[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.
____________________