HR-9177-119
Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Sponsored by Jennifer McClellan (D-VA)
What it does
This bill would direct the National Science Foundation (NSF) to create a competitive grant program for colleges, universities, and nonprofits to improve mentorship practices for faculty, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields. It would authorize up to $5 million over fiscal years 2027–2031 for projects covering mentoring skills, evidence-based practices, cultural competency training, and related outreach. The bill would also require NSF to include institutional processes for reporting harassment, discrimination, and professional misconduct in its existing reporting requirements, and would require NSF to submit a report to Congress within five years assessing the program's effectiveness.
Who benefits
Graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields who may receive better-structured mentorship. Faculty who receive training in mentoring skills and cultural competencies. Minority-serving institutions (MSIs), historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), rural-serving institutions, and emerging research institutions, which receive special consideration in the award process. Students from underrepresented groups who may benefit from improved mentorship at these institutions. Nonprofit organizations eligible to apply for grants. Institutions seeking to formalize misconduct reporting processes.
Who is hurt
Institutions that do not qualify for special consideration — primarily large, well-resourced research universities — may be less competitive for the limited pool of funding. Taxpayers bear the cost of the $5 million authorization. Institutions that currently have informal or minimal misconduct reporting processes may face administrative burden from the new reporting requirements. The small funding pool means most applicants would not receive awards.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that poor mentorship is a documented driver of attrition from STEM careers, particularly among women and underrepresented minorities, and that targeted federal investment in mentorship infrastructure addresses a structural gap that market forces have not corrected. They contend that prioritizing HBCUs, TCUs, MSIs, and rural institutions directs resources to the institutions with the greatest need and least existing capacity, and that the five-year reporting requirement ensures accountability before any permanent expansion of the program.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that $5 million spread across five years is too small to produce measurable, system-wide improvements in STEM mentorship, and that the federal government is poorly positioned to improve interpersonal academic relationships that are better addressed by individual institutions. They contend that the bill's cultural competency training requirement and special consideration criteria for specific institution types may introduce non-merit factors into a competitive grant process, and that existing NSF programs already address workforce development without requiring a new demonstration program layer.