Homeland Security Digital Library

Homeland Security Digital Library

SEARCH THE HSDL

Advanced search Help

Searching for terms: EXACT: "Stine, Deborah D." in: author

Set an Alert to get future results

Results 1 - 30 (of 31) sorted by relevance sort by date

Clear all search criteria

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected Issues [Updated October 17, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
This CRS report discusses the America COMPETES Act's programs, funding and other issues. "On August 2, 2007, Congress passed the America COMPETES Act (H.R. 2272), which the President signed into law (P.L. 110-69) on August 9, 2007. The act responds to concerns that the United States may not be able to compete economically with other nations in the future due to insufficient investment today in science and technology research and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and workforce development. A similar concern had led President Bush to announce the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) in January 2006 during his State of the Union address."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2008-10-17
America COMPETES Act and the FY2009 Budget [Updated October 17, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
This CRS report discusses the America COMPETES Act's policy and budget. "The America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) responds to concerns that the United States may not be able to compete economically with other nations in the future due to insufficient investment today in science and engineering research and in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. A similar concern led President Bush to announce the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) in January 2006."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2008-10-17
America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected Issues [Updated April 17, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
This CRS report discusses the America COMPETES Act's programs, funding and other issues. "The America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) became law on August 9, 2007. The act responds to concerns that the United States may not be able to compete economically with other nations in the future due to insufficient investment today in science and technology research and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and workforce development. The America COMPETES Act is intended to increase the nation's investment in science and engineering research and in STEM education from kindergarten to graduate school and postdoctoral education. It is designed to focus on two perceived concerns believed to influence future U.S. competitiveness: inadequate research and development funding to generate sufficient technological progress, and inadequate numbers of American students proficient in science and mathematics or interested in science and engineering careers relative to international competitors."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2009-04-17
Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, and Federal Energy Technology R&D Programs: A Comparative Analysis [June 30, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Some policymakers have concluded that the energy challenges facing the United States are so critical that a concentrated investment in energy research and development (R&D) should be undertaken. The Manhattan project, which produced the atomic bomb, and the Apollo program, which landed American men on the moon, have been cited as examples of the success such R&D investments can yield. Investment in federal energy technology R&D programs of the 1970s, in response to two energy crises, have generally been viewed as less successful than the earlier two efforts. This report compares and contrasts the three initiatives. [...] Besides funding, several criteria might be used to compare these three initiatives including perception of the program or threat, goal clarity, and the customer of the technology being developed. By these criteria, while the Manhattan project and the Apollo program may provide some useful analogies for thinking about an energy technology R&D initiative, there are fundamental differences between the forces that drove these historical R&D success stories and the forces driving energy technology R&D today. Critical differences include (1) the ability to transform the program or threat into a concrete goal, and (2) the use to which the technology would be put. [...]. For energy, the response to the problems of insecure oil sources and high prices has resulted in multiple, sometimes conflicting, goals."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2009-06-30
Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, and Federal Energy Technology R&D Programs: A Comparative Analysis [February 4, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Some policymakers have concluded that the energy challenges facing the United States are so critical that a concentrated investment in energy research and development (R&D) should be undertaken. The Manhattan project, which produced the atomic bomb, and the Apollo program, which landed American men on the moon, have been cited as examples of the success such R&D investments can yield. Investment in federal energy technology R&D programs of the 1970s, in response to two energy crises, have generally been viewed as less successful than the earlier two efforts. This report compares and contrasts the three initiatives. [...]. Besides funding, several criteria might be used to compare these three initiatives including perception of the program or threat, goal clarity, and the customer of the technology being developed. By these criteria, while the Manhattan project and the Apollo program may provide some useful analogies for thinking about an energy technology R&D initiative, there are fundamental differences between the forces that drove these historical R&D success stories and the forces driving energy technology R&D today. Critical differences include (1) the ability to transform the program or threat into a concrete goal, and (2) the use to which the technology would be put. [...]. For energy, the response to the problems of insecure oil sources and high prices has resulted in multiple, sometimes conflicting, goals."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2009-02-04
Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E): Background, Status, and Selected Issues for Congress [Updated August 12, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"In August 2007, Congress authorized the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) within the Department of Energy (DOE) as part of the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69). Modeled on the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), ARPA-E would support transformational energy technology research projects with the goal of enhancing the nation's economic and energy security. […] Some have proposed funding ARPA-E through a mechanism that differs from the usual single-year appropriations process to enhance its ability to conduct risky research without being subject to the annual appropriations cycle, political and financial pressures, and resource fluctuations that might stifle innovation. One option is for Congress to provide a multi-year advance appropriation. Another is for Congress to identify a revenue source. Some of the funding sources that have been proposed are repeal of oil industry tax and other incentives; gasoline tax; oil company profit tax; federal oil and gas royalties; climate change cap-and-trade program; and Strategic Petroleum Reserve funds. On the basis of past experience, however, each of these proposals would face challenges in Congress."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2008-08-12
Energy Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) [March 12, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) emphasizes jobs, economic recovery, and assistance to those most impacted by the recession. It also stresses investments in technology, transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure and proposes strategies to stabilize state and local government budgets. Energy provisions are a featured part of ARRA. More than $45 billion is provided in appropriations for energy programs, mainly for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Most funding must be obligated by the end of FY2010. ARRA also provides more than $21 billion in energy tax incentives, primarily for energy efficiency and renewable energy. More than $11 billion is provided in grants for state and local governments through three Department of Energy programs. They are the Weatherization Assistance Program, which provides energy efficiency services to low-income households; the State Energy Program, which provides states with discretionary funding that can be used for various energy efficiency and renewable energy purposes; and the new Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, which aims to help reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. The law conditions eligibility for most of the State Energy Program funding on enactment of new building codes and adoption of electric utility rate 'decoupling' to encourage energy efficiency. For the Department of Education, about $8.8 billion is provided for 'Other Government Services,' which may include renovations of schools and college facilities that meet green building criteria. The Department of Housing and Urban Development ($2 billion), and the Environmental Protection Agency ($1 billion) receive multi-purpose funds that can be used for energy efficiency measures in public housing and state and tribal facilities."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Sissine, Fred J.; Andrews, Anthony; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin) . . .

2009-03-12
Energy Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) [March 3, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) emphasizes jobs, economic recovery, and assistance to those most impacted by the recession. It also stresses investments in technology, transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure and proposes strategies to stabilize state and local government budgets. Energy provisions are a featured part of ARRA. More than $42 billion is provided in appropriations for energy programs, mainly for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Most funding must be obligated by the end of FY2010. ARRA also provides more than $21 billion in energy tax incentives, primarily for energy efficiency and renewable energy. More than $11 billion is provided in grants for state and local governments through three Department of Energy programs. They are the Weatherization Assistance Program, which provides energy efficiency services to low-income households; the State Energy Program, which provides states with discretionary funding that can be used for various energy efficiency and renewable energy purposes; and the new Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, which aims to help reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. The law conditions eligibility for most of the State Energy Program funding on enactment of new building codes and adoption of electric utility rate 'decoupling' to encourage energy efficiency. For the Department of Education, about $8.8 billion is provided for 'Other Government Services,' which may include renovations of schools and college facilities that meet green building criteria. The Department of Housing and Urban Development ($2 billion),and the Environmental Protection Agency ($1 billion) receive multi-purpose funds that can be used for energy efficiency measures in public housing and state and tribal facilities."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Sissine, Fred J.; Andrews, Anthony; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin) . . .

2009-03-03
U.S. Science and Technology Workforce [June 30, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"In the 21st century, global competition and rapid advances in science and technology will challenge the scientific and technical proficiency of the U.S. workforce. This report provides an overview of the status of the U.S. science and technology (S&T) workforce, and identifies some of the issues and options that are currently being discussed in Congress."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.; Matthews, Christine M.

2009-06-30
Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy: Background and Issues for Congress [June 29, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Scientists, engineers, and health professionals frequently communicate and cooperate with one another without regard to national boundaries. Dating back to the 1700s, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson are thought of as the nation's first scientific diplomats. Scientists and inventors themselves, they corresponded with colleagues and brought knowledge back from their visits to Europe to enhance the development and policies of the very young United States. Today, the United States serves the same role for other countries that are in the early stages of development or at a major point of transition. Congress is currently discussing how to maximize the effectiveness of these international science and technology (S&T) policy activities. This report provides an overview of current U.S. international S&T policy; describes the role of the Department of State (DOS), the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other federal agencies; and discusses possible policy options for Congress. It focuses on international science and technology diplomacy, where American leadership in science and technology is used as a diplomatic tool to enhance another country's development and to improve understanding by other nations of U.S. values and ways of doing business. These efforts could focus on both enhancing a nation's science and technology (S&T) resources, as well as addressing developmental challenges where S&T could play a role. According to the National Research Council, five potential challenges include child health and child survival, safe water, agricultural research to reduce hunger and poverty, micro-economic reform, and mitigation of natural disasters."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2009-06-29
Science and Technology Policymaking: A Primer [June 20, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Scientific and technical knowledge and guidance influences not just policy related to science and technology, but also many of today's public policies as policymakers seek knowledge to enhance the quality of their decisions. Science and technology policy is concerned with the allocation of resources for and encouragement of scientific and engineering research and development, the use of scientific and technical knowledge to enhance the nation's response to societal challenges, and the education of Americans in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. […] Several organizations, when requested by the federal government or Congress, provide formal science and technology policy advice: federal advisory committees, congressionally chartered honorific organizations, and federally funded research and development corporations. In addition, many other organizations and individuals -- international intergovernmental organizations, policy institutes/think tanks, the public, professional organizations, disciplinary societies, universities and colleges, advocacy, special interest, industry, trade associations, and labor -- also provide their thoughts. These organizations may agree on the scientific and technical knowledge regarding an issue, but disagree on what actions to take in response, as their values on a proposed policy may differ. Policymakers may be overwhelmed with an abundance of information from these organizations. Despite these challenges, scientific and technical knowledge and guidance can provide policymakers with an opportunity to make their decisions based on the best information available, along with other factors they might take into account, such as cultural, economic, and other values, so that societal and economic benefits are enhanced and losses are mitigated."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2008-06-28
Science and Technology Policymaking: A Primer [May 27, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Scientific and technical knowledge and guidance influences not just policy related to science and technology, but also many of today's public policies as policymakers seek knowledge to enhance the quality of their decisions. Science and technology policy is concerned with the allocation of resources for and encouragement of scientific and engineering research and development, the use of scientific and technical knowledge to enhance the nation's response to societal challenges, and the education of Americans in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. […] Several organizations, when requested by the federal government or Congress, provide formal science and technology policy advice: federal advisory committees, congressionally chartered honorific organizations, and federally funded research and development corporations. In addition, many other organizations and individuals -- international intergovernmental organizations, policy institutes/think tanks, the public, professional organizations, disciplinary societies, universities and colleges, advocacy, special interest, industry, trade associations, and labor -- also provide their thoughts. These organizations may agree on the scientific and technical knowledge regarding an issue, but disagree on what actions to take in response, as their values on a proposed policy may differ. Policymakers may be overwhelmed with an abundance of information from these organizations. Despite these challenges, scientific and technical knowledge and guidance can provide policymakers with an opportunity to make their decisions based on the best information available, along with other factors they might take into account, such as cultural, economic, and other values, so that societal and economic benefits are enhanced and losses are mitigated."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2009-05-27
Science and Technology Policymaking: A Primer [April 18, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Scientific and technical knowledge and guidance influences not just policy related to science and technology, but also many of today's public policies as policymakers seek knowledge to enhance the quality of their decisions. Science and technology policy is concerned with the allocation of resources for and encouragement of scientific and engineering research and development, the use of scientific and technical knowledge to enhance the nation's response to societal challenges, and the education of Americans in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Science and engineering research and innovations are intricately linked to societal needs and the nation's economy in areas such as transportation, communication, agriculture, education, environment, health, defense, and jobs. As a result, policymakers are interested in almost every aspect of science and technology policy. The three branches of government -- executive, congressional, and judiciary -- depending on each branch's responsibility, use science and technology knowledge and guidance to frame policy issues, craft legislation, and govern. The science and engineering community, however, is not represented by one individual or organization. On matters of scientific and technical knowledge and guidance, its opinions are consensus-based with groups of scientists and engineers coming together from different perspectives to debate an issue based on the available empirical evidence. In the end, consensus is achieved if there is widespread agreement on the evidence and its implications, which is conveyed to policymakers. Policymakers then determine, based on this knowledge and other factors, whether or not to take action and what actions to take. If there are major disagreements within large portions of the community, however, consensus is not yet achieved, and taking policy actions in response to a concern can be challenging."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2008-04-18
Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy: Background and Issues for Congress [February 3, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Scientists, engineers, and health professionals frequently communicate and cooperate with one another without regard to national boundaries. Dating back to the 1700s, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson are thought of as the nation's first scientific diplomats. Scientists and inventors themselves, they corresponded with colleagues and brought knowledge back from their visits to Europe to enhance the development and policies of the very young United States. Today, the United States serves the same role for other countries that are in the early stages of development or at a major point of transition. Congress is currently discussing how to maximize the effectiveness of these international science and technology (S&T) policy activities. This report provides an overview of current U.S. international S&T policy; describes the role of the Department of State (DOS), the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other federal agencies; and discusses possible policy options for Congress. It focuses on international science and technology diplomacy, where American leadership in science and technology is used as a diplomatic tool to enhance another country's development and to improve understanding by other nations of U.S. values and ways of doing business. These efforts could focus on both enhancing a nation's science and technology (S&T) resources, as well as addressing developmental challenges where S&T could play a role. According to the National Research Council, five potential challenges include child health and child survival, safe water, agricultural research to reduce hunger and poverty, micro-economic reform, and mitigation of natural disasters."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2009-02-03
Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy: Background and Issues for Congress [June 20, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Science and engineering activities have always been international. Scientists, engineers, and health professionals frequently communicate and cooperate with one another without regard to national boundaries. This report discusses international science and technology (S&T) diplomacy, instances when American leadership in S&T is used as a diplomatic tool to enhance another country's development and to improve understanding by other nations of U.S. values and ways of doing business. According to the National Research Council, five developmental challenges where S&T could play a role include child health and child survival, safe water, agricultural research to reduce hunger and poverty, micro-economic reform, and mitigation of natural disasters. […] Policy options identified for Congress by expert committees who have assessed U.S. international S&T diplomacy efforts include taking actions in response to concerns about (1) the lack of S&T expertise, presence, and global engagement at DOS [Department of State], (2) a decline in support for S&T capacity at USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development], and (3) a lack of coherent and integrated international S&T policy direction and federal coordination role at OSTP [White House Office of Science and Technology Policy]. Reversing those trends would likely require additional financial resources and personnel with expertise in S&T. Possible additional actions include enhancing the prominence of, and coordination among, S&T leaders at OES, STAS, and OSTP. This report will be updated as events warrant."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2008-06-20
Science and Technology Policymaking: A Primer [Updated April 22, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Scientific and technical knowledge and guidance influences not just policy related to science and technology, but also many of today's public policies as policymakers seek knowledge to enhance the quality of their decisions. Science and technology policy is concerned with the allocation of resources for and encouragement of scientific and engineering research and development, the use of scientific and technical knowledge to enhance the nation's response to societal challenges, and the education of Americans in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Science and engineering research and innovations are intricately linked to societal needs and the nation's economy in areas such as transportation, communication, agriculture, education, environment, health, defense, and jobs. As a result, policymakers are interested in almost every aspect of science and technology policy. The three branches of government -- executive, congressional, and judiciary -- depending on each branch's responsibility, use science and technology knowledge and guidance to frame policy issues, craft legislation, and govern. The science and engineering community, however, is not represented by one individual or organization. On matters of scientific and technical knowledge and guidance, its opinions are consensus-based with groups of scientists and engineers coming together from different perspectives to debate an issue based on the available empirical evidence. In the end, consensus is achieved if there is widespread agreement on the evidence and its implications, which is conveyed to policymakers. Policymakers then determine, based on this knowledge and other factors, whether or not to take action and what actions to take. If there are major disagreements within large portions of the community, however, consensus is not yet achieved, and taking policy actions in response to a concern can be challenging."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2008-04-22
Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy: Background and Issues for Congress [May 22, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
This CRS report "discusses international science and technology [S&T] diplomacy, instances when American leadership in S&T is used as a diplomatic tool to enhance another country's development and to improve understanding by other nations of U.S. values and ways of doing business. According to the National Research Council, five developmental challenges where S&T could play a role include child health and child survival, safe water, agricultural research to reduce hunger and poverty, micro-economic reform, and mitigation of natural disasters. Title V of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY1979 (P.L. 95-426) provides the current legislative guidance for U.S. international S&T policy. This act states that Department of State [DOS] is the lead federal agency in developing S&T agreements. The National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-282) states that the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy [OSTP] is to advise the President on international S&T cooperation policies and the role of S&T considerations in foreign relations."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2008-05-22
America COMPETES Act and the FY2010 Budget [June 29, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) became law on August 9, 2007. The act is intended to increase the nation's investment in research and development (R&D), and in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. It is designed to focus on two perceived concerns believed to influence future U.S. competitiveness: inadequate R&D funding to generate sufficient technological progress, and inadequate numbers of American students proficient in STEM or interested in STEM careers relative to other countries. The act authorizes funding increases for the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories, and the Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE SC) over FY2008-FY2010. If maintained, the increases would double the budgets of those entities over seven years. The act establishes the Advanced Research Projects Agency -- Energy (ARPA-E) within DOE, designed to support transformational energy technology research projects with the goal of enhancing U.S. economic and energy security. […]. As Congress deliberates the FY2010 budget, an issue for Congress is what level, if any, it will appropriate funds for America COMPETES Act programs. Although the Obama Administration requested FY2010 funding for most America COMPETES Act R&D programs at levels below that authorized, it contends that FY2009 (due to ARRA funding), and if approved as requested, FY2010 appropriations would fund federal R&D programs at the highest levels in U.S. history. […]. An issue for these programs is whether or not they will receive the funding necessary to establish them."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2009-06-29
Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, and Federal Energy Technology R&D Programs: A Comparative Analysis [September 3, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
This CRS report provides a comparative analysis of the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, and Federal Energy Technology R&D Programs. "Some policymakers have concluded that the energy challenges facing the United States are so critical that a concentrated investment in energy research and development (R&D) should be undertaken. The Manhattan project, which produced the atomic bomb, and the Apollo program, which landed American men on the moon, have been cited as examples of the success such R&D investments can yield. Investment in federal energy technology R&D programs of the 1970s, in response to two energy crises, have generally been viewed as less successful than the earlier two efforts. This report compares and contrasts the three initiatives."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2008-09-03
Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E): Background, Status, and Selected Issues for Congress [June 20, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"In August 2007, Congress authorized the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) within the Department of Energy (DOE) as part of the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69). Modeled on the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), ARPA-E would support transformational energy technology research projects with the goal of enhancing the nation's economic and energy security. […] Some have proposed funding ARPA-E through a mechanism that differs from the usual single-year appropriations process to enhance its ability to conduct risky research without being subject to the annual appropriations cycle, political and financial pressures, and resource fluctuations that might stifle innovation. One option is for Congress to provide a multi-year advance appropriation. Another is for Congress to identify a revenue source. Some of the funding sources that have been proposed are repeal of oil industry tax and other incentives; gasoline tax; oil company profit tax; federal oil and gas royalties; climate change cap-and-trade program; and Strategic Petroleum Reserve funds. On the basis of past experience, however, each of these proposals would face challenges in Congress."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2008-06-20
President's Office of Science and Technology Policy: Issues for Congress [February 6, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"This report will provide an overview of the history of science and technology advice to the President, and provide an overview and discuss issues and options for Congress regarding OSTP's Director, OSTP management and operations, PCAST, and NSTC. Further, Congress established the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) through the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-282). The act states that 'The primary function of the OSTP Director is to provide, within the Executive Office of the President [EOP], advice on the scientific, engineering, and technological aspects of issues that require attention at the highest level of Government.' Further, 'The Office shall serve as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal Government."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2009-02-06
President's Office of Science and Technology Policy: Issues for Congress [December 24, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Congress may consider several legislative options regarding OSTP [Office of Science and Technology Policy]. First, it may wish to allow the President to have autonomy over OSTP. Currently, the President maintains discretion over the policies, structure, and personnel of OSTP, NSTC [National Science and Technology Council], and PCAST [President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology], often through executive orders. Second, Congress may wish to evaluate whether or not OSTP is still needed within the EOP [Executive Office of the President]. If so, Congress can continue its current OSTP legislative guidance mechanisms, or it can increase the intensity with which it applies those mechanisms. Congress annually evaluates OSTP through the regular authorization and appropriations process, and introduces issue-specific bills that identify actions and issues on which Members of Congress believe OSTP should focus. An alternative is for Congress to increase the intensity of its evaluation by holding oversight hearings on OSTP, or by amending OSTP's authorization statute. When Congress evaluates the various policy options, a factor to consider is that the OSTP Director's influence in the EOP may depend more on the relationship between whomever is appointed to that position and the President than legislative action. On December 20, 2008, President-elect Obama stated his intention to appoint Dr. John Holdren as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), OSTP Director, and Co-Chair of PCAST, and that 'promoting science isn't just about providing resources--it's about protecting free and open inquiry.' He also indicated his intention to appoint Dr. Harold Varmus and Dr. Eric Lander as the other co-chairs of PCAST."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2008-12-24
President's Office of Science and Technology Policy: Issues for Congress [November 10, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Congress established the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) through the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-282). The act states that 'The primary function of the OSTP Director is to provide, within the Executive Office of the President [EOP], advice on the scientific, engineering, and technological aspects of issues that require attention at the highest level of Government.' Further, 'The Office shall serve as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal Government.' [...] An issue for Congress is what should be the appropriate title, rank, role, and responsibilities of OSTP's Director. Some in the science and technology (S&T) community contend that by providing the OSTP Director with cabinet rank, or the title of Assistant to the President, the individual in that office would have more influence within the EOP. Others have proposed that several individuals take on the roles and responsibilities of the OSTP Director rather than one individual, and that the OSTP Director play a greater role in ensuring federal agency scientists and engineers are able to communicate their findings. Further, some in the S&T community also believe that the OSTP Director and NSTC should play a greater role in federal agency coordination, priority-setting, and budget allocation. Another question is who should decide the issue focus of OSTP Associate Directors, NSTC [National Science and Technology Council] interagency coordination activities, and PCAST [President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology]."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2008-11-10
President's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP): Issues for Congress [April 21, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Congress established the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), including the position of its Director, within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) through the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (P.L. [Public Law] 94-282). The act states that 'The Office shall serve as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal Government.' In addition, the act establishes the position of the OSTP director. According to the act, 'The primary function of the OSTP Director is to provide, within the Executive Office of the President, advice on the scientific, engineering, and technological aspects of issues that require attention at the highest level of Government.' Unlike the heads of some other EOP agencies, the OSTP Director testifies before congressional committees, even though the office provides advice and assistance to the White House. This report will provide an overview of the history of science and technology advice to the President, and provide an overview and discuss issues and options for Congress regarding OSTP's Director, OSTP management and operations, PCAST [President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology], and NSTC [National Science and Technology Council]. The report also discusses actions taken by the Obama Administration regarding OSTP."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2009-04-21
President's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP): Issues for Congress [June 3, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Congress established the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), including the position of its Director, within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) through the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (P.L. [Public Law] 94-282). The act states that 'The Office shall serve as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal Government.' In addition, the act establishes the position of the OSTP director. According to the act, 'The primary function of the OSTP Director is to provide, within the Executive Office of the President, advice on the scientific, engineering, and technological aspects of issues that require attention at the highest level of Government.' Unlike the heads of some other EOP agencies, the OSTP Director testifies before congressional committees, even though the office provides advice and assistance to the White House. This report will provide an overview of the history of science and technology advice to the President, and provide an overview and discuss issues and options for Congress regarding OSTP's Director, OSTP management and operations, PCAST [President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology], and NSTC [National Science and Technology Council]. The report also discusses actions taken by the Obama Administration regarding OSTP."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2009-06-03
U.S. Civilian Space Policy Priorities: Reflections 50 Years After Sputnik [Updated June 20, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Summary: "The 'space age' began on October 4, 1957, when the Soviet Union (USSR) launched Sputnik, the world's first artificial satellite. Some U.S. policymakers, concerned about the USSR's ability to launch a satellite, thought Sputnik might be an indication that the United States was trailing behind the USSR in science and technology. The Cold War also led some U.S. policymakers to perceive the Sputnik launch as a possible precursor to nuclear attack. In response to this 'Sputnik moment,' the U.S. government undertook several policy actions, including the establishment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), enhancement of research funding, and reformation of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education policy. […] In the 110th Congress, several congressional resolutions honoring the 50th anniversary of Sputnik and the importance of the resulting agencies and activities to the United States have been introduced, with some passing the House or Senate. The House passed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (H.R. 6063) on June 18, 2008. In §2, Findings, the House approved a series of findings that reflects on NASA's 50th anniversary, and identifies a number of priorities for NASA."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2008-06-20
America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected Issues [January 22, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Summary: "On August 2, 2007, Congress passed the America COMPETES [Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science] Act (H.R. 2272), which the President signed into law (P.L. [Public Law] 110-69) on August 9, 2007. The act responds to concerns that the United States may not be able to compete economically with other nations in the future due to insufficient investment today in science and technology research and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and workforce development. A similar concern had led President Bush to announce the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) in January 2006 during his State of the Union address. The America COMPETES Act authorizes an increase in the nation's investment in science and engineering research and in STEM education from kindergarten to graduate school and postdoctoral education. The act also establishes the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) and Discovery Science and Engineering Innovation Institutes. (Appendix A provides a summary of the act's programs.) […] At the heart of the America COMPETES Act is the goal of maintaining the United States as the leader in the global economy. Three broad trends influence today's globalization of the economy. The first is technology, which has sharply reduced the cost of communication and transportation that previously divided markets. The second is a dramatic increase in the world supply of labor producing goods and services traded internationally. The third is government policies that have reduced barriers to trade and investment. As Congress deliberates the FY2009 budget, the programs authorized by the America COMPETES Act will likely be considered during the appropriations process. Unlike the previous fiscal year, Congress has now authorized the America COMPETES Act programs. How the act is funded and the programs implemented remains to be determined as the second session of the 110th Congress proceeds."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2008-01-22
America COMPETES Act: Programs, Funding, and Selected Issues [Updated February 8, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Summary: "On August 2, 2007, Congress passed the America COMPETES Act (H.R. 2272), which the President signed into law (P.L. [Public Law] 110-69) on August 9, 2007. The act responds to concerns that the United States may not be able to compete economically with other nations in the future due to insufficient investment today in science and technology research and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and workforce development. A similar concern had led President Bush to announce the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) in January 2006 during his State of the Union address. […] At the heart of the America COMPETES Act is the goal of maintaining the United States as the leader in the global economy. Three broad trends influence today's globalization of the economy. The first is technology, which has sharply reduced the cost of communication and transportation that previously divided markets. The second is a dramatic increase in the world supply of labor producing goods and services traded internationally. The third is government policies that have reduced barriers to trade and investment. As Congress deliberates the FY2009 budget, the programs authorized by the America COMPETES Act will likely be considered during the appropriations process. Unlike the previous fiscal year, Congress has now authorized the America COMPETES Act programs. How the act is funded and the programs implemented remains to be determined as the second session of the 110th Congress proceeds."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2008-02-08
U.S. Civilian Space Policy Priorities: Reflections 50 Years After Sputnik [February 2, 2009]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "This report describes Sputnik and its influence on today's U.S. civilian space policy, the actions other nations and commercial organizations are taking in space exploration, and why the nation invests in space exploration and the public's attitude toward it. The report concludes with a discussion of possible options for future U.S. civilian space policy priorities and the implication of those priorities. [...] If policymakers identify priorities for U.S. civil space exploration, this might help Congress determine the most appropriate balance of funding for NASA's programs during its authorization and appropriation process. For example, if Congress believes that national prestige should be the highest priority, they may choose to emphasize NASA's human exploration activities, such as establishing a Moon base and landing a human on Mars. If they consider scientific knowledge the highest priority, Congress may emphasize unmanned missions and other science-related activities as NASA's major goal. If international relations are a high priority, Congress might encourage other nations to become equal partners in actions related to the International Space Station. If spinoff effects, including the creation of new jobs and markets and its catalytic effect on math and science education, are Congress' priorities, then they may focus NASA's activities on technological development and linking to the needs of business and industry, and expanding its role in science and mathematics education." This report also includes three figures, two tables and one appendix.

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2009-02-02
America COMPETES Act and the FY2009 Budget [Updated March 20, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Summary: "The America COMPETES [Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science] Act (P.L. [Public Law] 110-69) responds to concerns that the United States may not be able to compete economically with other nations in the future due to insufficient investment today in science and technology research and in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. A similar concern led President Bush to announce the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) in January 2006. In March 2008, both the House and Senate included in their budget resolutions support for the America COMPETES Act. The act authorizes increases in the nation's investment in science and engineering research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories, and the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science. In addition, the act authorizes new STEM education programs at NSF, DOE, and the Department of Education (ED) and enhances the funding of some existing programs at NSF including the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program. A concern to some policymakers is whether federal appropriations will meet the act's authorized levels. […] At NSF, the FY2009 budget justification provides a FY2008 budget estimate less than Congress appropriated for the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program and requests FY2009 funding at approximately 10% of that authorized in the act. At DOE, an issue is the degree to which DOE has taken actions to establish the new DOE STEM education initiatives authorized in the act. The DOE FY2009 budget justification notes the America COMPETES Act and mentions many DOE STEM education programs, but it does not identify any specific America COMPETES Act initiatives. As a result, the status of these programs is unclear."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Stine, Deborah D.

2008-03-20

1 2