

Part 2





A bipartisan Congressional initiative produced the U.S. effort to deal with the possibility that weapons of mass destruction could "leak" out of a disintegrating Soviet Union.*17 It was also a Congressional initiative that established the Domestic Preparedness Program and launched a 120-city program to enhance the capability of federal, state, and local first responders to react effectively in a WMD emergency.*18 Members of Congress from both parties have pushed the Executive Branch to identify and manage the problem more effectively. Congress has also proposed and funded studies and commissions on various aspects of the homeland security problem.*19 But it must do more.: let me guess- Lieberman-Kennedy-Dashle-Fienstein, etc.....

A sound homeland security strategy requires the overhaul of much of the legislative framework for preparedness, response, and national defense programs. Congress designed many of the authorities that support national security and emergency preparedness programs principally for a Cold War environment. The new threat environment-from biological and terrorist attacks to cyber attacks on critical systems-poses vastly different challenges. We therefore recommend that Congress refurbish the legal foundation for homeland security in response to the new threat environment.
In particular, Congress should amend, as necessary, key legislative authorities such as the Defense Production Act of 1950 and the Communications Act of 1934, which facilitate homeland security functions and activities.*20 Congress should also encourage the sharing of threat, vulnerability, and incident data between the public and private sectors-including federal agencies, state governments, first responders, and industry.*21 In addition, Congress should monitor and support current efforts to update the international legal framework for communications security issues.*22

Beyond that, Congress has some organizational work of its own to do. As things stand today, so many federal agencies are involved with homeland security that it is exceedingly difficult to present federal programs and their resource requirements to the Congress in a coherent way. It is largely because the budget is broken up into so many pieces, for example, that counter- terrorism and information security issues involve nearly two dozen Congressional committees and subcommittees. The creation of the National Security Homeland Agency will redress this problem to some extent, but because of its growing urgency and complexity, homeland security will still require a stronger working relationship between the Executive and Legislative Branches. Congress should therefore find ways to address homeland security issues that bridge current jurisdictional boundaries and that create more innovative oversight mechanisms.

There are several ways of achieving this. The Senate's Arms Control Observer Group and its more recent NATO Enlargement Group were two successful examples of more informal Executive-Legislative cooperation on key multi-dimensional issues. Specifically, in the near term, this Commission recommends the following:

· 7: Congress should establish a special body to deal with homeland security issues, as has been done effectively with intelligence oversight. Members should be chosen for their expertise in foreign policy, defense, intelligence, law enforcement, and appropriations. This body should also include members of all relevant Congressional committees as well as ex-officio members from the leadership of both Houses of Congress.: who gives ex-officio authority to do anything outside of the people who did not re-elect them?

This body should develop a comprehensive understanding of the problem of homeland security, exchange information and viewpoints with the Executive Branch on effective policies and plans, and work with standing committees to develop integrated legislative responses and guidance. Meetings would often be held in closed session so that Members could have access to interagency deliberations and diverging viewpoints, as well as to classified assessments. Such a body would have neither a legislative nor an oversight mandate, and it would not eclipse the authority of any standing committee.

At the same time, Congress needs to systematically review and restructure its committee system, as will be proposed in recommendation 48. A single, select committee in each house of Congress should be given authorization, appropriations, and oversight responsibility for all homeland security activities. When established, these committees would replace the function of the oversight body described in recommendation 7.

In sum, the federal government must address the challenge of homeland security with greater urgency. The United States is not immune to threats posed by weapons of mass destruction or disruption, but neither is it entirely defenseless against them. Much has been done to prevent and defend against such attacks, but these efforts must be incorporated into the nation's overall security strategy, and clear direction must be provided to all departments and agencies. Non-traditional national security agencies that now have greater relevance than they did in the past must be reinvigorated. Accountability, authority, and responsibility must be more closely aligned within government agencies. An Executive-Legislative consensus is required, (The new call for Bi-Partisanship) as well, to convert strategy and resources into programs and capabilities, and to do so in a way that preserves fundamental freedoms and individual rights.

Most of all, however, the government must reorganize itself for the challenges of this new era, and make the necessary investments to allow an improved organizational structure to work. Through the Commission's proposal for a National Homeland Security Agency, the U.S. government will be able to improve the planning and coordination of federal support to state and local agencies,
to rationalize the allocation of resources, to enhance readiness in order to prevent attacks, and to facilitate recovery if prevention fails. Most important, this proposal integrates the problem of homeland security within a broader framework of U.S. national security strategy writ large. In this respect, it differs significantly from issue-specific approaches to the problem, which tend to isolate homeland security away from the larger strategic perspective of which it must be a part. We are mindful that erecting the operational side of this strategy will take time to achieve. Meanwhile, the threat grows ever more serious. That is all the more reason to start right away on implementing the recommendations put forth here.

Homeland security director could get more power

October 11, 2001 Posted: 2:31 PM EDT (1831 GMT)

Only One Month after Twin Towers Collapsed, the move was rapidly made

By none other than

Mr. Would be second most powerful man in the World, lucky Al Gore.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saying White House Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge does not have the tools to do his job, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., introduced bipartisan legislation Thursday to give him a budget and Senate approval as the head of a new Department of Homeland Security.

"He has a very difficult task before him," Lieberman said of Ridge. "I fear that as an adviser who lacks statutory mandate, Senate confirmation and budget confirmation and budget authority, he will not be as effective as we need him to be."

The legislation, also being introduced in the House, would bring the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Customs Service, the Border Patrol, the Coast Guard and other offices responsible for critical infrastructure under the new cabinet-level agency.

"Clearly appointing a homeland coordinator with only advisory authority is not enough. We need a robust agency to carry out the core functions of homeland defense," said Lieberman, who added he hopes the legislation will be approved before Congress adjourns for the year.

The Bush administration has resisted the proposal, saying that Ridge, who was sworn in Monday, has the power and resources he needs, and will be effective because he has the ear of the president.

Specter said the problem is that although Ridge has a good relationship with the president, "the next person who heads up the office may not have a close personal relationship with the president."

"Regrettably, you need homeland security, and I think you are going to need it if not forever, for the foreseeable future," Specter said.

The sponsors said that although many are reluctant to create another layer of federal bureaucracy, the American people want and need the government to be more organized and involved at all levels of defense at home.

They also argued that coordinating key agencies like the Coast Guard, Border Patrol and Customs under one department could minimize bureaucracy by eliminating overlap.

Lieberman said he will hold a hearing on the issue Friday before the Governmental Affairs Committee he chairs.

Excerpts From "Protocols"

1. When it becomes necessary for us to strengthen the strict measures of secret defense (the most fatal poison for the prestige of authority) we shall arrange a simulation of disorders or some manifestation of discontents finding expression through the co- operation of good speakers. Round these speakers will assemble all who are sympathetic to his utterances. This will give us the pretext for domiciliary prerequisitions and surveillance on the part of our servants from among the number of the GOYIM police ....

II. Recapitalizing America's Strengths in Science and Education

The scale and nature of the ongoing revolution in science and technology, and what this implies for the quality of human capital in the 21st century, pose critical national security challenges for the United States. Second only to a weapon of mass destruction detonating in an American city, we can think of nothing more dangerous than a failure to manage properly science, technology, and education for the common good over the next quarter century.
Excerpt From "PROTOCOLS"

1. In order to effect the destruction of all collective forces except ours we shall emasculate the first stage of collectivism - the UNIVERSITIES, by re-educating them in a new direction. THEIR OFFICIALS AND PROFESSORS WILL BE PREPARED FOR THEIR BUSINESS BY DETAILED SECRET PROGRAMS OF ACTION FROM WHICH THEY WILL NOT WITH IMMUNITY DIVERGE, NOT BY ONE IOTA. THEY WILL BE APPOINTED WITH ESPECIAL PRECAUTION, AND WILL BE SO PLACED AS TO BE WHOLLY DEPENDENT UPON THE GOVERNMENT.

2. We shall exclude from the course of instruction State Law as also all that concerns the political question. These subjects will be taught to a few dozen of persons chosen for their pre-eminent capacities from among the number of the initiated. THE UNIVERSITIES MUST NO LONGER SEND OUT FROM THEIR HALLS MILK SOPS CONCOCTING PLANS FOR A CONSTITUTION, LIKE A COMEDY OR A TRAGEDY, BUSYING THEMSELVES WITH QUESTIONS OF POLICY IN WHICH EVEN THEIR OWN FATHERS NEVER HAD ANY POWER OF THOUGHT.

3. The ill-guided acquaintance of a large number of persons with questions of polity creates utopian dreamers and bad subjects, as you can see for yourselves from the example of the universal education in this direction of the GOYIM. We must introduce into their education all those principles which have so brilliantly broken up their order. But when we are in power we shall remove every kind of disturbing subject from the course of education and shall make out of the youth obedient children of authority, loving him who rules as the support and hope of peace and quiet.

Current institutional arrangements have served the nation well over the past five decades, but the world is changing. Today, private proprietary expenditure on technology development far outdistances public spending. The internationalization of both scientific research and its commercial development is having a significant effect on the capacity of the U.S. government to harness science in the service of national security and to attract qualified scientific and technical personnel. These changes are transforming most facets of the American economy, from health care to banking to retail business, as well as the defense industrial base.

The harsh fact is that the U.S. need for the highest quality human capital in science, mathematics, and engineering is not being met. One reason for this is clear: American students know that professional careers in basic science and mathematics require considerable preparation and effort, while salaries are often more lucrative in areas requiring less demanding training. Non-U.S. nationals, however, do find these professions attractive and, thanks to science, math, and technical preparation superior to that of many Americans, they increasingly fill American university graduate studies seats and job slots in these areas. Another reason for the growing deficit in high-quality human capital is that the American kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) education system is not performing as well as it should. As a result too few American students are qualified to take these slots, even if they are so inclined.

This is an ironic predicament, since America's strength has always been tied to the spirit and entrepreneurial energies of its people. America remains today the model of creativity and experimentation, and its success has inspired other nations to recognize the true sources of power and wealth in science, technology, and higher education. America's international reputation, and therefore a significant aspect of its global influence, depends on its reputation for excellence in these areas. U.S. performance is not keeping up with its reputation. Other countries are striving hard, and with discipline they will outstrip us.

This is not a matter merely of national pride or international image. It is an issue of the utmost importance to national security. In a knowledge-based future, only an America that remains at the cutting edge of science and technology will sustain its current world leadership. In such a future, only a well-trained and educated population can thrive economically, and from national prosperity provide the foundation for national cohesion. Complacency with our current achievement of national wealth and international power will put all of this at risk.

Excerpt From "Protocols"
4. Classicism as also any form of study of ancient history, in which there are more bad than good examples, we shall replace with the study of the program of the future. We shall erase from the memory of men all facts of previous centuries which are undesirable to us, and leave only those which depict all the errors of the government of the GOYIM. The study of practical life, of the obligations of order, of the relations of people one to another, of avoiding bad and selfish examples, which spread the infection of evil, and similar questions of an educative nature, will stand in the forefront of the teaching program, which will be drawn up on a separate plan for each calling or state of life, in no wise generalizing the teaching. This treatment of the question has special importance.

A. INVESTING IN INNOVATION

Many nations in the world have the intellectual assets to compete with those of the United States. However, as many leaders abroad recognize, their social, political, and economic systems often prevent them from capitalizing on these intellectual assets. The creative release of individual energies for the public good is not possible without a political, social, and economic system that frees talent and nurtures innovation.*23

We have before us the negative example of the former Soviet Union. Its state scientific establishment was the largest in the world and very talented, yet the attitudes and institutions required to nurture and disseminate innovation in a broad sense were missing, and it never fulfilled its potential. Today, many national leaders around the world are determined not to repeat the Soviet failure. They are studying the American business and innovation environment in hopes of extracting its secrets. Lessons are being learned and adopted throughout the world. As a result, global competition is growing significantly and will continue to do so . Meanwhile, however, many critical changes are occurring within the United States:

· While basic research remains primarily a government-funded activity, private and proprietary technology development in the United States is increasing relatively and absolutely compared to that of the government.

· The internationalization of basic science and technology (S&T) activities, assets, and capabilities is accelerating, and current U.S. advantages in many critical fields are shrinking and may be eclipsed in the years ahead.

· New classes of defense-relevant technologies are developing in which the major U.S. defense companies and national labs have scant experience. There are far fewer institutional linkages between government scientists and those innovative businesses generating and adapting cutting-edge technologies (e.g., genetic engineering, materials science, nanotechnology, and robotics).

Excerpt From Protocols

8. Who is going to verify what is taught in the village schools? But what an envoy of the government or a king on his throne himself may say cannot but become immediately known to the whole State, for it will be spread abroad by the voice of the people.


During the 1980s, America recognized the need to change business models that had roots in the Industrial Age. It embarked on an era of deregulation and experimentation, one that has led to the networked economy that is still taking shape today. While U.S. reform at the microeconomic level has been primarily an achievement of the private sector, government has played an important role. It is also clear the government and the private sector will have to continue to work in concert to fill many critical needs, e.g., telecommunication and cyber-infrastructure policies; information assurance and protection; and policies to preserve the defense industrial base. This nation must increase its public research and development budget in order to remain a world leader. But opportunity and resources will not come together by themselves. Wise public policies enhance creative investment and promote intense experimentation.

Excerpt From "Protocols"

5. Each state of life must be trained within strict limits corresponding to its destination and work in life. The OCCASIONAL GENIUS HAS ALWAYS MANAGED AND ALWAYS WILL MANAGE TO SLIP THROUGH INTO OTHER STATES OF LIFE, BUT IT IS THE MOST PERFECT FOLLY FOR THE SAKE OF THIS RARE OCCASIONAL GENIUS TO LET THROUGH INTO RANKS FOREIGN TO THEM THE UNTALENTED WHO THUS ROB OF THEIR PLACES WHO BELONG TO THOSE RANKS BY BIRTH OR EMPLOYMENT. YOU KNOW YOURSELVES IN WHAT ALL THIS HAS ENDED FOR THE "GOYIM" WHO ALLOWED THIS CRYING ABSURDITY.

In particular, we need to fund more basic research and technology development. As is clear to all, private sector R&D investments in the United States have increased vastly in recent years. That is good, but private R&D tends to be more development-oriented than research- oriented. It is from investment in basic science, however, that the most valuable long-run dividends are realized. The government has a critical role to play in this regard, as the "spinoff" achievements of the space program over the years illustrate. That role remains, not least because our basic and applied research efforts in areas of critical national interest will not be pursued by a civil sector that emphasizes short- to mid-term return on investment.

If the United States does not invest significantly more in public research and development, it will be eclipsed by others. Recent failures in this regard may return to haunt us. The decision not to invest in a large nuclear accelerator, the Superconducting Super Collider, already means that the most significant breakthroughs in theoretical physics at least over the next decade will occur in Europe and not in the United States. The reduction of U.S. research and development in basic electronics engineering has ensured that the next generation of chip processors and manufacturing technology will come from an international consortium (U.S.- German-Dutch) rather than from the United States alone.

We must not let such examples proliferate in the future, nor should we squander the enormous opportunities before us. We stand on the cusp of major discoveries in several interlocking fields, and we stand to benefit, as well, from major strides in scientific instrumentation. As a result, the way is clear to design large-scale scientific and technological experiments in key fields-not unlike the effort of the International Geophysical Year in 1958, the early space program, or the project to decode the human genome. In the judgment of this Commission, the U.S. government has not taken a broad, systematic approach to investing in science and technology R&D, and thus will not be able to sustain projects of such scale and boldness. We therefore recommend the following:

· 8: The President should propose, and the Congress should support, doubling the U.S. government's investment in science and technology research and development by 2010.

Building up an adequate level of effort for major, long-term research for the public good will require an increased investment on the order of 100 percent over the next eight years. In other words, a government-wide R&D budget of about $160 billion by fiscal year 2010 would be prudent and appropriate.

Who will pay for all of these "Shoulds"?

It would not be wise to combine the government's science and technology capabilities into a single agency, as some have suggested doing, or to entirely centralize the government's research and development budget. But we do need to infuse within the U.S. national R&D program a sense of responsible stewardship and vision. The government has to better coordinate its own public research and development efforts among the more than two dozen government departments and agencies that play major roles in the field.*24

The coordinating body for that purpose, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), houses within it the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC).

The White House OSTP has three main functions: to help design the public R&D budget in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); to facilitate interagency efforts involving science and technology and research and development; and to win support for the administration's science and technology initiatives in Congress.

The National Science and Technology Council, which includes virtually every cabinet official and Executive Branch agency head, has a committee structure designed to facilitate interagency cooperation. Committees are headed by OSTP personnel, but the participants from other departments and agencies have other, usually more pressing duties. Hence, with the exception of their chairmen, NSTC committees are populated by part-timers.

The President may also use the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), composed of non-governmental experts, to help him decide science and technology policy. Its use, as with the use of the NSTC, is largely dependent on the interests and inclinations of the President. The relationships among the OSTP, the NSTC, and the PCAST vary from administration to administration.*25

And they were preplanned for this move also

1998 White House Education Press Releases and Statements

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release September 10, 1998

MEMORANDUM FOR THE NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

SUBJECT:

Achieving Greater Diversity Throughout the U.S. Scientific and Technical Work Force

The world admires the American higher education system for its excellence in advanced training in science and engineering. Maintaining leadership across the frontiers of science and producing the finest scientists and engineers for the 21st century are principal goals of my Administration's science and technology policies. The work of individuals and organizations to inspire and mentor young people and offer role models is crucial to achieving these goals. To recognize this, I established the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring in 1996. This annual award honors individuals and organizations for outstanding mentoring efforts that have encouraged significant numbers of individuals from groups under-represented in science, mathematics, and engineering to succeed in these fields.

As we work to develop the finest scientists and engineers for the 21st century, our human resources policies must address the composition of our science and engineering work force. Achieving diversity throughout the ranks of the scientific and technical work force presents a formidable challenge. The number of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities who have careers in science and engineering remains low. In every year of this decade, there have been far too few minorities awarded degrees in science or engineering, and the trend in minority admissions and degree awards is not encouraging. We need to draw upon the Nation's full talent pool. We cannot afford to overlook anyone.

Today, the science and engineering work force does not reflect the changing face of America. By 2010, approximately half of America's school-age population will be from minority groups. Minority participation in science and engineering careers should keep pace with this growing diversity. Expanding such participation will require drawing on and developing talent at all stages of educational preparation leading to advanced study. For example, only a small fraction, perhaps one-eighth, of all high school graduates have the mathematics and science preparation that would permit advanced study in a technical field; for under-represented minorities, that fraction is only half as much.

The Federal Government, working in partnership with the private sector and State governments, can be an effective agent of change; we can promote fuller participation of women, minorities, and people with disabilities in scientific and technical careers. With your help, my Administration has promoted quality education in the crucial early years by improving the quality of our schools and teachers, expanding access to the Internet and other technology-based learning tools, and basing all our efforts on rigorous standards through Goals 2000. We have expanded access to higher education by making it more affordable.

While these coordinating and advisory bodies do exist, they are inadequately staffed, funded, and utilized to carry out their significant functions. The current OSTP is not small by White House standards, but it will increasingly be unable to keep up with its mandate as science and technology issues become more important to the national welfare. The NSTC permanent administrative staff is too small to support its committee work, and it has no permanent science and technology professional staff at all. The NSTC itself meets relatively rarely and only episodically takes on specific subjects of interest e.g., more fuel-efficient automobiles or nanotechnology research.

Excerpts From "Protocols"

6. In order that he who rules may be seated firmly in the hearts and minds of his subjects it is necessary for the time of his activity to instruct the whole nation in the schools and on the market places about this meaning and his acts and all his beneficent initiatives.

7. We shall abolish every kind of freedom of instruction. Learners of all ages have the right to assemble together with their parents in the educational establishments as it were in a club: during these assemblies, on holidays, teachers will read what will pass as free lectures on questions of human relations, of the laws of examples, of the philosophy of new theories not yet declared to the world. These theories will be raised by us to the stage of a dogma of faith as a traditional stage towards our faith. On the completion of this exposition of our program of action in the present and the future I will read you the principles of these theories.

One main reason to improve these organizations, in this Commission's view, is to enable the Executive Branch to strengthen its grip on the R&D process. Three changes are required:

· The R&D budget has to be rationalized, and in order to do that a much better effort at physical and human/intellectual inventory stewardship is required.

· Those organizations responsible for rationalizing and managing the R&D process should more systematically review and redesign, as necessary, the science and technology personnel profile of Executive Branch agencies.

· The R&D budget has to be allocated through a more creative and competitive process than is the case today. We take these issues in turn. The ability of the White House Office for Science and Technology Policy, together with OMB and other relevant agencies, to rationalize R&D investment presupposes the ability to identify the best, generative opportunities for the investment of government R&D monies. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Rationalizing the way that public R&D money is spent must include better accounting of both human and physical capital. It is not possible to spend $80 billion wisely each year, let alone twice that much, unless we know where research bottlenecks and opportunities exist. There is no one place in the U.S. government where such inventory stewardship is performed. Rather, elements are dispersed in the National Science Foundation, in the Commerce Department (the Patent and Trademark Office, the National Technical Information Service, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology), in the Departments of Defense, Energy, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and in parts of the intelligence community. We believe that collating and analyzing this information in one place, and using the conclusions of that analysis to inform the R&D budget process, is the sine qua non of a more effective public R&D effort.

Moreover, without such a basic inventory of the nation's science and technology "property," the United States could lose critical knowledge-based assets to competitors and adversaries without ever knowing it, and without understanding the implications of their loss. In an age when private, proprietary technology development outpaces publicly-funded R&D, and when most basic science information cannot reliably be kept secret, high-end science and technology espionage is a growth industry in which both foreign corporations and governments participate. The United States therefore needs to take seriously the protection of such assets to the extent possible and practical-but it cannot protect what it cannot even identify.*26

To achieve effective inventory stewardship for science and technology, we recommend that OSTP, in conjunction with the National Science Foundation-and with the counsel of the National Academies of Science*27 -design a system for the ongoing basic inventory stewardship of the nation's capital knowledge assets. The job of inventory stewardship could be vouchsafed to the National Science Board, the governing body of the National Science Foundation, were it to be provided staff for this purpose.

In addition, this Commission urges a more systematic effort at functional budgeting for R&D so that we know how we are spending the public's money in this area. More effective R&D portfolio management for research is needed with emphasis on critical R&D areas and those of high potential long-term benefit. We therefore recommend the following:

· 9: The President should empower his Science Advisor to establish non-military R&D objectives that meet changing national needs, and to be responsible for coordinating budget development within the relevant departments and agencies.

This budget, we believe, should emphasize research over development, and it should aim at large- scale experimental projects that can make best use of new synergies between theoretical advances and progress in scientific instrumentation.

We also believe that the President, in tandem with strengthening the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, should raise the profile of its head-the Science Advisor to the President. The Science Advisor needs to be empowered as a more significant figure within the government, and we believe the budget function we have recommended for him will be instrumental for this purpose.

There is yet another task that a strengthened OSTP should adopt. As things stand today, more than two dozen U.S. government agencies have science and technology responsibilities, meaning that they have personnel slots for science and engineering professionals and budget categories to support what those professionals do. (Of the several thousand such personnel in government, some 80 of these slots are for senior scientists and engineers who must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.)

Despite the significant numbers of science and technology (S&T) personnel and their obvious criticality, there is no place in the U.S. government where S&T personnel assets as a whole are assessed against changing needs. In the past two decades, the Congressional Research Service, the General Accounting Office, and the now-defunct Office of Technology Assessment have all explored this issue. The Office of Management and Budget, too, has looked regularly at individual departments and agencies, but not at the government's S&T personnel structure as such. It appears, then, that no one above the departmental level examines the appropriateness of the fit between missions and personnel in this area as a whole.

Dealing with government S&T personnel issues in a disaggregated manner is no longer adequate. It is hard for senior department and agency managers-and for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) or the OMB staff-who are themselves not scientists or engineers, to know if they are operating with the right numbers and kinds of science and technology professionals. Hence, the Commission recommends that the President, with aid from his Science Advisor directing NSF's National Science Board, should reassess and realign, as necessary, government needs for science and technology personnel for the next quarter century.

Indeed, such a review ought to be made routine. The Science Advisor with the National Science Board and OPM, in consultation with the National Academies of Science, should periodically reevaluate Executive Branch needs for science and technology personnel. They should also suggest means to ensure the recruitment and retention of the highest quality scientists, engineers, and technologists for government service-a general subject we have noted above, and to which we return below in Section IV in the context of recommendation 42.

At present, as we have said, the U.S. government spends more than $80 billion each year in publicly funded R&D, of which about half is defense related. Much of the budgeting, however, still reflects legacies of the Cold War and the industrial age. We do not suggest that this money is being wasted in any direct sense, but its benefits are not being maximized. For example, we believe that defense-related R&D should go back to funding more basic research, for in recent years it has tilted too much toward the "D" over the "R" in R&D.*28

More important, we could derive more benefit from our investment in non-defense R&D if the context for it were a more competitive one. The Commission holds competition to be an important ingredient for the creative use of new ideas. Though we believe centralization of budget development is unnecessary, tailoring the various R&D budgets to meet overall national objectives would be beneficial. Different organizations address different needs and bring different perspectives, as do those working in different scientific disciplines. We therefore recommend that the President's Science Advisor, beyond his proposed budget coordination role, should lead an effort to revise government R&D practices and budget allocations to make the process more competitive.

One barrier to a more competitive, opportunity-based environment for R&D is institutional inertia. The current structure of public R&D funding is partly a result of inherited arrangements. We do not suggest disrupting important relationships between particular government agencies and, say, the Lincoln Laboratory at M.I.T., for the turbulence created would not be worth the advantages. But if innovation is to be encouraged, we need greater competition for government R&D funds. Hence, we propose that the government foster a "creative market" for a greater number of research institutions to bid on government research funds.

To create a more competitive market means narrowing the gap between the two tiers of research institutions that currently exist: the relatively small number of high-prestige major schools with ample endowments, and the larger number of less capable institutions. There are several ways to do this. One is through direct federal investment in or subsidization of second-tier institutions. Another is to encourage second-tier institutions to concentrate effort on new fields of inquiry in which older, more established institutions do not have comparative advantages. We see no reason, as well, to prevent amateurs from competing, because the history of science and technology is laden with the genius of the professionally uninitiated.

In addition, we recommend that a strengthened and more active National Science and Technology Council preside over an on-going effort to multiply creative, targeted R&D programs within government. The Council's enlarged professional staff should identify areas of priority research that the private sector is unlikely to pursue, and challenge those government agencies with R&D capabilities to form coalitions to bid on R&D monies set aside for such purposes. To meet such challenges, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency might combine talents, in league with their associates outside of government, to bid against a Department of Energy-NSF team. The national laboratory system should also be involved in such competitions-a topic to which we now turn.

The U.S. national laboratory system is badly in need of redefinition and new investment. The national laboratories, though vestiges of the Cold War, remain a national R&D treasure. Unfortunately, they are a treasure in danger of being squandered.

Without any compelling force analogous to that of the Cold War to drive government funding and the direction of R&D, the labs have been left to drift. Nuclear research has given way mostly to maintenance of the nation's nuclear arsenal and efforts to dismantle nuclear weapons and manage their radioactive wastes. But however important, these are tasks that a single major laboratory can handle. Many of the other large and small laboratories within the system no longer have the sense of purpose and shared vision that drove the tremendous scientific accomplishments that advanced national security during the Cold War.

Compounding the labs' identity problem is the fact that the highest rewards and most interesting scientific and technical work now take place in the private sector. The Commission found broad consensus that the labs are no longer competitive in attracting and keeping new scientific talent. The physical circumstances in which lab professionals work have also deteriorated, in many instances, to unacceptable levels.*29 The security breaches and the subsequent series of investigations in recent years have produced a serious morale problem-and made recruitment and retention problems even more acute. If this cycle is not broken, our national advantage in S&T will suffer further.

The labs remain critical in fulfilling America's S&T national security needs and in addressing S&T issues pertinent to the public good. Each major laboratory needs a clearly defined mission area-in long-term defense technology, energy, environmental, or some other kind of practical research. The smaller labs, among the several hundred that exist, need to be better connected to one another so that their staffs share a sense of common purpose; in some cases, smaller labs may benefit from consolidation. The Commission therefore recommends the following:

· 10: The President should propose, and the Congress should fund, the reorganization of the national laboratories, providing individual laboratories with new mission goals that minimize overlap. The President's Science Advisor, aided and advised by the OSTP, the NSTC, the PCAST, and the National Academy of Science, should lead this effort. For example, one lab could focus on nuclear weapons maintenance, while others could specialize in such fields as energy and environmental research, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. Whatever goals are determined, more resources are clearly needed to ensure that the national laboratories remain world class research institutions, with facilities, resources, and salaries to fulfill their missions.

Finally, the potential for good and ill stemming from many of the recent developments in the scientific and technical domain is at least as great, if not greater, than that of atomic energy in 1945-46. As this Commission stressed in its Phase I report, new scientific discovery and innovation in information technologies, nanotechnology, and biotechnologies will have a major impact on social, economic, and political life in the United States and elsewhere.

It is not in the public or the national interest to allow these impacts to be determined exclusively by the private sector. The United States prides itself on having a system of government that does not smother or try to shape the social or moral life of the nation. But we have always granted government a role in managing science and technology under special or extreme circumstances-as for example in the creation of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission after World War II. As was the case then, a public-trust institution is needed to gather knowledge and to develop informed judgment as the basis for public policy. We especially need a permanent framework that brings public sector, private sector, and higher education together to examine the implications of today's technological revolution.

Now as then, there is a pointed national security dimension to this requirement. As was the case in the late 1940s, if the United States does not maintain leadership in this area, the country will decline in its ability to protect itself from those countries that do.

At present, there is a National Bioethics Advisory Commission to study the moral implications of bioscience. This Commission is composed of distinguished and committed members. But the composition of that Commission is narrow, consisting only of bioethicists. It meets only episodically, operates on a small budget, has no permanent professional staff aside from its executive director, works on a limited mandate, and is soon scheduled to go out of existence. In practice, this Commission cannot influence or communicate as an equal with the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture, or other government bodies that play major roles in monitoring and regulating the products of bioscience. Nor can it spend time anticipating issues when its meetings and reports are consumed almost entirely with responding to concerns that have already been raised. In short, the vehicle we now have to deal with the social, ethical, and public safety dimensions of biotechnology is inadequate for the task.

We need an institution that provides a forum for the articulation of all interests in the implications of new biotechnology and other new technologies. Without such a forum, it is doubtful whether public confidence in the progression of bioscience can be sustained amid all the controversies it will surely provoke over the next 25 years. We need a place where government officials, scholars, theologians, and corporate executives can meet regularly to discuss issues of concern. We need an institution that can deal effectively with the other governmental agencies regularly involved in these issues; otherwise its findings will remain peripheral to the actual processes of decision. We therefore recommend that Congress transform the current National Bioethics Advisory Commission into a much strengthened National Advisory Commission on Bioscience (NACB).

The NACB should focus on the intersection between bioscience, information science, and nanotechnology for, as we have said, it is this intersection that will form the pivot of major transformation. Such change will affect a wide range of public policy issues, including health, social security, privacy, and education. Nor should the commission's mandate be limited to ethical questions. It should concern itself, as well, with the social and public safety implications of bioscience.

For now, we envision no regulatory authority for such a strengthened commission such as that possessed by the Atomic Energy Commission. However, should the Executive and Legislative branches together come to believe that an institution along such lines is needed for biotechnology, this strengthened commission could serve as a basis for it.

B. EDUCATION AS A NATIONAL SECURITY IMPERATIVE

The capacity of America's educational system to create a 21st century workforce second to none in the world is a national security issue of the first order. As things stand, this country is forfeiting that capacity. The facts are stark:

· The American educational system needs to produce significantly more scientists and engineers, including four times the current number of computer scientists, to meet anticipated demand.*30

· To do this, more than 240,000 new and qualified science and mathematics teachers are needed in our K-12 classrooms over the next decade (out of a total need for an estimated 2.2 million new teachers).*31

Excerpts From "Protocols"

2. At the same time we shall not omit to emphasize the historical mistakes of the GOY governments which have tormented humanity for so many centuries by their lack of understanding of everything that constitutes the true good of humanity in their chase after fantastic schemes of social blessings, and have never noticed that these schemes kept on producing a worse and never a better state of the universal relations which are the basis of human life ....

3. The whole force of our principles and methods will lie in the fact that we shall present them and expound them as a splendid contrast to the dead and decomposed old order of things in social life.

4. Our philosophers will discuss all the shortcomings of the various beliefs of the "GOYIM," BUT NO ONE WILL EVER BRING UNDER DISCUSSION OUR FAITH FROM ITS TRUE POINT OF VIEW SINCE THIS WILL BE FULLY LEARNED BY NONE SAVE OURS WHO WILL NEVER DARE TO BETRAY ITS SECRETS.

5. IN COUNTRIES KNOWN AS PROGRESSIVE AND ENLIGHTENED WE HAVE CREATED A SENSELESS, FILTHY, ABOMINABLE LITERATURE. For some time after our entrance to power we shall continue to encourage its existence in order to provide a telling relief by contrast to the speeches, party program, which will be distributed from exalted quarters of ours .... Our wise men, trained to become leaders of the GOYIM, will compose speeches, projects, memoirs, articles, which will be used by us to influence the minds of the GOYIM, directing them towards such understanding and forms of knowledge as have been determined by us.

· However, some 34 percent of public school mathematics teachers and nearly forty percent of science teachers lack even an academic minor in their primary teaching fields.*32

Excerpts From "Protocols"

8. In a word, knowing by the experience of many centuries that people live and are guided by ideas, that these ideas are imbibed by people only by the aid of education provided with equal success for all ages of growth, but of course by varying methods, we shall swallow up and confiscate to our own use the last scintilla of independence of thought, which we have for long past been directing towards subjects and ideas useful for us. The system of bridling thought is already at work in the so-called system of teaching by OBJECT LESSONS, the purpose of which is to turn the GOYIM into unthinking submissive brutes waiting for things to be presented before their eyes in order to form an idea of them .... In France, one of our best agents, Bourgeois, has already made public a new program of teaching by object lessons.

· In 1997, Asia alone accounted for more than 43 percent of all science and engineering degrees granted worldwide, Europe 34 percent, and North America 23 percent. In that same year, China produced 148,800 engineers, the United States only 63,000.*33

Education is the foundation of America's future. Quality education in the humanities and social sciences is essential in a world made increasingly "smaller" by advances in communication and in global commerce. But education in science, mathematics, and engineering has special relevance for the future of U.S. national security, for America's ability to lead depends particularly on the depth and breadth of its scientific and technical communities.

Excerpts From "Protocols"

. But, IN THE MEANTIME, while we are re-educating youth in new traditional religions and afterwards in ours, WE SHALL NOT OVERTLY LAY A FINGER ON EXISTING CHURCHES, BUT WE SHALL FIGHT AGAINST THEM BY CRITICISM CALCULATED TO PRODUCE SCHISM ....

At the base of American national security, clearly, is the strength of the American economy. High-quality preparation of Americans for the working world is more important than ever. The technology-driven economy will add twenty million jobs in the next decade, many of them requiring significant technical expertise. The United States will need sharply growing numbers of competent knowledge workers, many of them in information sciences, an area in which there are already significant shortages.*34 But it is misleading to equate "information science" with "science" itself. It was basic science and engineering excellence that brought about the information revolution in the first place and, over the next quarter century, the interplay of bioscience, nanotechnology, and information science will combine to reshape most existing technologies. The health of the U.S. economy, therefore, will depend not only on professionals that can produce and direct innovation in a few key areas, but also on a populace that can effectively assimilate a wide range of new tools and technologies. This is critical not just for the U.S. economy in general, but specifically for the defense industry, which must simultaneously develop and defend against these same technologies.
The American educational system does not appear to be ready for such challenges and is confronted by two distinct yet inter-related problems. First, there will not be enough qualified American citizens to perform the new jobs being created today-including technical jobs crucial to the maintenance of national security. Already the United States must search abroad for experts and technicians to fill positions in the U.S. domestic economy, and Congress has often increased category limits for special visas (H-1B) for that purpose. If current trends are not stanched and reversed, large numbers of specialized foreign technicians in critical positions in the U.S. economy could pose security risks. More important, however, while the United States should take pride in educating, hosting, and benefiting from foreign scientific and technical expertise, it should take even more pride in being able to educate American citizens to operate their own economy at its highest level of technical and intellectual capacity.

Our ability to meet these needs is threatened by a second problem-that we do not now have, and will not have with current trends, nearly enough qualified teachers in our K-12 classrooms, particularly in science and mathematics. The United States will need roughly 2.2 million new teachers within the next decade.*35 A continued shortage in the quantity and quality of teachers in science and math means that we will increasingly fail to produce sufficient numbers of high-caliber American students to advance to college and post-graduate levels in these areas. Therefore we will lack not only the homegrown science, technology, and engineering professionals necessary to ensure national prosperity and security, but also the next generation of teachers of science and math at the K-12 level.: Does fear propaganda prevail with this commission?

A chronic shortage of teachers presages severe consequences in all fields, but is especially hurtful in science. Too few teachers means teaching loads and class sizes that exceed optimum levels. Having too many classes and too many students invariably translates into insufficient time to prepare, which is a critical variable in effective teaching-especially so in hands-on science classrooms. It also means the necessity to press into service teachers who are not adequately prepared for classroom rigors.

The broad effect of the shortages in science and math teachers, and of other deficits in curricula and method, is already evident. Mathematics and science exam scores for U.S. students have been rising, but not fast enough to keep up with a large number of other countries. The lag is particularly significant for the nation's high school students. Americans have performed relatively well in both mathematics and science at the 4th grade level, and slightly above the international average at the 8th grade level, but show a sharp relative decline in the high school years.*36 The most recent test shows a relative decline at the 8th grade level as well.*37 This, as former Secretary of Education William Bennett has pointed out, creates the impression that the longer students remain in the American education system, the poorer their relative performance becomes.

Another major concern is that not all American citizens have the benefits of an adequate education. Wide economic disparity persists among K-12 public school districts. Fully 34 percent of the total public school student population (seventeen million children) is being educated in economically-depressed school districts that face the greatest shortages of teachers. Many teachers in these districts are not qualified by a degree in the field they teach, and many lack teaching certification as well. The disparity in the availability of qualified science and math teachers between regular and economically-depressed school districts is particularly alarming.

Excerpts From "Protocols"

6. In general, then, our contemporary press will continue to CONVICT State affairs, religions, incapacities of the GOYIM, always using the most unprincipled expressions in order by every means to lower their prestige in the manner which can only be practiced by the genius of our gifted tribe ....

In short, our problems in this area are becoming cumulative. The nation is on the verge of a downward spiral in which current shortages will beget even more acute future shortages of high-quality professionals and competent teachers. The word "crisis" is much overused, but it is entirely appropriate here. If the United States does not stop and reverse negative educational trends-the general teacher shortage, and the downward spiral in science and math education and performance-it will be unable to maintain its position of global leadership over the next quarter century.

Resolving these cumulative problems will require a multi-faceted set of solutions. Educational incentive programs are needed to encourage students to pursue careers in science and technology, and particularly as K-12 teachers in these fields. Yet such incentives alone will not be adequate to avert the looming teacher shortage. Therefore, a set of additional actions must be taken to restore the professional status of educators and to entice those with science and math backgrounds into teaching. Only by addressing the systemic need to increase the number of science and math teachers will we ensure the supply of qualified science and technology professionals throughout our economy and in our national security institutions, both governmental and military.

As a major first step, we therefore recommend the following:

· 11: The President should propose, and Congress should pass, a National Security Science and Technology Education Act (NSSTEA) with four sections: reduced-interest loans and scholarships for students to pursue degrees in science, mathematics, and engineering; loan forgiveness and scholarships for those in these fields entering government or military service; a National Security Teaching Program to foster science and math teaching at the K-12 level; and increased funding for professional development for science and math teachers.: and who do you suppose will pay for it? Beware America of the coming un-constitutional flat sales tax.

Section one of the National Security Science and Technology Education Act should provide incentives for students at all levels-high school, undergraduate, graduate, and post- graduate-to pursue degrees in the fields of science, mathematics, and engineering.

Section two should provide substantial incentives to bring talented scientists, mathematicians, and engineers into government service-both civil and military. [The social science complement to this section will be discussed in recommendation 39.]

Section three should address the need to recruit quality science and math teachers at the K-12 level. To accomplish this goal, Congress should create a National Security Teaching Program through which graduates and experienced professionals in the fields of science, math, and engineering will commit to teach in America's public schools for three to five years. In return, NSTP Fellows will receive fellowships to an accredited education certification program, a loan repayment or cancellation option, and a signing bonus to supplement entry-level salaries. A national roster of districts in need of qualified teachers should be compiled and matched with the roster of NSTP Fellows.: so that we may give more awards from the NEA to authors of such new sciences as "Harry Potter"?

The National Security Teaching Program will place teachers in the classroom who have both a teaching certification and a degree in their field. It will also encourage experienced professionals to teach, bringing deep subject matter expertise and a wealth of experience to bring into America's classrooms.*38 These lateral entrants might be Ph.Ds who have not found other suitable professional niches and "young" retired people, such as those who leave the military in their forties and fifties.*39 Enabling this latter group to teach will also require further changes in tax laws so that those receiving retirement and pension benefits are not penalized unduly for taking on a second educational career.

Section four must emphasize professional development focused on the needs of science and mathematics teachers. On-going professional development for science teachers is particularly important, as they must prepare their students to contend with the rapidly evolving pace of scientific innovation and discovery. The Eisenhower Program run by the Department of Education to meet the professional development needs of science and math teachers is a good example of a program that works.*40 It should be expanded and resourced accordingly.

Professional development that involves a substantial number of contact hours over a long period has a stronger impact on teaching practice than professional development of limited duration. Today, however, more than half of all science teachers in the United States report receiving no more than two days of professional development per year.*41 For this reason, we believe the emphasis of the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (the Glenn Commission) on continuing professional education is right on the mark. The Glenn Commission emphasized Summer Institutes as well as Inquiry Groups and distance learning through a dedicated Internet portal for on-going professional education.*42

Congress should also establish and fund the National Math & Science Project to provide additional support for continuing professional development. Such a program can be modeled after the National Writing Project, an outstanding example of university/district collaboration. Its goal has been to improve student writing and learning in K-12 and university classrooms by providing schools, colleges, and universities with an effective professional development model. The National Writing Project also suggests itself as a model because it has been both cost-effective and has focused significant resources on traditionally-neglected impoverished areas.*43

All fifty states should also fund professional enrichment sabbaticals of various durations for science teachers, and should do so wherever possible in concert with local universities, science museums, and other research institutions. The federal government should strongly encourage and support the states in such endeavors. A more widespread sabbatical system for science educators would also improve liaison between secondary school teachers of science and math and university faculties adept in such subjects. Some metropolitan areas in the United States have developed excellent working relationships between high school teachers and both university and science museum faculties, and we encourage Education Department officials to carefully study and model these success stories.

We recognize that the widespread institution of enrichment sabbaticals for science teachers would be expensive, for it would require a personnel "float" to compensate for teachers who are on sabbatical. But this should be a long-term goal for science educators in at least grades 7-12, which should come to resemble professional standards at universities to the extent possible.
While the National Security Science and Technology Education Act would provide educational benefits and ongoing professional development opportunities for those who choose to teach, a range of additional actions are needed to improve both teacher recruitment and retention and the overall strength of school districts.

The anticipated shortage of quality teachers is a challenge, but it also offers tremendous opportunity. As we renew our pool of teachers, we can produce and train the best teachers with the best curricula, the best texts, and the best teaching methods. But it is clear that if the general national teacher shortage problem is not addressed, efforts to address deficiencies in the science and mathematics arena will not be met either. One cannot significantly improve the quality of science and math education without improving education in general. After all, science and math are taught in the same buildings, working under the same systems and budgets, and in the same general environment as that in which all other subjects are taught. That is why ensuring a superior scientific and technical community, one that satisfies both national economic and security needs, must start with reforming the educational system as a whole.

In this light, the Commission recognizes the need to take immediate steps, beyond the National Security Teaching Program, to attract much greater numbers of qualified graduates into the teaching profession, and to raise the quality of professional achievement across the board. We therefore recommend:

· 12: The President should direct the Department of Education to work with the states to devise a comprehensive plan to avert a looming shortage of quality teachers. This plan should emphasize raising teacher compensation, improving infrastructure support, reforming the certification process, and expanding existing programs targeted at districts with especially acute problems.

First, we must raise salaries for teachers, science and mathematics teachers in particular, to or near commercial levels.*44 As long as sharp salary inequities exist between what science and math teachers are paid and what equivalently-educated professionals make in the private sector, the nation's schools will lack the best qualified teachers in science and mathematics. Given the exigencies of the market, we see no reason why science and math teachers should not earn more than other teachers even in the same school system.: As if "We" were still elected by the People for the People

While increased funding from the federal and state governments is needed to achieve this, public-private and community-wide partnerships that link universities and businesses with local school districts could help fulfill both faculty and student needs through endowments and other programs.*45 Endowments are a proven means for enhancing professional competitiveness. Beyond their contribution to funding higher teacher salaries, they involve corporate and private philanthropy more effectively in improving American education. K-12 education should develop a resource base similar to that of higher education with which to meet educational needs. The federal government-through the Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, and the National Research Council-can also help by standing ready to provide supplementary or matching funds for communities that take bold local initiatives to recruit and retain quality teachers. National, state, and local leaders should encourage corporate and private philanthropists to match disbursed endowment money, and Congress should work to ensure enhanced corporate tax benefits for monies provided for NSSTEA science/math education purposes of all sorts.: where the rich are yet richer and of course the poor get poorer at the hands of this new technocracy

Endowment and other partnership programs could be used in several important ways, in addition to raising teacher salaries. They can provide the up-to-date laboratory facilities that are essential to effective discovery-based learning, and that are usually more expensive than most local school districts choose to bear. Without investment by the federal government and through these partnership programs in the modernization of high school laboratory facilities, even the highest quality science teachers will be unable to maximize their talents. Funds could also be used to develop innovative uses for technology such as modular texts in science that can be conveyed nationwide through the Internet.

Finally, these programs can provide student incentives to choose science and math careers. This may be through summer co-op programs-somewhat analogous to co-op programs on the university level-where students take summer jobs or internships related to their interests at companies and foundations that help endow the schools. Alternatively endowments might be used to pay students at the high school level for taking courses in science and math beyond minimal requirements. Some believe that students should be paid directly and that it is foolish to let students work at fast food chains, for example, when they could be induced for similar rewards to study physics and calculus. In lieu of, or in addition to, direct payment, students may be offered scholarship money to be set aside for university tuition.

Second, we must improve infrastructure support. Other knowledge-workers in the general economy are the beneficiaries, on average, of ten times the basic infrastructure investment than that afforded to teachers. This is a national disgrace. Beyond the laboratory facilities already mentioned, administrative support and resources are needed to ensure a disciplined and safe environment, and to provide such seemingly basic services as desk space, telephones, and copying facilities. This will not only help provide a better educational environment but, along with salary increases, will also help restore full professional status to the teaching profession. This will go a long way toward attracting and retaining high-quality teachers.

Third, we must create more flexible certification procedures to attract lateral entrants into education. We have already discussed the benefits of encouraging experienced professionals to become K-12 educators and certification procedures should reflect these benefits. In general they should be changed to emphasize teacher mastery of substance over matters of pedagogy at least at the grade 7-12 level.

Fourth, we should supplement these measures by expanding existing specially-targeted federal programs for geographical and socio-economic zones with especially acute problems. Through the National Security Teaching Program, we should strengthen federal loan repayment and cancellation options for recent college graduates engaged in these programs and increase their salary and housing benefits. Supplementary teacher training and certification programs should be provided, as well, in exchange for an additional commitment to teaching in selected public school systems. At the same time, we recommend the following:

· 13: The President and Congress should devise a targeted program to strengthen the historically black colleges and universities in our country, and should particularly support those that emphasize science, mathematics, and engineering.
well finally, our peoples congress has been recommended, but is this only as an appeasement?
Clearly, serious educational improvement will cost money. It will also require changes in attitudes toward education professionals. But if the American people want quality education and a truly professional environment in schools that is conducive to educational success, they will have to demand it, pay for it, and show greater respect to those professionals who deliver it.: More intrusion from corporation's which push Prozac and psychoanalytical babble upon our children?

We believe, however, that while more money for is a necessary condition for major improvement in the education system, it is not a sufficient condition. Despite significant investments in special programs, much professional attention, and significant expenditure of resources, many results of the educational system are still disappointing. New and creative approaches are needed, including approaches that harness the power of competition. As important, local communities must be empowered and involved more fully in education, for nothing tracks more directly with high student performance as parental involvement in their children's education.

In addition to the previous recommendations, this Commission believes that core secondary school curricula should be heavier in science and mathematics, and should require higher levels of proficiency for all high school students. Many specialists believe that tracking math and science students sometimes leads to a sharp deterioration of expectations, and hence discipline, in the lower tracks. According to nearly all professional evaluations, such a deterioration of expectations is lethal to the attitudes necessary to make the classroom experience work.^46 Given the exigencies of advanced 21st century economies, it is not good enough that we produce a sufficient elite corps of science, math, and engineering professionals. We must raise levels of math, science, and technology literacy throughout our society. Among other things, that means changing enduring perceptions that taking four years of science and math in high school is only for the "brainy" elite. This is a perception that, ultimately, could cause an economic disaster in this country.: Federal Reserve could cause an economic disaster
war could bring economic disaster: Recession has brought an economic disaster
Skimming from industry has brought economic disaster

Finally in this regard, as with nearly every other commission and professional study that has looked at this problem, we favor more rigorous achievement goals for both American teachers and students in science and math, and we favor making both accountable for improvements. We also believe that science curricula, in particular, must be better designed to teach science for what it is: a way of thinking and not just a body of facts. In our judgment, too much high school science curricula is still distorted by inappropriate evaluation methods. If testing and evaluation methods for science education better reflect the reality of science as a discovery-based rather than as a fact-based activity, it would be easier to reform curricula in an appropriate fashion as well.
One related matter must be addressed. As noted earlier, increasing numbers of the qualified engineers and scientists educated in the United States are coming from outside U.S. borders. Far from being negative, the cycle of their coming and going to and from the United States helps sustains U.S. needs. However, should they stop coming, or further accelerate their return home, the American population alone may not be able to sustain the needs of the U.S. economy over the next decade.: call it Patriotism, this negative thinking?
Perhaps what is needed most is education Vouchers for private ran institutions, and not throwing more money into the Government Garbage Recycler.

Fully 37 percent of doctorates in natural science, 50 percent of doctorates in mathematics and computer science, and 53 percent of doctorates in engineering at U.S. universities-the best in the world-are awarded to non-U.S. citizens.*47 However, the percentage of science and engineering doctoral recipients with firm plans to stay in the United States is declining.*48 The growing emphasis on science and technology in many foreign countries is enticing many U.S- trained foreign students to return to their countries of origin, or to go to other parts of the world. They are doing so in increasing numbers. Excerpt From "Protocols" WE SHALL CHANGE HISTORY 4. Classicism as also any form of study of ancient history, in which there are more bad than good examples, we shall replace with the study of the program of the future. We shall erase from the memory of men all facts of previous centuries which are undesirable to us, and leave only those which depict all the errors of the government of the GOYIM. The study of practical life, of the obligations of order, of the relations of people one to another, of avoiding bad and selfish examples, which spread the infection of evil, and similar questions of an educative nature, will stand in the forefront of the teaching program, which will be drawn up on a separate plan for each calling or state of life, in no wise generalizing the teaching. This treatment of the question has special importance.

Given the uncertainty as to whether U.S. nationals alone can fill U.S. economic needs, Congress should adjust the appropriate immigration legislation to make it easier for those non- U.S. citizens with critical educational and professional competencies to remain in the United States, and to become American citizens should they so desire.( and if they do not desire, why let them sabotage us on our own soil?) ( The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, along with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the appropriate Congressional committees, is the proper place to design such adjustments.

We believe strongly that America's future depends upon the ability of its educational system to produce students who constantly challenge current levels of innovation and push the limits of technology and discovery. They are the seed corn of our future. Presidential leadership will be critical in addressing the initiatives in education addressed by this Commission. That is why the Commission is heartened to learn that the new administration has declared education to be its first priority. It is the right choice.

Excerpt From "Protocols
9. In order to annihilate the institutions of the GOYIM before it is time we have touched them with craft and delicacy, and have taken hold of the ends of the springs which move their mechanism. These springs lay in a strict but just sense of order; we have replaced them by the chaotic license of liberalism. We have got our hands into the administration of the law, into the conduct of elections, into the press, into liberty of the person, BUT PRINCIPALLY INTO EDUCATION AND TRAINING AS BEING THE CORNERSTONES OF A FREE EXISTENCE.

III. Institutional Redesign

Beyond the pressing matter of organizing homeland security, and of recapitalizing core U.S. domestic strengths in science and education, this Commissions recommends significant organizational redesign for the Executive Branch. This redesign has been conceived with one overriding purpose in mind: to permit the U.S. government to integrate more effectively the many diverse strands of policy that underpin U.S. national security in a new era-not only the traditional agenda of defense, diplomacy, and intelligence, but also economics, counter-terrorism, combating organized crime, protecting the environment, fighting pandemic diseases, and promoting international human rights.

Excerpt From "Protocols"

2. The constitution scales of these days will shortly break down, for we have established them with a certain lack of accurate balance in order that they may oscillate incessantly until they wear through the pivot on which they turn. The GOYIM are under the impression that they have welded them sufficiently strong and they have all along kept on expecting that the scales would come into equilibrium. But the pivots - the kings on their thrones - are hemmed in by their representatives, who play the fool, distraught with their own uncontrolled and irresponsible power. This power they owe to the terror which has been breathed into the palaces. As they have no means of getting at their people, into their very midst, the kings on their thrones are no longer able to come to terms with them and so strengthen themselves against seekers after power. We have made a gulf between the far-seeing Sovereign Power and the blind force of the people so that both have lost all meaning, for like the blind man and his stick, both are powerless apart.

The key component of any Executive Branch organizational design is the President. As one of only two elected members of the Executive Branch, the President is responsible for ensuring that U.S. strategies are designed to seize opportunities and not just to respond to crises. He must find ways to obtain significantly more resources for foreign affairs, and in particular those resources needed for anticipating threats and preventing the emergence of dangers. Without a major increase in resources, the United States will not be able to conduct its national security policies effectively in the 21st century.

To that end, the nation must redesign not just individual departments and agencies but its national security apparatus as a whole. Serious deficiencies exist that cannot be solved by a piecemeal approach.

· Most critically, no overarching strategic framework guides U.S. national security policymaking or resource allocation. Budgets are still prepared and appropriated as they were during the Cold War.

· The power to determine national security policy has migrated toward the National Security Council (NSC) staff. The staff now assumes policymaking and operational roles, with the result that its ability to act as an honest broker and policy coordinator has suffered.

· Difficulties persist in ensuring that international political and security perspectives are considered in the making of global economic policy, and that economic goals are given proper attention in national security policymaking.

· The Department of State is a crippled institution that is starved for resources by Congress because of its inadequacies and is thereby weakened further. The department suffers in particular from an ineffective organizational structure in which regional and functional goals compete, and in which sound management, accountability, and leadership are lacking.

Excerpt From "Protocols"

3. In order to incite seekers after power to a misuse of power we have set all forces in opposition one to another, breaking up their liberal tendencies towards independence. To this end we have stirred up every form of enterprise, we have armed all parties, we have set up authority as a target for every ambition. Of States we have made gladiatorial arenas where a lot of confused issues contend .... A little more, and disorders and bankruptcy will be universal ....

4. Babblers, inexhaustible, have turned into oratorical contests the sittings of Parliament and Administrative Boards. Bold journalists and unscrupulous pamphleteers daily fall upon executive officials. Abuses of power will put the final touch in preparing all institutions for their overthrow and everything will fly skyward under the blows of the maddened mob.

· America's overseas presence has not been adjusted to the new economic, social, political, and security realities of the 21st century. The broad statutory authority of U.S. Ambassadors is undermined in practice by their lack of control over resources and personnel.

We must have Global Governance


· The Department of Defense has serious organizational deficiencies. The growth in staff and staff activities creates confusion and delay. The failure to outsource or privatize many defense support activities wastes huge sums of money. The programming and budgeting process is not guided by effective strategic planning. The weapons acquisition process is so hobbled by excessive laws, regulations, and oversight strictures that it can neither recognize nor seize opportunities for major innovation, and it stifles a defense industry already in financial crisis. Finally, the force structure development process is not currently aligned with the needs of today's global security environment.

"It is Written"

The Last Deception

Section 2

section 3

section 4

section 5

section 6

section 7

section 8

section 9

section 10

section 11

section 12

section 13

section 14 "The Protocols of the Illuminated Elders of Tzion"

section 15

      section 16 "The Beast Has Risen"

section 16-B

section 17

section 17-B

section 17-C

section 17-D

section 18

section 18-B

section 19

section 19-B

section 20

section 20-B

section 20-C

section 20-D

section 20-E

section 21

section 22

section 23

section 24

section 25

Daniel's Seventy Weeks

Was Peter a Jew?

The Two Witnesses

"The Whore of Babylon"

Mystery Babylon

Are the " Ael-ians coming"

Ael-ians II

Wall Street " The Mark" is Here

Wall Street II

Wall Street III

It has happened "War Declared upon and in America"

Declared section Part II

"Questions"

"All you ever need to know about their god and Qabalah"

Qabalah Part II

Qabalah Part III

National Identification Card

Prophecy Unfolding

A Sincere Request to "Rapture" Teachers

"Seventh Trumpet"

Compulsory Constitutional Cremation

Homeland Security, "The Police State"

"The Fourth Beast"

The Babylonian Talmudic Mystical Qabalah

The Scribes of Baal

How will they do it- " The false-christ"

False Christ Part II

The Word

Baal's food Tax

"The Changing of the Guards"

"Summation" The beginning of sorrows has begun

"Moshiach ben Lucifer"

Satan's Tales "Wagging the Global Dog"

"Satan's Plan", Protocols of Zion ( of course they will dispute it's authenticity)

I Witch, New One World Order Seal

Satan's Enforcers of Quaballah

Satan's Enforcers Part 2

Satan's Enforcers Part 3

Satan's Enforcers Part 4

The Seed of God or the Seed of Satan, Your choice by faith

Pledge of Allegiance Part Two

I AM, the Revelation of Jesus Christ

King of the Noachides

"Beware the Mark"

"Beware the Mark" part two

"Beware the Mark" Part 3

"Beware the Mark" Part Four

"Beware the Mark" Part Five

Harvest of Fear

"Harvest of Fear" Part Two

"Harvest of Fear" Part Three

National Organization Against Hasidic International Talmudic Enforcement

Where's Da Plane Boss, wheres da plane?

The Tarot Card Killer of Olam Ha Ba

The "Lessor Jew"

Temporary Coup d' Etat

The Federal Reserve, Fed up with the Fed?

The Protocols Today. Dispute this, Liars !

Protocols Today Part Two

Letter to a friend "It's not the Jews Dummy"

Identity of the Illuminati

The "Son's of the Synagogue of Satan"Chabad Lubavitch

Chabad Satan Part 1A

Chabad Satan Part 2

Chabad Satan Part 2A

Chabad Satan Part 2B

Chabad Satan Part 3

Chabad Satan Part 3A

Chabad Satan Part 4

Chabad Satan Part 4A

Chabad Satan Part 4B

Chabad Satan Part 4C

Chabad Satan Part 5

Chabad satan Part 5A

Chabad Satan Part 5B

Chabad Satan Part 5C

Chabad Satan Part 6

Chabad Satan Part 6B

Chabad Satan Part 6C

Chabad Satan Part 6D

Chabad Satan Part 7

Chabad Satan Part 7A

Chabad Satan Part 7B

Chabad Satan Part 7C

Chabad Satan Part 8

Chabad Satan Part 8A

Chabad Satan Part 8B

Chabad Satan Part 8C

Chabad Satan Part 8D

Chabad Satan Part 9

Chabad Satan Part 9A

Chabad Satan Part 9B

Chabad Satan Part 9C

Chabad Satan Part 9D

Chabad Satan Part 10

Chabad Satan Part 10A

Chabad Satan Part 10B

Chabad Satan Part 10C

Chabad Satan Part 10D

The Chabad Satan Wall of Destruction

Chabad Wall Part 2

Chabad Wall Part 3

Chabad Wall Part 4

The Chabad Phoenix is Rising

Columbia "The Queen of Heaven"

Patriot Akt II, Comrad

The Infiltration of the leaven "Jerusalem Council"

Satan's One World Religion

OWR Part 2

OWR Part 3

OWR Part 4

One World Religion Part 5
One World Religion Part 6

One World Religion Part 7 Religion Part 7

Re the god of Talmud Bavli

Perpetual Purim

"The Raiser of Taxes"

Jewish Persecution

Obedient Ishmael Kislev 19, 5764

The Final Nazi

Nazi Part 2

Nazi Part 3

Nazi Part 4

The Lord of the Ring, the Return of the Talmudic king

Changing the Time and the Laws

anti-semitism?

Who murdered Jesus the Christ

"Replacement Theology" of Judaic Talmudism

Eating Rainbow Stew with a Silver Spoon, underneath a Noahide Sky

the gods

"The Two Whores"

Noahide News

Noahide News 2

infosam@bellsouth.net

Homeland security director could get more power

Excerpt From "PROTOCOLS"

MEMORANDUM FOR THE NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

Excerpt From "Protocols"

WE SHALL CHANGE HISTORY