[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 51 (Tuesday, May 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
         NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1994

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 414 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 414

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3254) to authorize appropriations for the 
     National Science Foundation, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Science, Space, 
     and Technology. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minutes rule. It 
     shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Science, Space, and Technology now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered by title rather than by section. Each title of the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. Points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply 
     with clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution all time yielded 
is for the purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 414 is an open rule 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 3254, the National Science 
Foundation Act of 1994. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate 
to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The 
rule also makes in order the Science, Space, and Technology Committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment. The substitute will be 
considered by title with each title considered as read.
  Under the rule, all points of order for failure to comply with clause 
5(a) of rule XXI are waived against the committee substitute. This 
waiver, Mr. Speaker, pertains to the prohibition of appropriations in a 
legislative bill, and is necessary because of a technical violation 
having to do with debt-for-science exchange grants. I understand all 
concerned parties are in agreement with this waiver. Finally, the rule 
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3254, is an important bill which is the result of 
hearings and careful consultations. It authorizes $3.2 billion for 
fiscal year 1995 which reflects the administration's requested level, 
and $3.39 billion for fiscal year 1996 for the National Science 
Foundation [NSF]. The NSF provides basic research to our colleges and 
universities, and nonprofit organizations. Its grant awards promote 
valuable research, including biological, computer, engineering, earth, 
and physical sciences. The committee has done an excellent job of 
designing an authorization bill which will promote the research 
necessary to ultimately make our country competitive.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3254 was favorably reported out of the Science 
Committee by voice vote. I am pleased this open rule received unanimous 
support in the Rules Committee, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I need.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], has 
described this open rule, and I strongly support it. I'd like to point 
out that this is the first completely open rule reported from the Rules 
Committee since November 9 of last year--almost 7 months ago. I urge my 
colleagues to take note that during the 103d Congress, only 21 percent 
of all the rules reported by the Rules Committee have been open rules. 
That's only 13 out of 61 rules. Mr. Speaker, we owe it to the American 
people to have an open legislative process that allows all Members to 
fully participate, and I hope we'll see many more open rules during 
this second session.
  This bill authorizes funding for all the major activities of the 
National Science Foundation, which is the primary agency providing 
Federal support of university research into physical and mathematical 
sciences. This is a commendable and important function--one which I 
support. However, there's always been some controversy surrounding 
certain research grants made through the Foundation, and I hope that 
the House will make sure that this authorization bill tightens up the 
process so that only research projects with true scientific value 
receive Federal funds, not asinine projects.
  This open rule will allow all Members to have the opportunity to 
perfect this legislation, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the material on open versus 
restrictive rules, as follows:

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           61      13         21       48         79 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through Apr. 29, 1994.                                                        


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], a member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman emeritus, my friend the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply want to congratulate my friends in the majority 
for their courage in bringing forward a truly open rule, and I mean 
that sincerely--the first of its kind actually since last November 9, 
if our records are correct. No restrictions on amendments, except under 
the standing rules of the House, which is the way it is to be, those 
are the rules we all understand; no preprinting requirements, no 
convoluted king of the hill. This rule today is completely pure. 
Because I am often in the position of criticizing our Democrat friends 
on the Committee on Rules and in the leadership for arbitrarily 
shutting down debate on important issues, it seems only fair to me to 
take this brief opportunity to commend them today for their openness in 
handling this legislation this way. If this new commitment to 
deliberative democracy could only become the norm instead of the 
exception, then I think we can truly have made real progress and report 
to the American people we have made real progress in restoring the 
credibility of this House with the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I must note to date, as my colleague from Tennessee has 
said, that we have seen only 21 percent open rules, that compares with 
85 percent during the 95th Congress, and that was only about 15 years 
ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I implore the Democrat leadership to continue in the 
vein of today's rule, open up this House and allow free debate, let 
Members discuss what the people back in their districts feel; let them 
talk about things that matter, not just on the controversial subjects 
but on things that matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I think there is no issue out there that most Americans 
would not appreciate hearing honest, bona fide debate on.
  About the only way we can ensure the best possible product for the 
American people in this deliberative body is by this open rule process, 
and I think the more we have it, the more we will use it wisely.
  Mr. Speaker, there are two very important benefits coming from the 
use of open rules: First, there will be less inclination to use the 
discharge petition process that so many are concerned about, and the 
second is I think it will help restore some of the credibility that we 
seem to have lost. When 84 percent of the people in this country say 
they do not trust the U.S. Congress to handle their business with 
approval, it seems to me it is time for us to raise that credibility by 
going forward and showing the people of America we indeed do good work 
with open rules.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Darden). Pursuant to House Resolution 
414 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 3254.

                              {time}  1346


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
3254) to authorize appropriations for the National Science Foundation, 
and for other purposes, with Mr. Oberstar in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher].
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3254 the 
National Science Foundation Authorization Act which authorizes programs 
in basic science, engineering research, and in science education that 
are the basis for the future strength of our economy and which will 
enhance the well-being of our society.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], the 
ranking Republican member of the Science Subcommittee, and the other 
members of the Science Subcommittee for their thoughtful contributions 
to the legislation. I particularly acknowledge the assistance of the 
chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  The National Science Foundation is a small agency with a 
disproportionate importance to the Nation's scientific and technical 
enterprise. It is the only Federal agency with the sole mission to 
support basic science, engineering research, and education in the 
Nation's secondary schools, colleges, and universities. Although NSF 
represents only 4 percent of the Federal R&D budget, the agency 
provides one-quarter of all Federal support for basic research at the 
Nation's colleges and universities.
  In addition, NSF is an important participant in multiagency research 
efforts in strategic areas. For the High Performance Computing and 
Communications Program, which provides the technological underpinnings 
for the administration's initiative on the national information 
infrastructure, NSF provides approximately 30 percent of the total 
funding. It is a major participant in other high priority national 
research projects including those on global climate change, critical 
materials, advanced manufacturing, and biotechnology.
  The NSF provides for the operation of major research facilities, 
including the optical and radio astronomy observatories, high-energy 
nuclear particle accelerators, research ships, and the high magnetic 
field laboratory. It plays a large role in precollege and undergraduate 
science and mathematics education through programs of model curriculum 
development, teacher preparation and enhancement, and informal science 
education.
  The importance of the NSF to the Nation's future is well reflected in 
the bipartisan nature of the efforts in recent years to enlarge the 
agency's budget. In 1987, former President Reagan proposed doubling the 
NSF budget over 5 years. Annual budget proposals of Presidents Reagan, 
Bush, and Clinton from fiscal year 1988 through fiscal year 1994 have 
supported achieving that goal. And the Clinton administration's budget 
request for fiscal year 1995 will reach the doubling level first 
proposed by President Reagan.
  H.R. 3254, as reported by the Science, Space, and Technology 
Committee, provides funding authority for NSF for fiscal years 1995 and 
1996. The total authorization level of $3.2 billion for fiscal year 
1995 conforms exactly to the President's request. The bill provides an 
authorization of $3.39 billion for fiscal year 1996, an increase of 6 
percent, which supports the President's designation of NSF as an 
important part of his science and technology investment plan.
  The Science Committee has received testimony over several years on 
the serious deterioration of university research facilities, and on the 
adverse effects this deterioration is having on the ability of 
universities to perform leading-edge research. The 1992 edition of 
NSF's biennial survey of academic facilities needs indicates that only 
27 percent of existing research space is suitable for conducting the 
most sophisticated research and 39 percent is classified as totally 
inadequate.
  In addition, 34 percent of all institutions, and 40 percent of the 
major research universities, reported inadequate amounts of research 
space.
  By authorizing $150 million for the NSF facilities program for fiscal 
year 1995 and $200 million for fiscal year 1996, H.R. 3254 will 
reassert the importance of this merit-based program and will fund it at 
a level that will genuinely begin to address our needs.
  The bill also recognizes that the scale of the facilities shortfall--
estimated to be at least $10 billion--is too great to be met solely 
with the resources available to NSF. Therefore, the legislation 
requires the Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a plan 
for a multiagency facilities program to include estimates of funding by 
agency and the timeframe necessary to relieve substantially the backlog 
of substandard facilities. The bill seeks to encourage universities to 
rely more fully on this expanded facilities program by prohibiting NSF 
from awarding a facility grant to any university which receives a 
facility earmark in the future through the appropriations process.
  The authorization levels for research activities will allow NSF to 
increase support for individual investigators and also ensure that new 
research opportunities may be pursued which require interdisciplinary 
research teams. Sufficient growth is provided to allow NSF to increase 
its participation in existing and planned interagency initiatives of 
national importance.
  To provide Congress with a clear statement of the agency's goals as 
they evolved over time, the bill requires NSF to submit an annual 
report containing a 3-year plan highlighting expected areas of program 
emphasis, including research initiatives under development, and 
containing criteria and procedures for assessing progress toward the 
defined goals. A separate, related requirement calls for the 
development and annual updating of a 5-year plan for new construction 
of NSF national research facilities, such as telescopes, and upgrades 
to existing national facilities.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3254 provides the resources and defines the 
priorities which will allow the National Science Foundation to meet its 
responsibilities to support basic research and education in science and 
engineering and to strengthen the Nation's research potential. It is my 
pleasure to commend the measure to the House for its favorable 
consideration.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate Chairman Brown and Chairman 
Boucher on bringing forward a fine National Science Foundation 
authorization bill, as usual. We will have debate later on the precise 
funding levels in this bill--I think they are unrealistic now--but 
there is no difference on fundamental principles.
  NSF continues to be a model agency, well run, well organized, 
carrying out a proper and focused mission. I think it is safe to say 
that our committee remains unanimous in its admiration for the 
Foundation's work.
  I think our committee is also unanimous in its support for the NSF 
facilities program. This is not a partisan issue. Republican and 
Democratic administrations have opposed full funding for this program; 
Republican and Democratic legislatives have supported it.
  I am not sure why administrations oppose this program--perhaps it is 
a bit of ``not invented here'' syndrome. After all, the data 
demonstrating the need for facilities improvements has come out of 
reports requested by the White House--reports by people appointed by 
the White House. And the need for improved facilities comes up any time 
any of us are on university campuses. So, I think we will stick with 
our efforts to build up the facilities program, and I expect the Senate 
will follow suit.
  The most important provision in this bill, as far as I am concerned, 
is title V--undergraduate education. It addresses a problem that has 
been ignored for too long.
  Of all the problems facing American education, the decline of 
undergraduate education ought to be one of the easier ones for us to 
solve. That is because the problem is largely an artifact of our own 
policies. We have richly rewarded research without requiring any 
concomitant devotion to education. Not surprisingly, academic interest 
has followed the money, and we are left with the present state of 
affairs.
  Yes, universities have begun to address this issue, but some of their 
responses have merely highlighted how severe the problem is. Various 
universities have trumpeted the fact that they now ensure that their 
foreign-born teaching assistants can be understood or that they have 
managed to get some senior faculty to teach. The fact that these meager 
changes can be viewed as real accomplishments shows how far our 
universities have drifted from their teaching mission.
  We need fundamental change at our universities--change so that 
professors who are interested in teaching do not feel like kooks or 
pariahs. That requires more than tinkering. The reaction of some 
university groups to the mild language in this bill is another sign of 
how badly a change in mindset is needed.
  Now, I do not want to be misunderstood. My point is not that research 
and teaching are unrelated, or that there should be no research 
faculty. My point is that we must get away from a mindset that 
systematically under- values undergraduate education.
  NSF also has to do some rethinking--and is required to do so by this 
bill. We ought to figure out how to distribute research dollars in a 
way that does not provide disincentives for education.
  Perhaps some kind of institutional commitment to education ought to 
be a condition for receiving research awards. Perhaps undergraduate 
assistants should be included in all federally funded research 
projects. Perhaps NSF should fund the program Chairman Brown and I 
created in 1990 and fund some Centers of Excellence in Undergraduate 
Education. I will wait to see what NSF recommends.
  Title V is a recognition that things have to change, that we need to 
do more than complain about undergraduate education. The provision in 
this bill has been significantly redrawn since its introduction in 
October to reflect the legitimate concerns of universities and some 
helpful suggestions from the American Chemical Society. We have 
replaced annual reporting with a trimmed-down one-time study that seeks 
information that should not be a burden to anyone.
  Title V must be retained in conference.
  I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to improve 
this bill.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], chairman of the 
full Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Boucher] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Boucher], the subcommittee chairman, for his leadership in bringing 
this bill to the floor. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert], the ranking members of the committee and subcommittee, 
respectively, for their constructive efforts in the preparation of this 
bill.
  Let me state that with regard to the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Boehlert's contribution, it has been exemplary. His dedication to the 
cause of improving the National Science Foundation and the basic 
science support and science education mechanism is far larger that I 
would be able to indicate here.
  I want to acknowledge that. I also want to acknowledge the fact that 
he has been extremely interested in joining with me in the pursuit of 
some curtailment of this program of earmarking which, unfortunately, 
has become widely prevalent in the Congress. This bill contains some 
provisions which are aimed at discouraging the use of earmarking. What 
has been, of course, an argument for those who support earmarking in 
the past has been that there are no authorized programs to provide for 
this need, so we have to do it directly on the appropriations bills.
  Now, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] has already discussed 
the fact that we have gone beyond the recommendations of the 
administration in authorizing a facilities program in this bill. And 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] has indicated that he thinks 
that we will be able to support this in conference and to authorize the 
program.
  It is particularly frustrating and discouraging to have people come 
to the floor in defense of earmarking and to say there is no authorized 
program and then, when we have an authorized program, not to fund that 
authorized program. This is a rather hypocritical way to justify a 
practice which we have long felt was not in the best interests of the 
Congress; that is, the direct appropriation without authorization of 
funds for facilities that are thought to be valuable and of high 
priority but which no one has reviewed other than the sponsor of that 
particular provision.
  Now, I do not wish to belabor that. That will be a subject in future 
discussions on the floor here. But I wanted to pay tribute to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] for the work that he has done. I 
will have to confess that he has wanted to go even further in putting 
provisions in this bill to prohibit earmarking, further than I thought 
were justified. But I want to commend him for this effort and to assure 
him that if we continue to be frustrated in what we are seeking to do 
in bringing this practice under control, I am likely to support almost 
any effort, including the one which he has proposed, which is rather 
draconian, in future pieces of legislation.
  I would also note, without elaborating, that this bill goes further 
in enabling the National Science Foundation to participate in 
international scientific efforts and support for those activities, 
including assisting in the development of international science 
foundations, both binational and multinational foundations. I think 
this is in accord with the needs at the present time.
  Let me say just one final thing, and it is more or less anecdotal. I 
had the opportunity--I was invited to participate this morning in a 
press conference involving the National Science Foundation. The press 
conference at the National Press Club was to announce the formation of 
a partnership between the National Science Foundation, Disney Corp., 
and the Public Broadcasting System for the preparation of materials and 
the airing of program materials on science for young people. It was 
ostensibly aimed at fourth-graders, but having seen one of the tapes of 
these programs yesterday, I can assure you that it will attract far 
more than fourth-graders.
  I want to say that here again the National Science Foundation is 
demonstrating its leadership in creating these partnerships which allow 
them to leverage, in this case, about 3 or 4 to 1 the investments the 
Foundation is making in science education for elementary school kids, 
in this case, but it also will contribute to adult scientific literacy 
as these programs are aired around the country and even to some extent 
around the world.
  The NSF role is to fund the preparation of the science materials 
which accompany the program and allow the young people who watch the 
program to get far more educational impact out of this program.
  So this is a marvelous thing which, having just participated in 
publicizing it this morning, I want to again note here on the floor the 
importance of the NSF role, and I hope that they will continue with 
this kind of support for science education wherever they get the 
opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3254, the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 1994, represents an important investment in the 
Nation's future. The importance of NSF was recognized in President 
Clinton's comprehensive economic plan, ``A Vision of Change for 
America,'' presented to Congress early last year, in which NSF was 
targeted for substantial growth.
  The budget constraints we face has forced a reduction in the proposed 
increase for NSF in this bill, but the bill still provides the real 
growth necessary to allow NSF to meet its many responsibilities for 
support of research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and 
engineering.
  I congratulate Mr. Boucher, the Science Subcommittee chairman, for 
his leadership in crafting H.R. 3254. Also, I would like to acknowledge 
the efforts of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. 
Walker and Mr. Boehlert, the ranking Republican members of the 
committee and of the subcommittee, respectively, for their constructive 
efforts in the preparation of this bill.
  The programs supported by the National Science Foundation in science 
and engineering research and in education provide the underpinnings for 
the long-term economic health and well-being of our country. These 
programs generate the new knowledge and produce the human capital 
needed to fuel a technologically based economy. Ultimately, the success 
of NSF programs are reflected in such concrete ways as the productivity 
of the Nation's work force.
  H.R. 3254 provides a total authorization of $3.2 billion for NSF in 
fiscal year 1995, which is the administration's requested level, and 
$3.39 billion for fiscal year 1996, which is a 6-percent increase above 
the previous year. The bill signals the intention of the Science 
Committee to maintain the core research and education programs of the 
Foundation, while providing sufficient growth to allow NSF's 
participation in major interagency research initiatives and to address 
the serious shortfall in support for refurbishment of university 
research facilities.
  The National Science Foundation's programs help to produce the 
scientists and engineers needed to meet the needs of industry and the 
national defense establishment, as well as to renew the ranks of 
research scientists in academia, industry, and government. Not only is 
direct support provided for graduate students but also for precollege 
and undergraduate science and Mathematics education programs to help 
sustain the pipeline for future scientists and engineers. Moreover, NSF 
supports initiatives to attract more women and other underrepresented 
groups to careers in science and engineering.
  The constraints placed by the bill on budget growth for the NSF 
education directorate for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 do not signal a 
lessening of importance of the education programs, but rather signal a 
period for consolidation of the rapid growth which has been provided to 
the education directorate in recent years. The education directorate 
budget has nearly tripled between fiscal years 1990 and 1994, and now 
contains sufficient resources to sustain NSF's initiatives to effect 
systemic change in science education.
  Among other provisions, the bill strengthens NSF's role in 
international scientific cooperation. New authority is provided to NSF 
to allow support for debt-for-science exchanges and to facilitate the 
establishment, and to participate in the operation, of binational and 
multinational endowed science foundations. Such activities will help to 
improve international understanding and contribute to enlarging the 
international base of support for the creation of fundamental 
knowledge.
  Mr. Chairman, the research and education programs supported by NSF 
are truly an investment in our Nation's future. H.R. 3254 endorses the 
role of NSF in the President's technology investment plan. The 
authorizations provided by this legislation will support programs that 
generate new knowledge and develop the human resource base that 
underpins our entire R&D enterprise.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 3254.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the ranking member of the 
full committee.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Today, Mr. Chairman, we are voting on legislation that emphasizes the 
proper role of Government. The National Science Foundation is one of 
the best examples of Government using taxpayers' money to provide the 
greatest rate of return on investment. This investment will support 
more than 19,500 projects in research and education, directly involving 
almost 150,000 students, teachers, scientists, mathematicians, and 
engineers. These activities contribute directly to the strengthening of 
the scientific and technical work force of the country and raising the 
scientific literacy of all Americans.
  Much of the work done by the National Science Foundation is in basic 
research that would not be accomplished, certainly at the rate it is 
accomplished, without Government support.
  By supporting basic research based on competition, merit, and peer 
review, the National Science Foundation is able to maintain the health 
and vitality of the U.S. academic science and engineering enterprise.
  But as we consider this bill, I think we need to understand that this 
is a bill that can be improved in some ways. The gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert] offered an amendment in committee to increase the 
current funding of the National Science Foundation but not at the rate 
that was chosen by the President. Instead Mr. Boehlert chose to keep us 
within the budget figures that the House of Representatives has already 
acted upon and then in the 1996 fiscal year to go with the figures that 
the Office of Management and budget has outlined.

  As we will discuss later in the amendment process, Mr. Boehlert's 
budget numbers are very responsible and should be supported by the 
House. The amendment was narrowly defeated in the markup in the 
committee, and it seems to me is an amendment that deserves the 
attention and the support of the House of Representatives because it is 
a responsible action to take.
  I think that is the only main difference that we have with the bill. 
I know there will be some other amendments offered. But out of the 
committee, that is one of the issues that we think needs to be 
addressed.
  Despite that one difference of opinion, I do want to express my 
thanks to the gentleman from California, Chairman Brown, and his staff, 
and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Boucher], for their efforts in addressing our concerns as 
we went through this bill.
  Additionally, I wanted to add special thanks to the subcommittee's 
Republican ranking member, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], 
for his leadership in support of efforts in this cause. Mr. Boehlert is 
one who truly believes in this mission of the National Science 
Foundation, and that is reflected in this bill, and he deserves a lot 
of credit from not only our committee but from the House of 
Representatives for the leadership he provides in this arena.
  With that, I yield back.

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I, too, have no further requests for time. 
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Boucher] having assumed the chair, Mr. Oberstar, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration and the bill (H.R. 3254) 
to authorize appropriations for the National Science Foundation, and 
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________