs 2005 and 2006.

The bill also assumed savings from the indirect costs differential of the EPSCoR versus non-EPSCoR States to be applied to fund the cofunded grants program.

• EPSCoR Committees: The program would have been administered through NIH EPSCoR committees in each State, comprised of individuals representing both nonprofit and for-profit biomedical and behavioral research entities from the State, representatives from the State legislature, and staff from the office of the Governor of the State. The committees would have been responsible for setting the State research priorities and appointing the fiscal agent responsible for administering any funds received.
• State Fiscal Agents: The State fiscal agent would have been responsible for acting on behalf of the committee and submitting the State's applications to the Federal Government for the infrastructure projects, disbursing grants, and overseeing those projects to ensure that they are meeting the State's research priorities.
• The NIH Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE) and the Biomedical Research Infrastructure Networks (BRIN): NCRR recently initiated two programs to enhance the biomedical capacities of the 23 eligible States and Puerto Rico. The Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence provide a flexible support to augment and strengthen physical infrastructure by providing support for laboratory renovations, research equipment, and faculty development. The BRIN program enhances the educational infrastructure and research capacities of institutions by requiring activities that enhance the quality of undergraduate faculty of participating institutions to improve the quality of science majors. In FY 2002, approximately $75 million was provided for BRIN programs that were established in FY 2001. Those States that did not receive a BRIN award in FY 2001 would have had the opportunity to compete in FY 2002.

Status and Outlook

H.R. 973 was introduced on March 13, 2001, and was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. No further action occurred during the 107th Congress