[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 52 (Wednesday, May 4, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
         NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1994

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Meek). 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 further consideration of 
the bill, H.R. 3254.


                     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 further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3254) to authorize appropriations for the National Science 
Foundation, and for other purposes, with Mr. Wise, Chairman pro 
tempore, in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Tuesday, May 3, 1994, all time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered by titles as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment and each title is considered 
as read.
  The clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Science Foundation 
     Authorization Act of 1994''.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The clerk will designate section 2.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in 
the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is as follows:

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) the term ``debt-for-science exchange'' means an 
     agreement whereby a portion of a nation's commercial external 
     debt burden is exchanged by the holder for a contribution of 
     local currencies or other assets to support scientific and 
     technological research;
       (2) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the 
     Foundation;
       (3) the term ``Foundation'' means the National Science 
     Foundation;
       (4) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 1201(a) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965;
       (5) the term ``national research facility'' means a 
     research facility funded by the Foundation which is 
     available, subject to appropriate policies allocating access, 
     for use by all scientists and engineers affiliated with 
     research institutions located in the United States;
       (6) the term ``science-technology center'' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 231(f) of the Excellence in 
     Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education Act of 1990, 
     and shall include both newly organized and established 
     science-technology centers; and
       (7) the term ``United States'' means the several States, 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or 
     possession of the United States.
           TITLE I--NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Finding.--Congress finds that the programs of the 
     Foundation are important for the Nation to strengthen basic 
     research and develop human resources in science and 
     engineering, and that those programs should be funded at an 
     adequate level.
       (b) Fiscal Year 1995.--(1) There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Foundation $3,200,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1995, which shall be available for the following categories:
       (A) Research and Related Activities, $2,275,500,000, which 
     shall be available for the following subcategories:
       (i) Biological Sciences, $301,800,000.
       (ii) Computer and Information Science and Engineering, 
     $262,200,000.
       (iii) Engineering, $313,400,000, of which $2,000,000 shall 
     be expended for primary materials processing research.
       (iv) Geosciences, $425,000,000.
       (v) Mathematical and Physical Sciences, $641,200,000.
       (vi) Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, 
     $106,500,000.
       (vii) United States Polar Research Programs, $160,800,000.
       (viii) United States Antarctic Logistical Activities, 
     $62,600,000.
       (ix) Critical Technologies Institute, $2,000,000.
       (B) Education and Human Resources, $569,600,000.
       (C) Academic Research Facilities Modernization Program, 
     $150,000,000.
       (D) Major Research Equipment, $70,000,000.
       (E) Salaries and Expenses, $125,500,000.
       (F) Office of Inspector General, $4,200,000.
       (G) Headquarters Relocation, $5,200,000.
       (2) Of the amounts authorized under paragraph (1)(A) and 
     (B)--
       (A) $35,000,000 are authorized for activities authorized by 
     the Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992;
       (B) $30,000,000 are authorized for activities authorized by 
     section 305 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991;
       (C) $45,000,000 are authorized for activities authorized by 
     section 307 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991; 
     and
       (D) $16,000,000 are authorized for activities authorized by 
     section 309 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991.
       (c) Fiscal Year 1996.--(1) There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Foundation $3,392,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1996, which shall be available for the following categories:
       (A) Research and Related Activities, $2,397,500,000, which 
     shall be available for the following subcategories:
       (i) Biological Sciences, $316,800,000.
       (ii) Computer and Information Science and Engineering, 
     $285,000,000.
       (iii) Engineering, $338,000,000, of which $2,500,000 shall 
     be expended for primary materials processing research.
       (iv) Geosciences, $444,000,000.
       (v) Mathematical and Physical Sciences, $668,800,000.
       (vi) Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, 
     $116,100,000.
       (vii) United States Polar Research Programs, $164,800,000.
       (viii) United States Antarctic Logistical Activities, 
     $64,000,000.
       (B) Education and Human Resources, $586,000,000.
       (C) Academic Research Facilities Modernization Program, 
     $200,000,000.
       (D) Major Research Equipment, $67,000,000.
       (E) Salaries and Expenses, $132,000,000.
       (F) Office of Inspector General, $4,300,000.
       (G) Headquarters Relocation, $5,200,000.
       (2) Of the amounts authorized under paragraph (1)(A) and 
     (B)--
       (A) $35,000,000 are authorized for activities authorized by 
     the Scientific Advanced-Technology Act of 1992;
       (B) $50,000,000 are authorized for activities authorized by 
     section 305 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991;
       (C) $60,000,000 are authorized for activities authorized by 
     section 307 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991; 
     and
       (D) $22,000,000 are authorized for activities authorized by 
     section 309 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991.
       (3) No funds shall be expended for fiscal year 1996 for the 
     Critical Technologies Institute.
       (d) Meeting Funding Goals.--In allocating funds authorized 
     under subsections (b)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(A), the Foundation 
     shall give priority to meeting the funding goals established 
     for the Foundation for Presidential research initiatives by 
     the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, 
     and Technology, or any successor entity which assumes its 
     responsibilities.
       (e) Education Support for Underrepresented 
     Groups.--In allocating funds authorized under subsections 
     (b)(1)(B) and (c)(1)(B), the Foundation shall support 
     education activities to encourage the participation of women, 
     minorities who are underrepresented in science, engineering, 
     and mathematics, and persons with disabilities, and shall 
     coordinate such activities with related efforts of other 
     Federal agencies.

     SEC. 102. PROPORTIONAL REDUCTION OF RESEARCH AND RELATED 
                   ACTIVITIES AMOUNTS.

       If the amount appropriated pursuant to section 101(b)(1)(A) 
     or (c)(1)(A) is less than the amount authorized under that 
     subparagraph, the amount authorized for each subcategory 
     under that subparagraph shall be reduced by the same 
     proportion.

     SEC. 103. CONSULTATION AND REPRESENTATION EXPENSES.

       From appropriations made under authorizations provided in 
     this Act, not more than $10,000 may be used in each fiscal 
     year for official consultation, representation, or other 
     extraordinary expenses at the discretion of the Director. The 
     determination of the Director shall be final and conclusive 
     upon the accounting officers of the Government.

     SEC. 104. TRANSFER OF FUNDS.

       For any given fiscal year, the Director may propose 
     transfers to or from any category described in section 101 up 
     to a maximum of 10 percent of the amount authorized for that 
     category. An explanation of any such proposed transfer must 
     be transmitted in writing to the Committee on Science, Space, 
     and Technology of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committees on Labor and Human Resources and Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate. The proposed 
     transfer may be made only after 30 calendar days have passed 
     after transmission of such written explanation.
                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. ANNUAL REPORT.

       Section 3 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 
     (42 U.S.C. 1862) is amended by striking subsection (f) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following new subsection:
       ``(f) The Foundation shall provide an annual report to the 
     President which shall be submitted by the Director to the 
     Congress at the time of the President's annual budget 
     submission. The report shall--
       ``(1) contain a strategic plan which--
       ``(A) defines for a three-year period the overall goals for 
     the Foundation and specific goals for each major activity of 
     the Foundation, including each scientific directorate, the 
     education directorate, and the polar programs office; and
       ``(B) describes how the identified goals relate to national 
     needs and will exploit new opportunities in science and 
     technology;
       ``(2) identify the criteria and describe the procedures 
     which the Foundation will use to assess progress toward 
     achieving the goals identified in accordance with paragraph 
     (1);
       ``(3) review the activities of the Foundation during the 
     preceding year which have contributed toward achievement of 
     goals identified in accordance with paragraph (1) and 
     summarize planned activities for the coming three years in 
     the context of the identified goals, with particular emphasis 
     on the Foundation's planned contributions to major multi-
     agency research and education initiatives;
       ``(4) contain such recommendations as the Foundation 
     considers appropriate; and
       ``(5) include information on the acquisition and 
     disposition by the Foundation of any patents and patent 
     rights.''.

     SEC. 202. NATIONAL RESEARCH FACILITIES.

       (a) Facilities Plan.--The Director shall provide to 
     Congress annually, at the time of the President's budget 
     submission, a plan for construction of, and repair and 
     upgrades to, national research facilities. The plan shall 
     include estimates of the cost for such construction, repairs, 
     and upgrades, and estimates of the cost for the operation and 
     maintenance of existing and proposed new facilities. For 
     proposed new construction and for major upgrades to existing 
     facilities, the plan shall include funding profiles by fiscal 
     year and milestones for major phases of the construction. The 
     plan shall include cost estimates in the categories of 
     construction, repair, and upgrades for the year in which the 
     plan is submitted to Congress and for not fewer than the 
     succeeding 4 years.
       (b) Limitation on Obligation of Unauthorized 
     Appropriations.--No funds appropriated for any project which 
     involves construction of new national research facilities or 
     construction necessary for upgrading the capabilities of 
     existing national research facilities shall be obligated 
     unless the funds are specifically authorized for such purpose 
     by this Act or any other Act which is not an appropriations 
     Act, or unless the total estimated cost to the Foundation of 
     the construction project is less than $50,000,000. This 
     subsection shall not apply to construction projects approved 
     by the National Science Board prior to June 30, 1993.

     SEC. 203. ELIGIBILITY FOR RESEARCH FACILITY AWARDS.

       Section 203(b) of the Academic Research Facilities 
     Modernization Act of 1988 is amended by striking the final 
     sentence of paragraph (3) and inserting in lieu thereof the 
     following: ``The Director shall give priority to institutions 
     or consortia that have not received such funds in the 
     preceding 5 years, except that this sentence shall not apply 
     to previous funding received for the same multiyear project. 
     The Director shall exclude from consideration for awards to 
     be made under the Program after fiscal year 1995 any 
     institutions or consortia which received funds, appropriated 
     for a fiscal year after fiscal year 1994, for the repair, 
     renovation, construction, or replacement of academic 
     facilities, from any Federal funding source for projects that 
     were not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award 
     process.''.

     SEC. 204. ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN INFORMAL SCIENCE 
                   EDUCATION ACTIVITIES.

       No science-technology center shall be disqualified from 
     competing for funding support under the informal science 
     education programs included within the Education and Human 
     Resources activities of the Foundation on the basis of the 
     geographic location of the center, the size of the population 
     served by the center, or the date on which the center 
     commences operation.

     SEC. 205. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES ACT 
                   AMENDMENTS.

       The Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1885 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by amending section 32 to read as follows:


                         ``findings and policy

       ``Sec. 32. The national security and economic 
     competitiveness of the United States demand the full 
     development and use of the engineering, mathematical, and 
     scientific talents and skills of all its citizens. Past 
     discrimination, cultural barriers, unequal educational 
     opportunities, and other factors discourage women, 
     minorities, and persons with disabilities from studying and 
     working in engineering, mathematics, and science. The 
     Congress declares it is the policy of the United States to 
     encourage the participation in engineering, mathematics, and 
     science of members of the groups that are 
     underrepresented.'';
       (2) in section 33--
       (A) by amending the section head to read as follows:


          ``equal opportunities in science and engineering'';

       (B) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``women'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``women, minorities who are 
     underrepresented in science, engineering, and mathematics, 
     and persons with disabilities (collectively referred to in 
     this section as `members of underrepresented groups')'';
       (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``female students and to 
     increase female student awareness'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``students who are members of underrepresented groups 
     and to make those students aware'';
       (D) in paragraph (4), by striking ``research'';
       (E) by amending paragraph (5) to read as follows:
       ``(5) support programs under which scientists and engineers 
     who are members of underrepresented groups 
     interact with elementary, secondary, and undergraduate 
     students;'';
       (F) in paragraph (8), by striking ``, to be known as the 
     National Research Opportunity Grants, to women scientists and 
     engineers'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``to scientists and 
     engineers who are members of underrepresented groups'';
       (G) in paragraph (9), by striking ``such women'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``such persons'';
       (H) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (10);
       (I) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (11) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``; and'';
       (J) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) support efforts to initiate and expand research 
     opportunities at institutions serving members of 
     underrepresented groups.
       ``(b) In carrying out activities under this section, the 
     Foundation may conduct or support activities in which 
     participation is limited to members of one or more 
     underrepresented groups.'';
       (K) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 33.''; and
       (L) except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, by 
     striking ``women'' each place it appears and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``members of underrepresented groups'';
       (3) by striking section 34;
       (4) in section 36(a), by inserting ``, persons with 
     disabilities'' after ``minorities'';
       (5) in section 36(b), by striking the second sentence and 
     inserting in lieu the following: ``The Chairpersons of 
     relevant committees or subcommittees of the National Science 
     Board, as designated by the Chairperson of the Board, shall 
     be ex officio members of the Committee.'';
       (6) in section 36 by striking subsections (c) and (d) and 
     redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (d) and 
     (e), respectively;
       (7) in section 36 by inserting after subsection (b) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) The Committee shall be responsible for reviewing and 
     evaluating all Foundation matters relating to participation 
     in, opportunities for, and advancement in education, 
     training, and research in science and engineering of members 
     of underrepresented groups.''; and
       (8) in section 36(d), as redesignated by paragraph (6) of 
     this section, by striking ``additional''.

     SEC. 206. ROLE OF THE FOUNDATION IN ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS.

       The Foundation's efforts to improve the economic 
     competitiveness of the United States shall be in accord with 
     the functions of the Foundation as specified by section 3 of 
     the National Science Foundation Act of 1950. The primary 
     mission of the Foundation continues to be the support of 
     basic scientific research and science education and the 
     support of research fundamental to the engineering process 
     and engineering education.

     SEC. 207. ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS.

       (a) National Science Foundation Act of 1950 Amendments.--
     The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 is amended--
       (1) in section 4(e) (42 U.S.C. 1863(e)) by striking the 
     second and third sentences and inserting in lieu thereof the 
     following: ``The Board shall adopt procedures governing the 
     conduct of its meetings, including definition of a quorum and 
     delivery of notice of meetings to members of the Board.'';
       (2) in section 5(e) (42 U.S.C. 1864(e)) by amending 
     paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Any delegation of authority or imposition of 
     conditions under paragraph (1) shall be promptly published in 
     the Federal Register and reported to the Committees on Labor 
     and Human Resources and Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     of the Senate and the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology of the House of Representatives.'';
       (3) in section 14 (42 U.S.C. 1873) by striking subsection 
     (j); and
       (4) in section 15(a) (42 U.S.C. 1874(a)) by striking 
     ``Atomic Energy Commission'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``Secretary of Energy''.
       (b) National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988 
     Amendments.--Section 117(a)(1)(B)(v) of the National Science 
     Foundation Authorization Act of 1988 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(v) from schools established outside the several States 
     and the District of Columbia by any agency of the Federal 
     Government for dependents of its employees.''.
       (c) National Science Foundation Authorization Act, 1977 
     Amendment.--Section 8 of the National Science Foundation 
     Authorization Act, 1977, is repealed.

     SEC. 208. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION AND FACILITIES.

       The Foundation shall incorporate the guidelines set forth 
     in Important Notice No. 91, dated March 11, 1983 (48 Fed. 
     Reg. 15754, April 12, 1983) relating to the use and operation 
     of Foundation-supported research instrumentation and 
     facilities, in its notice of Grant General Conditions, and 
     shall examine more closely the adherence of grantee 
     organizations to such guidelines.

     SEC. 209. ENVIRONMENTALLY ADVANCED EDUCATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Improving the general understanding of the 
     relationships between economic and technical activities and 
     the environment, and the opportunities for improvements in 
     such relations, is essential for the effective realization of 
     sustainable economic development.
       (2) In post-secondary education, with the exception of 
     environmental specialists, environmental considerations are 
     typically not integrated into the required coursework for 
     technical, engineering, science, and related professions.
       (3) The integration of environmental considerations into 
     all technical, engineering, science, and related professions 
     in a timely fashion is essential to better achieving 
     sustainable economic development.
       (b) In General.--The Director shall establish a program to 
     promote the development and distribution of curriculum and 
     materials--
       (1) at the primary and secondary levels that will improve 
     the understanding of the relationships between economic and 
     technical activities and the environment and the 
     opportunities for improving those relationships; and
       (2) at the post-secondary level that will incorporate the 
     principles and practices of environmental soundness and total 
     cost accounting into all technical, engineering, design, 
     scientific, and related disciplines.
       (c) Technical Programs.--(1) The Director shall ensure that 
     the special needs of technical programs of institutions 
     described in paragraph (2) are addressed in executing this 
     section, including disseminating information about practices 
     that exemplify environmentally sound practices.
       (2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), institutions 
     referred to in paragraph (1) are institutions of higher 
     education (as determined under section 1201(a) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a))) that offer a 2-
     year associate-degree program, 2-year certificate program, or 
     other shorter program described in such section 1201(a).
       (B) Notwithstanding section 1201(a)(4) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965, institutions referred to in paragraph 
     (1) may include proprietary institutions.
       (d) Coordination.--The Director shall consult with the 
     heads of other agencies of the Federal Government, State and 
     local governments, educational institutions, and appropriate 
     private sector organizations, including accreditation boards 
     for engineering, technology, and design educational 
     institutions in executing this section.

     SEC. 210. LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no funds 
     are authorized to be appropriated for any fiscal year after 
     fiscal year 1996 for carrying out the programs and activities 
     for which funds are authorized by this Act, or the amendments 
     made by this Act.

     SEC. 211. INDIRECT COST REIMBURSEMENT.

       (a) Limitation.--None of the funds authorized under section 
     101(b) may be awarded to any grantee who reported Federal 
     research grant outlays in excess of $10,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1994, unless such grantee--
       (1) agrees to notify the Foundation of the amount of any 
     increased indirect expense; and
       (2) agrees to the permanent cancellation, in an amount that 
     equals the increased indirect expense, of its claims for the 
     portion of unliquidated obligations from prior year research 
     grants that comprise the indirect expense allocated to the 
     Foundation.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``increased indirect expense'' means the amount by which the 
     grantee's claim for indirect expense allocated to the 
     Foundation for research grants for fiscal year 1995 exceeds 
     the amount of such claim for fiscal year 1994.

     SEC. 212. AWARD OF GRANTS AND CONTRACTS: REQUIREMENT OF 
                   COMPETITION.

       (a) The Director may not make a grant or award a contract 
     to any institutions or consortia for the performance of 
     research and development, or for the construction of any 
     research or other facility, unless such grant or award is 
     made using a competitive, merit-based evaluation process.
       (b)(1) A provision of law may not be construed as modifying 
     or superseding the provisions of subsection (a), or as 
     requiring funds to be made available by the Director to a 
     particular institution or consortium by grant or contract, 
     unless that provision of law--
       (A) specifically refers to this section;
       (B) specifically states that such provision of law modifies 
     or supersedes the provisions of this section; and
       (C) specifically identifies the particular institution or 
     consortium involved and states that the grant to be made or 
     the contract to be awarded, as the case may be, pursuant to 
     such provision of law, is being made or awarded in 
     contravention to subsection (a).
       (2) A grant may not be made, or a contract awarded, 
     pursuant to a provision of law that authorizes or requires 
     the making of the grant, or the awarding of the contract, in 
     a manner that is inconsistent with subsection (a) until--
       (A) the Director submits to Congress a notice in writing of 
     the intent to make the grant or award the contract; and
       (B) a period of 180 days has elapsed after the date on 
     which the notice is received by Congress.
         TITLE III--ACADEMIC RESEARCH FACILITIES MODERNIZATION

     SEC. 301. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the deficiencies in the condition of buildings and 
     equipment used for the conduct of fundamental research and 
     related education programs at many universities and colleges 
     which are cited in section 202 of the Academic Research 
     Facilities Modernization Act of 1988 are substantially 
     unchanged;
       (2) a national effort, involving the participation of 
     Federal and State governments and the private sector, is 
     required to make progress in improving the state of academic 
     research facilities; and
       (3) because of the scale of the problem, the Federal effort 
     to upgrade academic research facilities must involve a 
     coordinated program among all Federal agencies which sponsor 
     research at academic institutions.

     SEC. 302. FACILITIES MODERNIZATION PLAN.

       The Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
     Policy, through the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, 
     Engineering, and Technology, or any successor entity which 
     assumes its responsibilities, shall develop a plan for a 
     multiagency Federal program to provide financial support to 
     institutions of higher education for the repair, renovation, 
     or replacement of obsolete science and engineering facilities 
     primarily devoted to research. The plan shall--
       (1) include participation by all Federal departments and 
     agencies which provide substantial Federal support for 
     research and development activities at institutions of higher 
     education;
       (2) provide estimates of the level of funding required, by 
     department and agency, and period for which funding should be 
     provided to relieve substantially the backlog of research 
     facilities needs and to ensure that, at the conclusion of the 
     period proposed, the facilities available will be 
     satisfactory to support national research needs;
       (3) take into consideration, for determining the 
     requirements of paragraph (2), ongoing efforts by Federal 
     departments and agencies, State governments, and the private 
     sector to upgrade research facilities;
       (4) be designed to address the needs of the categories of 
     institutions eligible for awards under the Academic Research 
     Facilities Modernization Act of 1988;
       (5) detail administrative procedures and guidelines for the 
     implementation of the modernization program; and
       (6) state procedures and data collection steps which have 
     been implemented to assess the state of academic research 
     facilities and to measure the rate of progress in improving 
     the condition of the facilities.

     Within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall 
     transmit to the Congress the plan developed under this 
     section.

     SEC. 303. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF UNAUTHORIZED 
                   APPROPRIATIONS.

       No funds appropriated to the Foundation for construction of 
     new facilities or construction necessary for upgrading the 
     capabilities of existing facilities at institutions eligible 
     for awards under the Academic Research Facilities 
     Modernization Act of 1988 shall be obligated unless the funds 
     are awarded in accordance with the requirements of the 
     Academic Research Facilities Modernization Act of 1988 or are 
     specifically authorized for such purpose by this Act or any 
     other Act which is not an appropriations Act.
             TITLE IV--INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION

     SEC. 401. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Debt-for-science exchanges can provide an innovative 
     means to enhance scientific cooperation with countries whose 
     external debt burden prevents them from allocating sufficient 
     resources to their scientific and technological 
     infrastructures.
       (2) Debt-for-science exchanges have been demonstrated to 
     improve the state of scientific research and education in 
     several countries, including Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, 
     Chile, and Mexico.

     SEC. 402. DEBT-FOR-SCIENCE EXCHANGES.

       (a) Debt-For-Science Exchange Grants.--The Director is 
     authorized to make grants to organizations within the United 
     States, including colleges and universities, for the purpose 
     of debt-for-science exchanges. Before making any grant under 
     this section, the Director shall ascertain that--
       (1) funds resulting from the debt-for-science exchange will 
     be expended only for purposes of international cooperative 
     scientific research and development projects;
       (2) the debt-for-science exchange will make funds available 
     for such projects which otherwise would not be available;
       (3) the amount of local currency provided as a result of 
     the debt-for-science exchange will be substantially greater 
     than the United States dollar purchase price of the debt;
       (4) the grantee certifies that the debtor government has 
     accepted the terms of the exchange and that an agreement has 
     been reached to cancel the commercial debt; and
       (5) Federal grants made under this section will be equally 
     matched by non-Federal contributions to purchase debt.
       (b) Investment of Government Assistance.--Grantees or 
     subgrantees of funds provided under this section may retain, 
     without deposit in the Treasury of the United States and 
     without further appropriation by Congress, interest earned on 
     the proceeds of any resulting debt-for-science exchange 
     pending disbursements of such proceeds and interest for 
     approved program purposes, which may include the 
     establishment of an endowment, the income of which is used 
     for such purposes.
       (c) Coordination.--In carrying out subsection (a) the 
     Director shall coordinate with Federal agencies, such as the 
     Agency for International Development, that have expertise in 
     debt exchanges.

     SEC. 403. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION PARTICIPATION IN 
                   BINATIONAL AND MULTINATIONAL ENDOWED SCIENCE 
                   FOUNDATIONS.

       The Director, in consultation with appropriate officials of 
     the United States and foreign countries, may encourage and 
     facilitate the establishment of binational and multinational 
     endowed science foundations, and may participate in the 
     operation and governance of such foundations, including 
     serving as a member of or designating members to the Boards 
     of Governors, if such foundations--
       (1) have Boards of Governors whose members are chosen to 
     represent participating countries and possess expertise in 
     international scientific cooperation;
       (2) have a structure and operational characteristics 
     determined exclusively by their Boards of Governors, 
     consistent with paragraph (3); and
       (3) are established and governed in accordance with 
     charters which include provisions--
       (A) to ensure that the funding of the endowment is shared 
     equitably among the participating nations, appropriate to 
     their economic resources;
       (B) to protect the endowment's principal from loss of value 
     due to inflation;
       (C) to define the range of scientific and educational 
     activities to be funded;
       (D) to define criteria for application, merit review, and 
     awarding of funds which encompass, at a minimum, 
     consideration of scientific merit, strength of collaborative 
     arrangements, and potential benefit to participants;
       (E) to limit administrative costs to those that are prudent 
     and necessary; and
       (F) to engage an independent auditor to perform an annual 
     organization-wide audit of such foundations, in accordance 
     with generally accepted auditing standards, and to make the 
     results of the audit immediately available to the Director 
     and the Board of Governors.

     SEC. 404. REPORT.

       Within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Director shall submit to the Congress a strategic plan 
     for international scientific cooperation activities 
     undertaken by the Foundation which--
       (1) describes and evaluates all activities involving 
     international scientific cooperation currently carried out by 
     the Foundation;
       (2) describes how these activities relate to ongoing and 
     prospective Foundation research and educational activities;
       (3) details research activities and geographic areas where 
     international scientific cooperation has been most effective 
     and where it has been least effective;
       (4) describes plans for future cooperative international 
     scientific projects; and
       (5) assesses the research activities and geographic areas 
     where future international scientific cooperation would be 
     most effective.
                    TITLE V--UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

     SEC. 501. REQUIREMENT FOR FUNDING.

       Each educational institution that receives a research grant 
     from the Foundation in fiscal year 1995 shall, as a condition 
     of receiving such grant, provide to the Foundation the 
     following information on its undergraduate mathematics, 
     science, and engineering activities:
       (1) A description of teacher training programs mandated by 
     the institution for teaching assistants, including the number 
     of training hours required.
       (2) The institution's policy regarding the relative 
     importance of teaching and research duties in decisions on 
     promotion, tenure, and salary for faculty, including any 
     written policy with specific criteria.
       (3) Any policy allowing faculty to replace university 
     salary with funds from outside sources, along with any policy 
     allowing faculty to replace all or part of the teaching load 
     with increased research.
       (4) The number of faculty released from some or all of 
     their teaching responsibilities pursuant to a policy 
     described in paragraph (3), with the number replacing all or 
     some of their salary with Federal funds reported separately.
       (5) The number and percentage of faculty, not including 
     those on regular sabbatical leave, teaching no undergraduate 
     courses.
       (6) The number and percentage of faculty supported by 
     active Federal research grants teaching freshman or sophomore 
     lecture courses.
       (7) The number and percentage of lecture sources taught by 
     individuals other than faculty.
       (8) The number of students per course in each introductory 
     course.

     Information shall be provided for the most recent academic 
     year for which it is available. For purposes of this section, 
     the term ``educational institution'' means an institution of 
     higher education that is ranked among the top 100 of the 
     institutions receiving Federal research and development 
     funding, as documented in the latest annual report of the 
     Foundation entitled ``Federal Support to Universities, 
     Colleges, and Selected Non-Profit Institutions''. The term 
     ``faculty'' means tenured or tenure-track employees not 
     serving in full-time administrative positions. The Foundation 
     shall compile this information and submit it to the Congress 
     no later than December 31, 1995.

     SEC. 502. RECOMMENDATIONS.

       The Director shall transmit to the Congress, at the time of 
     the President's budget request for fiscal year 1997, 
     recommendations as to how Foundation research funds could be 
     used to increase the focus on undergraduate education at 
     institutions of higher education.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute?


                   AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BOEHLERT

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert:
       Page 3, line 15 through page 7, line 8, amend subsections 
     (b) and (c) to read as follows:
       (b) Fiscal Year 1995.--(1) There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Foundation $3,150,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1995, which shall be available for the following categories:
       (A) Research and Related Activities, $2,254,800,000, which 
     shall be available for the following categories.
       (i) Biological Sciences, $298,800,000.
       (ii) Computer and Information Science and Engineering, 
     $260,600,000.
       (iii) Engineering, $311,500,000, of which $2,000,000 shall 
     be expended for primary materials processing research.
       (iv) Geosciences, $421,300,000.
       (v) Mathematical and Physical Sciences, $636,300,000.
       (vi) Social, Behavioral, and Economic Science, 
     $104,800,000.
       (vii) United States Polar Research Programs, $158,800,000.
       (viii) United States Antarctic Logistical Activities 
     $62,600,000.
       (B) Education and Human Resources, $586,000,000.
       (C) Academic Research Facilities Modernization Program 
     $110,000,000.
       (D) Major Research Equipment, $70,000,000.
       (E) Salaries and Expenses, $120,000,000.
       (F) Office of Inspector General, $4,000,000.
       (G) Headquarters Relocation, $5,200,000.
       (2) Of the amount authorized under paragraph (1)(A) and 
     (B)--
       (A) $35,000,000 are authorized for activities authorized by 
     the Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992.
       (B) $30,000,000 are authorized for activities authorized by 
     section 305 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991;
       (C) $45,000,000 are authorized for activities authorized by 
     section 307 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991; 
     and
       (D) $16,000,000 are authorized for activities authorized by 
     section 309 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991.
       (3) No funds shall be expended for fiscal year 1995 for the 
     Critical Technologies Institute.
       (c) Fiscal Year 1996.--(1) There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Foundation $3,234,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1996, which shall be available for the following categories:
       (A) Research and Related Activities, $2,299,800,000, which 
     shall be available for the following subcategories:
       (i) Biological Sciences, $304,100,000.
       (ii) Computer and Information Science and Engineering, 
     $273,600,000.
       (iii) Engineering, $324,500,000, of which $2,500,000 shall 
     be expended for primary materials processing research.
       (iv) Geosciences, $426,200,000.
       (v) Mathematical and Physical Sciences, $640,100,000.
       (vi) Social, Behavorial, and Economic Sciences, 
     $110,500,000.
       (vii) United States Polar Research Programs, $158,200,000.
       (viii) United States Antarctic Logistical Activities, 
     $62,600,000.
       (B) Education and Human Resources, $586,000,000.
       (C) Academic Research Facilities Modernization Program, 
     $150,000,000.
       (D) Major Research Equipment, $67,000,000.
       (E) Salaries and Expenses, $122,000,000.
       (F) Office of Inspector General, $4,000,000.
       (G) Headquarters Relocation, $5,200,000.
       (2) Of the amounts authorized under paragraph (1)(A) and 
     (B)--
       (A) $35,000,000 are authorized for activities authorized by 
     the Scientific Advanced-Technology Act of 1992;
       (B) $50,000,000 are authorized for activities authorized by 
     section 305 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991;
       (C) $60,000,000 are authorized for activities authorized by 
     section 307 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991; 
     and
       (D) $22,000,000 are authorized for activities authorized by 
     section 309 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991.
       (3) No funds shall be expended for fiscal year 1996 for the 
     Critical Technologies Institute.

  Mr. BOEHLERT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, as I stated in yesterday's debate, I have 
no quarrel with the basic thrust of this bill; indeed, I heartily 
endorse its fundamental principles. But I do have a problem with the 
authorization levels in this bill, which are utterly unrealistic--
indeed, they represent a denial of reality.
  These authorization debates we have, have come to remind me of 
nothing so much as the children's program ``Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.'' 
It is as if, at the beginning of authorization discussions, we take off 
our coats and shoes, put on our cardigans and slippers, affect our 
mildest expressions and most benign tones, and pretend that we can be 
nice to everybody in our neighborhood--which is to say everyone in the 
entire Nation. We sing soothing songs of plenty for our hour of 
fantasy, and then we let the appropriators bring the disharmony of 
reality into the world.
  This is, to speak frankly, a screwy way to set priorities. The 
authorization ought to reflect the same budget realities under which 
the rest of Congress has to labor. And this bill does not.
  We are dealing with an agency that has seen its budget more than 
double--that's right, double--since 1986, and the bill is proposing 6 
percent growth in each of the next 2 years at the time of a 
discretionary budget freeze. Does this sound realistic, even for an 
agency as valued and esteemed as the NSF? I do not think so.
  But you do not have to take my word for it. The figures in my 
amendment were not derived from some personal whim or random thought. 
The fiscal year 1995 authorization in this amendment is the one assumed 
in the House-passed budget resolution--the one that was written by the 
majority party. The fiscal year 1996 authorization in this amendment is 
the administration's own projection. These are numbers, in other words, 
that were developed by the majority.
  I haven't heard very good arguments against these numbers. All we 
heard at markup was that we do not have to follow the budget resolution 
and that OMB sometimes changes its mind about budget projections. But 
this is irrelevant. I'm not arguing that we're bound to follow these 
numbers, I'm arguing that they are realistic budget numbers proposed by 
the majority itself. They are numbers the majority proposed when it 
could not operate in a vacuum, but had to factor in budget restraints.
  Now I want to be clear. My amendment still allows for significant 
growth in NSF--around 4 percent growth next year and about 3 percent in 
fiscal 1996. We're not talking about hardship here. Indeed, I fear the 
appropriators may not even be able to provide the funds sought in my 
amendment.
  And let me also point out that my amendment reflects exactly the same 
relative program priorities within NSF as does the bill.
  All that's at issue here is whether authorization bills are real 
efforts to set priorities in the real world, or whether they are 
opportunities to retreat into comforting fantasies.
  Members who think Mr. Rogers is a children's program host and not a 
Member of Congress ought to vote with us.
  Mr. Chairman, let me stress once again, 12 years I have had the 
privilege of serving on the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology. And for 12 consecutive years, I have been a champion of the 
National Science Foundation. For 12 years, I have been on that 
committee and for 12 consecutive years I have voted for more funding 
for the National Science Foundation.
  But I am a realist. I have to deal, as all America does, in the real 
world.
  The fact of the matter is, my colleagues, we now have a debt 
approximating $4 trillion, which means that we are spending each and 
every day $900 million just on interest on the national debt. That 
argues very strongly for some reason as we go about our business here.
  What we are talking about is not $3.2 billion, but $3.15 billion, a 
$50 million differential. That $50 million would put our authorization 
in line with the majority package approved by the Committee on the 
Budget under the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Sabo].
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] 
has expired.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in opposition to the amendment.
  (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman 
from New York, and I very much enjoy the partnership that he and I have 
in the Subcommittee on Science of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology, in which we have achieved quite a number of favorable goals 
in terms of enhancing and molding the Nation's research agenda. In 
fact, it is a rare occasion when he and I disagree on matters of 
fundamental policy.

                              {time}  1520

  We do, however, come to the floor today in disagreement with regard 
to the appropriate level of funding for the National Science Foundation 
for the next 2 years, so it is with a degree of reluctance in view of 
the excellent partnership that we have, but with heartfelt commitment 
nonetheless, that I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman.
  His amendment would reduce the National Science Foundation's 
authorization by $50 million in fiscal year 1995, and by $158 million 
in fiscal year 1996. For fiscal year 1995, the amendment would follow 
report language that is contained in the report of the Committee on the 
Budget that accompanies the fiscal year 1995 budget resolution.
  However, the Committee on the Budget has made a suggestion, and a 
suggestion only, with regard to funding for the National Science 
Foundation, and that suggestion binds neither the Committee on 
Appropriations nor does it bind the authorizing committees. Only the 
larger budget function category for science, and that is function 
number 250 that is contained in the joint budget resolution, is binding 
on the Committee on Appropriations, and that number leaves room for the 
National Science Foundation to be funded at the levels that are 
contained in our legislation.
  In point of fact, the conference committee, which very shortly will 
be filed for the joint budget resolution, actually increases by $100 
million the amount that is available for that general science function, 
for the National Science Foundation and for other agencies that receive 
their funding pursuant to that budget function, so that amount is 
increased over the House number by $100 million, both for outlays and 
for budget authority.
  It is our committee's judgment, I would suggest, that should prevail 
with regard to this very important subject. The Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology is the most knowledgeable committee, I would 
suggest, regarding the success of the National Science Foundation's 
programs, and it is best positioned for that reason to judge the value 
of the National Science Foundation to the U.S. science and technology 
enterprise. We should not defer to the Committee on the Budget for that 
fundamental judgment.
  For fiscal year 1996, the gentleman relies on the Office of 
Management and Budget's projection for the NSF budget in that year, but 
over time, I would point out that the OMB projections have varied 
widely from the actual administration budget requests and from the 
actual appropriations levels. They have been both above and below those 
requests and the actual outlays.
  Far more reliable as a measure of the value of the National Science 
Foundation is the judgment of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology with respect to the NSF's contributions to society. Those 
contributions have been quantified to some extent in studies conducted 
at the University of Pennsylvania, and suggest that the Nation receives 
a social rate of return of 128 percent for NSF-sponsored projects in 
terms of wealth creation and also in terms of improvements in our 
quality of life. So for every dollar that the NSF invests in a research 
project, we receive a return of at least $1.28 in terms of societal 
improvement.
  Studies consistently show that basic investments in research are the 
strongest and most consistent positive influences on productivity 
growth. That is certainly true with regard to NSF-sponsored programs.
  With this level of funding, the NSF is still not at its limit in 
terms of its ability to fund excellent research projects. In 1992, the 
National Science Foundation left unfunded fully $1 billion in proposals 
that had been rated through the peer review process as being excellent 
in quality. The NSF itself enlists the help of scientists throughout 
the country to evaluate the various proposals that are made for 
funding, and in 1992, that group of scientists found that fully $1 
billion in projects recommended to the NSF were excellent but could not 
be funded due to funding shortages.
  The underfunding of the National Science Foundation has in fact been 
recognized on a bipartisan basis by administrations during the course 
of the last decade. Starting in 1988, the commitment was made by the 
Reagan administration to increase funding for the National Science 
Foundation over a period of 5 years by a factor of 100 percent.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Boucher was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. BOUCHER. Beginning in 1988, the administration made a commitment 
to double funding for the National Science Foundation over a period of 
5 years, and the budgets that were recommended by Presidents of both 
political parties during the intervening years clearly reflect that 
commitment.
  In 1988, the Reagan administration's recommended increase in funding 
was 16.5 percent; 19 percent in 1989; 14 percent in 1990; and in each 
of the years of the Bush administration, recommendations for funding 
increases for the NSF were 14 percent, 17 percent, 17 percent, and 16 
percent.
  The Clinton administration for fiscal year 1995 has recommended only 
a 6-percent increase, so I would suggest to the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Boehlert] that his concern about budget deficits has already been 
well reflected in the recommendations that have been made by the 
administration for NSF funding for the upcoming fiscal year, and that 
rate of increase is substantially less than what had been recommended 
by prior administrations. That level recommended by the Clinton 
administration is the level contained in the committee bill.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] has himself recognized, as 
recently as last fall, the need for the National Science Foundation 
funding even more generous than the levels that are contained in the 
committee bill. Last year the gentleman offered a substitute during our 
subcommittee consideration that would fund the National Science 
Foundation at the level of $3.28 billion. The complete bill, which is 
before the committee at the moment, sets that level at $3.2 billion, 
and now the gentleman would have that level go below the $3.2 billion, 
to $3.15 billion.
  Of the conflicting positions that the gentleman has taken, I would 
suggest that he got it right the first time. All that has changed in 
the meantime is a general suggestion contained in the Committee on the 
Budget report language, and based upon which, I think, the gentleman 
should not be swayed from his very sound earlier position.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to reject this amendment, and in 
doing so, to confirm the excellent value and the continuing benefit 
that our society receives from the research that is sponsored by the 
National Science Foundation.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOUCHER. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I would just like to point out to my colleague that he 
is correct in reporting what activities occurred in the committee last 
year as a result of this gentleman's amendment. This year reflects the 
new realities, today. We are dealing with here and now.
  Part of the problem with this Congress is, we tend to do things the 
same old way, year, after year, after year. I think the American people 
are demanding that we change, we reflect the existing realities of the 
day, rather than saying, we did it this way last year; therefore, we 
should do it this way again this year. That is how we got into the bind 
we are in right now.
  I mean, a $4 trillion national debt, spending $900 million every 
single day just in interest on the national debt? The message I am 
receiving is, they want us to do things differently.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. I think 
that we need to realize the point that was made earlier by the 
gentleman from New York.
  The funding numbers he is offering are not numbers developed by 
Republicans and not numbers that have been pulled out of the hat 
somewhere. These are numbers that were chosen by the majority. No 
Republicans were in support of the budget resolution that passed this 
House earlier this year. However, the Democrats have committed 
themselves to certain levels of budgetary discipline.
  Mr. Chairman, this number for fiscal year 1995 is precisely the 
number that was included in that budget presentation. What are we told 
in the letter that came out from the chairman of the Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Science? What we are told is that the Committee on the Budget report 
recommendations regarding individual agencies are not binding.
  That is how we always treat these matters here. We pass budget 
resolutions, and then we say that they do not mean anything. We pass 
budget resolutions, and then we suggest that there are individual 
portions of them that, regardless of what the budget resolution said, 
can be changed around at whim.
  The problem for us as authorizing committees is, I think, we lack 
credibility when we do that. If we get to wondering why the 
appropriators and others in this body treat us with some disdain on our 
budget numbers, this is a good example. When we pass budgets, the 
authorizing committees say, ``That does not apply to us.'' When we pass 
authorizing legislation, we say, ``Let us make it high enough that we 
can include everything we want to do, and we do not have to have the 
discipline. The discipline will show up in the appropriations 
process.''
  No wonder the appropriators then think it is within their realm to do 
what they want with the priorities that they determine. What the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] is saying here is let us at 
least live within the budget standards that were set by the Committee 
on the Budget. That is all he does in fiscal 1995. He says, ``Let's 
stick with those numbers that were included in the budget that passed 
this House.''

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. Chairman, let us look at the fiscal year 1996 numbers that are in 
the Boehlert amendment. In this case, that comes from the 5-year 
forecast of the NSF budget prepared by the Office of Management and 
Budget. That is not a Reagan number, that is not a Bush number, that is 
not a Republican number, it is not my number, it is not Mr. Boehlert's 
number. It is the number that is provided by the Office of Management 
and Budget, and in particular, by the director of the Office of 
Management and Budget under President Clinton. I feel that it is 
important to note that in this time of budget cuts, both of the numbers 
in the Boehlert amendment allow for growth in the NSF budget. We are 
not talking about cutting anything here. We are talking about growth, 
real growth. We are talking about budget numbers that go up.
  Mr. Chairman, now we have a discrepancy with the letter that was sent 
out by the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] and the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Boucher]. They note in their letter that the bill that we 
have before us provides for 6-percent growth for the budget for fiscal 
year 1996, and then they say, consistent with President Clinton's 
designation of NSF in a vision of change for America as one of the 
important parts of his investment strategy.
  The problem is that President Clinton did not call for a 6-percent 
growth number. That is a misleading statement from this standpoint. 
President Clinton has called for a 3-percent growth to implement his 
vision of change for America.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what is reflected in the amendment of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and so the Boehlert amendment 
is consistent with what the administration has done when they have put 
real numbers down on real paper. Today, what we are being told on the 
House floor is, we ought not deal with reality. We ought to deal with 
wishes.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people are tired of a Congress that deals 
with wish lists. The American people are troubled by massive deficits 
that are compiled by Congress every time it does one of these wish list 
bills. Let us get real. Let us have reality take over here a little 
bit. Let us at least stick with the numbers within the budget and the 
numbers that OMB has generated. Those will allow for real growth in the 
NSF budget. NSF is important enough to grow a little, but it is not 
important from the standpoint that we need to do a wish list out here, 
because that wish list will be destroyed in the appropriations process 
and it will take us out of the area of credibility in terms of setting 
priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the fundamental thing that the authorizing 
committee need to do is set priorities in these bills. When we use wish 
list numbers, we take away from our ability to set priorities and hand 
it over to the appropriators who will deal with real numbers.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert] for the amendment and I urge its passage.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word 
and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to praise all of the speakers who have spoken so 
far. They are indeed exceptionally able and capable members of the 
committee. They are also extremely eloquent and I am reluctant 
sometimes to appear to be competing with them in the eloquence 
department because they have done such an excellent job. I commend all 
of them, particularly the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher], for making the most 
extensive and detailed defense of the numbers which we have in our bill 
that I can possibly imagine and there is little that I can do to extend 
that argument further.
  Mr. Chairman, I do want to try and place this somewhat in 
perspective. We are talking basically about numbers for the 1996 fiscal 
year, not the fiscal year 1995, and we are talking about a bill in 
which all of the members of the committee are in about 99-percent 
agreement. We are not engaged in some bitter debate over major aspects 
of this legislation, which we all recognize is necessary and valuable. 
The question has to do with the interpretation of how closely we should 
follow the recommendations of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. Chairman, normally I would be guided by the Committee on the 
Budget, normally, but not always. I would point out that in the 
conference on the budget resolution, which I have been advised by staff 
has just come back, they have put an additional $100 million into the 
250 science account above what was in the House bill. And I commend the 
conferees for agreeing on this kind of an increase.
  Mr. Chairman, I use this figure merely to illustrate that we cannot 
really be precise about arguing over the fiscal year 1996 authorization 
numbers when we are subject to the kind of fluctuations that occur 
between the House and Senate Budget Committee, the annual changes that 
OMB makes in their own projections, and, believe me, they change their 
projections every year as to what the various agencies should have on a 
5-year outlook.
  Mr. Chairman, I happen to have just been looking at the ones for 
NASA, which is close to my heart, and every year the OMB, representing 
the President's position, has taken a drastically different position as 
to what the 5-year outlook for the NASA budget should be.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not saying it is wrong because its changes ever 
year, I am just saying that there is uncertainty there and that we 
really are better off to look in our own wisdom at the value of the 
program, the NSF program, and decide what rational Members of Congress 
ought to do in deciding on what the second year out should be. We will 
probably change it within a year, but I have personally the conviction 
that for a program like NSF, which since 1988 no President has 
recommended less than a 14-percent increase per year, and this Congress 
is only recommending 6 percent, I do not understand why this indicates 
any abdication of responsibility. If Reagan and Bush could make these 
recommendations, recognizing the value of the program, which this 
Congress then cut, we did not agree with the President in any of those 
years, why cannot we now suggest that 6 percent is a reasonable level 
for 1996 and proceed as if we could accomplish that goal?
  Mr. Chairman, that would be the limit on what the increase would be, 
that would be the authorization level. It probably will end up being 
less than that. I hope it would not be less than that, but I think this 
is reasonable, and I urge all the Members of the House to support that 
kind of a level. It does represent the best thinking of the committee. 
It does not seek to be determined by the Committee on the Budget or OMB 
or anybody else. This is our best recommendation to the House, and I 
think it deserves credibility.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert amendment to lower 
the bill's multiyear authorization by $208 million and bring the bill's 
authorization levels in line with the House-passed budget resolution 
for fiscal year 1995 and OMB's projected funding level for fiscal year 
1996.
  The National Science Foundation plays an important role in our 
Nation's basic research. It is the only agency whose primary mission is 
the support of fundamental, long-term, scientific research. As a result 
of the fine work of NSF, our Nation's base of scientific and 
engineering knowledge has increased and our Nation is better prepared 
to meet the challenges of the future.
  Perhaps no one knows the importance of NSF's mission better than the 
gentleman from New York, who is offering this amendment. I have had the 
pleasure of serving with him on the Science, Space, and Technology 
Committee and I have seen him champion the programs of NSF as the 
ranking member of NSF's authorization subcommittee. He has been, as I 
have been, a strong supporter of NSF and we both consider it a model 
agency.
  However, Mr. Chairman, in these days of budget austerity, we must be 
mindful of our spending. Despite its good work, NSF cannot be exempted 
from the budget constraints all discretionary programs are facing. NSF 
should be subject to authorizations which conform with the assumptions 
in the House budget resolution.
  If the gentleman's amendment passes, NSF will still continue to grow, 
but at a more fiscally responsible rate. Indeed, if we are to achieve 
effective deficit reduction, our spending bills need to reflect our 
determination and commitment to limit spending.
  Sound policy can, and must, coexist with fiscal responsibility. A 
vote in support of the Boehlert amendment is a vote for both the 
continued growth of NSF and for a responsible budget. I urge all my 
colleagues to support the Boehlert amendment.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I am sensitive to the points that she has made in her statement.
  I would only like to correct, however, one statement that was made, 
and that is with respect to the administration's request for the 
National Science Foundation for fiscal year 1995, and that request, in 
fact, was for a budget of $3.2 billion. That is a 6-percent increase 
over the budget for the current fiscal year. That is the number that is 
contained in the committee bill which comes before us.
  I simply did not want the impression to be left that we were asking 
for a level of increase in the committee bill in excess of that 
recommended by the administration. Our number targets exactly that 
recommended by the administration and is consistent with it in every 
way.
  Mrs. MORELLA. How about OMB's recommendation? Is it also in 
conformity with what OMB has said with regard to its fitting the House 
bill?
  Mr. BOUCHER. If the gentlewoman will yield further, I would respond 
by saying that the numbers reflected in the National Science Foundation 
budget request for fiscal year 1995 are also those concurred in by the 
Office of Management and Budget as, in fact, all of the budget numbers 
sent by the administration to the Congress are.
  Mrs. MORELLA. I appreciate the comment the gentleman made.
  I would like to say that I think that tightening the belt ever so 
slightly, which is what this amendment would do, would be appropriate.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. That was an interesting point that was just raised by the 
chairman of the subcommittee with regard to the numbers. He makes the 
point that their numbers are consistent with the President's original 
presentation.
  However, when the Democratic budget was brought to the House floor, 
one of the points that they made was that they had massaged the 
President's numbers to do some other things in other areas. This was 
one of the areas that got massaged downward.
  When we come back now with the authorization, what we are suggesting 
is, having had all that massaging take place, we are now going to boost 
it back up, and it seems to me it is entirely consistent for us to say 
once the House has acted in budget numbers, we ought to be consistent 
with that.
  The gentlewoman is absolutely right with regard to the OMB number for 
1996. That is a very firm number generated by the Director of 
Management and Budget that is reflected in the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. I thank her for making the 
point.
  Mr. BOUCHER. If the gentlewoman will yield further, I think, in view 
of those comments offered by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, it is 
worthy to note that the more definitive action of the budget formation 
process is yet to come, that is, the adoption in both Houses of a 
conference report adopting a joint budget resolution for fiscal year 
1995.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. 
Morella] has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Walker and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Morella 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, 
that action is about to come as the House and the other body adopt a 
conference report on the budget resolution for fiscal year 1994.
  The report of the conferees is now available. We know that the 
conferees, contrary to the action of the House, have added a $100 
million function; that is budget function No. 250 through which the 
National Science Foundation derives its budget authority, and so the 
Appropriations Committee in both bodies will be free to raise the level 
of funding for the National Science Foundation to a level that is 
consistent with that number.
  They have the flexibility certainly to meet the number set forth in 
the committee bill being debated at the moment, and I would simply 
point out for that reason that it is particularly inappropriate for the 
committee at this time to be relying on a measure that was passed in 
the House and contained nothing but report language suggesting that 
there be a lower number for the National Science Foundation when that 
action is about to be superseded by the conference report on the joint 
budget resolution itself.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I think that raises an interesting point, 
because what the gentleman is now suggesting is exactly what I said 
before, that we are engaging in wish-list politics out here, because he 
cites the $100 million and then suggests that in this one bill for this 
one agency that $50 million of that money ought to be usurped.
  The fact is that bill covers NASA. It covers the energy projects at 
the Department of Energy. It covers a very vast budget well beyond the 
National Science Foundation, and in one fell swoop it is suggested we 
should come out here and simply usurp $50 million for a budget bill 
that has yet to pass either House.
  We know the budget bill on which the gentleman from New York is 
relying has passed this House. The budget conference report has yet to 
pass either House. Even if it passes, the fact is there is only $100 
million there to work with, of which the gentleman wants to take 50.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, when I first came to Congress 5 years ago, the National 
Science Foundation was funded at half of what will be authorized by 
this bill. To put it another way, even accounting for inflation, the 
National Science Foundation's budget has doubled since 1988. Not many 
agencies can boast of having their budget doubled in that time period.
  The NSF's mission is significant, however. We know it is an important 
mission. Science obviously helps build the engine for future economic 
activity.
  But in addition to the investments we as a Nation must make in 
science, that will not bear fruit immediately. We must look to our 
future and act prudently in managing the people's money, and that is 
what this debate is all about.
  Are we being responsible? Are we being prudent at a time when we have 
limited resources? We are talking about a situation where we just 
cannot spend money on everything, and the public understands that and 
should understand that, and we should understand that and act 
accordingly.
  At a time when we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars every 
year more than we are talking in, which threatens the national security 
of our country as nothing else, we must act responsibly, and that we 
have a system that the Democrats and Republicans have worked out 
together and decided that we are going to make that system work.

  Today what we are seeing is an attempt to sidetrack, to go around, 
the system that has been established. It will not matter if, when we 
make tremendous scientific discoveries, because of something that is 
done by the National Science Foundation, will not make a difference at 
all if our country is absolutely broke and our economy is in a 
situation that we cannot capitalize on it.
  Everyone knows we have got to be responsible. Everyone has spending 
projects they would like to spend money on. That is what this debate is 
all about, not that the National Science Foundation is not a worthy 
goal. But today we must abide by our own rules. This is not about 
cutting the budget of the National Science Foundation, for when the 
public is listening to this debate, I want them to fully understand no 
one on this side is suggesting cutting the budget whatsoever.
  What we are talking about and has happened so often in this body is 
what we are talking about on this side is limiting the increase in 
spending in this Government agency. Our friends on the other side of 
the aisle like to suggest what that means is we are cutting the budget. 
That is not the way it works in the real world. In the real world the 
people on this side are saying yes, we can increase the budget, but we 
have to do it responsibly and prudently.
  What we are hearing from the other side of the aisle is the rules be 
damned, this is really good, this is really a good thing, and we need 
to just forget the rules for right now.
  All the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert] will do is simply hold the authorization of this agency's 
budget numbers to what Congress has already established. We have 
already approved an overall budget, and it does not matter where those 
numbers have come from, Republican or Democrat. They are what we have 
agreed to. So let us stick with it and stick with our own budget. That 
is what responsibility is all about.
  My chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], has 
rightfully protested when the Committee on Appropriations ignores the 
process and ignores our responsibilities and our rights and our powers 
as the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

                              {time}  1550

  When we authorize something, when it is ignored by the Appropriations 
Committee, my chairman rightfully protests. Well, we too have to be 
part of the system. When the budget agreement is made as to what is 
best for the overall United States of America, to be authorized and 
appropriated in this area, we as an authorizing committee have to abide 
by those rules if we expect the appropriators to do so.
  Thus I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. I applaud this act of 
responsibility on his part, and I hope that the American people can 
understand who is trying to get control of this terrible budget deficit 
that threatens all of our future.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, just for the sake of clarifying the record 
in this debate and making sure that no one leaves under the mistaken 
assumption with respect to what the Budget Committees in both houses 
are preparing to do, it should be pointed out that the Congress, 
through its budget formation process, has not adopted the number of 
$3.15 billion recommended in the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York; but in point of fact, the conference report on the 
concurrent budget resolution will be taken up very shortly here in the 
House and will add fully $100 million above the House number to the 
general science function, to function 250.
  Then the Committee on Appropriations, in its wisdom, can choose among 
the various science agencies which will receive that increase in 
funding.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Rohrabacher was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentlemen for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I point out to my distinguished chairman, I repeat what 
the ranking member, the ranking Republican on the full committee, Mr. 
Walker, has to say: we are dealing with budget function 250. So when 
you talk about the $100 million, that $100 million is not earmarked for 
NSF; that $100 million is in a broad budget function that has to deal 
with NASA, it has to deal with Department of Energy research projects, 
a whole wide range of activities that it has to deal with.
  So the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] was right on point in 
responding to that comment, and I appreciate it.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chariman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In response to those remarks, I would simply point out that we in 
this action are not requiring that the Committee on Appropriations take 
any step to fund the NSF at any given level. We are simply providing 
the authorization authority that is necessary if the Appropriations 
Committee should choose, for whatever reasons are sufficient to it, to 
provide the level of funding that we are setting forth for the National 
Science Foundation.
  There will be budget authority for it as a consequence of the 
conference report on the budget resolution. We are simply making sure 
there is authorization through this process for the same.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent and on request of Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Rohrabacher 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, then, I say to my distinguished subcommittee 
chairman, he is running contrary to the wishes of the full committee 
chairman and all of us who serve on this authorizing committee. We are 
not willing to cede all decisionmaking to the appropriators. I am 
embarrassed to even suggest that we might consider that.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, I would just note for the public 
this is a fascinating debate because it is dealing with a highly 
technical issue and it is also dealing with a process that is very 
difficult to understand.
  I believe that what we are seeing today is responsibility on this 
side of the aisle and good intentions on that side of the aisle. Today 
we are $200 billion in debt, we are spending more than we are taking in 
every year. I think instead of good intentions, it is time to act 
responsibly.
  I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert].
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York. This amendment would reduce the 
National Science Foundation's budget authorization for the next fiscal 
year by $50 million and $158 million in fiscal year 1996. We should not 
be reducing the 1995 authorization below the level requested by the 
administration at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, I have a number of concerns about section 203 of 
the H.R. 3254 which attempts to define the eligibility for research 
facility awards. The second part of the proviso states that the 
Director of NSF shall exclude from consideration--for a modernization 
grant--any institution that receives funds for repair, renovation, 
replacement to and construction of one of its facilities through a 
noncompetitive, nonmerit based award process.
  The language, as written, is somewhat vague. Nowhere in the bill does 
it outline the definition of an earmark and how institutions would be 
included or excluded. Additionally, this is a huge administrative 
burden on NSF to not only define an earmark, but then enforce this 
language when considering which institutions should receive 
modernization funds and which should not. Also, it does not address 
those projects that have been specifically authorized.
  There is also a concern that this provision affects universities 
funded by agencies other than NSF and is beyond the jurisdiction of the 
Science, Space, and Technology Committee. As an example, according to 
the Department of Veterans Affairs, this amendment to the Academic 
Research Facilities Modernization Act of 1988 has the potential for 
excluding universities affiliated with the Department of Veterans 
Affairs from participating in NSF's infrastructure program.
  Finally, the funding levels in the authorization bill stand in clear 
contrast to the Appropriation subcommittee's long standing priorities 
for math and science education--particularly at the precollege level, 
as well as for research support for individual science and engineering 
researchers at this Nation's colleges and universities. In math and 
science education, the authorization bill cuts $16.4 million out of the 
President's request and funds it with last year's level. The 
Appropriations Committee has led the way to rebuild and strengthen the 
NSF's math and science education programs, bringing them back to life 
after the Reagan administration sought to zero them out.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that the conferees will address this issue in 
conference.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227, 
noes 197, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 151]

                               AYES--227

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lloyd
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Blackwell
     Collins (GA)
     Doolittle
     Engel
     Ford (MI)
     Grandy
     Long
     Neal (NC)
     Ridge
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Sangmeister
     Sharp
     Washington

                              {time}  1616

  Messrs. ZELIFF, LEWIS of California, BILBRAY, and HOLDEN, Ms. ENGLISH 
of Arizona, and Messrs. ORTIZ, KLEIN, HALL of Texas, and MEEHAN changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: At the appropriate 
     place, add the following:

   TITLE II, SEC.   . SENSE-OF-CONGRESS REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE

       (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this 
     Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving 
     such assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase 
     only American-made equipment and products.
       (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the Director shall 
     provide to each recipient of assistance a notice describing 
     the statement made in subsection (a) by the Congress.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, in the case of any equipment or products 
that may be authorized to be purchased with assistance under this act, 
the Congress expresses the essence of the Congress that those purchases 
be made in America. In addition, that any recipient of assistance under 
this bill would get a notice that would basically outline that sense of 
Congress resolution listed in the amendment.
  Let me say to Members of the Congress, in the last 10 years, we had 
2.5 trillion dollars' worth of new debt and 1.6 trillion dollars' worth 
of trade deficits. I ask the committee to accept the amendment.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have examined on this side this amendment. We find 
it to be appropriate, and would urge its adoption by the committee.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOUCHER. I will be pleased to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to congratulate the author for his 
continuing efforts to see to it that we purchase more of the goods that 
are made by our own workers in this country. I think it is an excellent 
amendment, and will support it very strongly.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon:
       At the end of Title II, add the following new section:

     SEC. 213. DENIAL OF AWARDS OF GRANTS OR CONTRACTS TO 
                   EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WHICH PREVENT MILITARY 
                   RECRUITING.

       (a) Denial of Funds.--The Director may not make a grant or 
     award a contract to any educational institution that has a 
     policy of denying, or which effectively prevents, any of the 
     military services of the United States from obtaining for 
     military recruiting purposes--
       (1) entry to campuses or access to students on campuses; or
       (2) access to directory information pertaining to students; 
     consistent with applicable law.
       (b) Procedures for Determination.--In determining 
     compliance with subsection (a), the Director shall--(1) 
     include on any grant or contract application questions as to 
     whether the educational institution has, by policy or 
     practice, effectively denied such entry or access for 
     recruiting purposes; and (2) inquire of the Department of 
     Defense whether such entry or access has been denied by an 
     institution before awarding such grant or contract to it.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--(1) the 
     term ``student'' means an individual enrolled in an 
     educational institution who is 17 years of age or older; and 
     (2) the term ``directory information'' means, with respect to 
     a student, the student's name, address, telephone listing, 
     date and place of birth, level of education, degrees 
     received, and the most recent educational institution 
     enrolled in by the student.

  Mr. SOLOMON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order with respect to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] reserves a 
point of order against the amendment. The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, during recent congressional hearings, 
Congress has been made aware that military recruiters in various 
educational facilities across the country were being denied access to 
educational facilities. Preventing military recruiters from explaining 
the benefits of an honorable career in our armed services of the United 
States.
  Mr. Chairman and Members, that is outrageous. My amendment today 
would simply prevent any funds authorized in this act from going to 
institutions which prevent military recruiting on their campuses.
  The amendment is short and very direct. Allow me just to read the 
main body of it. The Director of the National Science Foundation may 
not make a grant or an award of a contract to any educational facility 
that has a policy of denying or which effectively prevents any of the 
military services of the United States from obtaining military 
recruiting purposes, meaning entry to campuses or access to students on 
campuses or access to directory information pertaining to those 
students.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know what kind of a strain our military 
institutions and personnel have been under recently. Deep budget cuts 
have cut into training, forced crews to work longer hours with less 
maintained equipment, and shortened promising careers.
  Mr. Chairman, the mission of our Armed Forces has become muddled in 
this post-cold-war world. Now, Mr. Chairman, as we know, a number of 
educational institutions across the country are receiving massive 
amounts of Federal dollars included in this bill before us today, yet 
they are denying the Department of Defense the opportunity to recruit 
on their campuses. I think that is appallingly hypocritical, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Institutions that are receiving grants and awards from one or more 
Federal departments are in turn attempting to deny another Federal 
department, the Department of Defense, access to their campuses. We as 
guardians of the Federal purse should not allow this to stand, Mr. 
Chairman.
  No one in an institution which is receiving any Federal moneys should 
be allowed to block our recruiters from explaining the educational and 
career opportunities in our all-voluntary military.
  I think all Members should listen to this, because if you go back 
home and talk to your recruiters you will know: Testimony by the 
Pentagon and recent surveys by the press across the Nation show that 
military recruiting is down over the past 2 years. Recruiters are 
already having trouble meeting their quotas as it is. This is a 
dangerous development with potential hot spots all around the world, 
with President Clinton threatening to put American troops in Bosnia, 
and, over my standing objections, putting American troops into Haiti.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very serious issue. Even in a period 
of downsizing, we are unable to find enough recruits to fill the 
current numbers of slots. It may be debatable as to why this is so, Mr. 
Chairman, but the fact is, more importantly, recruiting is where 
readiness begins, and all Members know that. Recruiting is the key to 
the all-voluntary military, which has been such a spectacular success.
  Mr. Chairman, we only have to recall the utter demolition of Saddam 
Hussein's army to know what a success the All-Volunteer Force has been. 
But there was a time back in the 1970's when the All-Volunteer Force 
was in a deplorable condition, when we tried to rescue hostages in 
Iran. We had to cannibalize about 15 helicopter gunships just to get 5 
that would work, and only 3 of those did. You all remember the results 
of that rescue mission.

  Because of under funding, many of our top military officers and 
enlisted men had left the military to find better paying jobs, and we 
were unable to attract the best possible young people.
  We began to change this in the early 1980's on a bipartisan basis by 
dramatically improving pay and benefits for volunteers. The result is a 
force that is better educated today, better trained, and the most 
highly motivated in the entire history of our military. Today over 95 
percent of our personnel are high school graduates, and this success is 
in large part due to recruiting on school grounds.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. Chairman, the reason our military has been so successful is that 
recruiters have been able to enlist such promising volunteers for our 
armed forces by going into high schools and colleges and universities 
informing young people of the increased opportunities that an honorable 
military service can provide, plus the bill of rights of the gentleman 
from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] giving them $25,000 in earned 
educational benefits.
  The readiness of our Armed Forces is on the wane today, and we must 
reverse this slide. We can begin by telling recipients of Federal 
money, that means colleges and universities, that if they do not like 
the armed services or its policies, that is all right.
  That is freedom of speech. They are welcome to say that. But do not 
expect Federal dollars to support their interference with our military 
recruiters.
  I would just like to make one last point, Mr. Chairman, for those of 
my colleagues who may worry that this kind of legislation tramples on 
States' rights. Again, let me repeat, I have no problem with schools or 
any private institution taking a stand on public issues and 
implementing policies accordingly. But when an institution is receiving 
Federal dollars, that gives the Federal Government some rights, too. 
And this amendment only deals with those institutions receiving Federal 
dollars.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Solomon was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri, one of the most 
respected Members of this House who is the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Military Forces and Personnel.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I will just take a moment of the 
gentleman's time.
  I want to point out that we had a hearing earlier this year in the 
subcommittee, which I am privileged to chair, dealing with the 
recruiting for the young men and young women in all of the services. 
Quite honestly, there is a problem.
  There is less propensity for the young people in our country to look 
toward the military for either a career or for enlistment. It bothers 
me that there is any impediment for them to take the opportunity to 
join.
  The same institutions that are receiving the benefits from the GI 
bill might be, on other occasions, impeding people from taking 
advantage of joining the service.
  I think the gentleman is right on track. I intend to vote with him.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his cogent 
remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, the courts have upheld similar legislation of mine in 
the past, such as the 1982 amendment that denied Federal education 
funds to students who failed to register for the draft and also 
prohibiting draft evaders from participating in job training programs, 
federally funded.
  The concept behind this amendment today is exactly the same, and I 
would certainly urge the Members to support my amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  A couple of years ago, when we had the Desert Shield-Desert Storm 
debate, I think we elevated ourselves in the House of Representatives 
by reconciling in many ways with our military. Even those who did not 
believe we should move forward in Desert Storm came out of the debate 
assuring the Nation and our colleagues that we would all support our 
troops.
  We saw those bumper stickers, ``Support Our Troops,'' on hundreds of 
thousands of vehicles throughout the Nation. And when our troops came 
home, we let them know that we really appreciated them.
  Our military is a very, very important part of our society. It is an 
honorable profession, as the gentleman has said. It is respected. It is 
dignified. It deserves our support.
  By allowing our institutions that receive Federal dollars to reject 
recruiters, we are allowing that wedge to be driven once again between 
the military and another important part of our society, those are the 
institutions that train and educate our young people.
  This is a very, very important amendment. By passing the Solomon 
amendment, we are going to send another message of support to the 
people that wear the uniform of the United States and follow our flag. 
I support the gentleman's amendment. I think it is very, very good.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support. He 
has been a longstanding Member that has supported our military.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Solomon was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to propound a question with respect to how the 
gentleman interprets the recent addition that was made to the base text 
amendment. The addition that is written in on this amendment on line 7, 
following the phrase that is denumerated paragraph number 2, says, 
``consistent with applicable law.''
  My question to the gentleman is whether he intends that that new 
language will modify the language on line 7, designated paragraph 2 
only, or whether it also will modify the language on the preceding 
line, line 6, designated paragraph 1?
  I would assume that it is designed to modify both paragraphs, but I 
want the gentleman's interpretation.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, let me explain it this way. The gentleman 
is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Solomon was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Virginia that 
he knows that we had a problem in drafting the amendment to make it 
germane. Even though I believe that it is a limitation amendment, which 
should be allowed, I have every reason to believe the Parliamentarians 
would rule against me and in favor of the gentleman raising a point of 
order against it.
  Therefore, we had to modify it by adding the terms ``consistent with 
applicable law.''
  It does apply to line 6 as well. In effect, it makes this a sense-of-
Congress resolution rather than binding. We would hope to pass it over 
here in this forum and then have the Senate adopt it in its original 
form where it will become law.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
thank the gentleman for his explanation.
  I would only ask this additional question.
  The gentleman has explained that his new phrase ``consistent with 
applicable law'' is designed to modify the language on both lines 6 and 
7. That is what I would have assumed as well.
  I ask the gentleman this additional question: Does the gentleman 
believe that he is adding any requirements that do not already exist in 
present law through the general text of his amendment? Will this 
amendment, if adopted, change the required conduct of universities in 
terms of the access and information they provide?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman, it is not my 
intention, by rendering this new modification, to create new law. It is 
applicable law. That is my intent.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman agree that with the 
addition of the language ``consistent with applicable law'' that there 
would be no new conduct required of universities as a result of the 
passage of this resolution?

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the gentleman is correct. 
We hope to remedy that when the bill is brought up in the Senate.
  Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I am glad to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we understand, based on 
this colloquy, that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] will not 
be pressing his point of order, and it is based on the gentleman's 
explanation that with the added language, this does not create any 
additional legal requirement, and is simply an expression of the 
Congress, and I assume that that is the basis on which there would be 
no further pressing of the point of order.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman is absolutely correct in his observation.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. It is a rare pleasure to be in such 
agreement with the gentleman from New York.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] has reserved 
a point of order. Does the gentleman wish to press the point of order?
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the reservation of the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  (Mr. POMBO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. Chairman, some institutions of higher education in this country 
need to be put on notice that their policies of ambivalence or 
hostility towards our Nation's armed services do not go unnoticed--
either by this House or by the American people.
  A growing, and misguided, sense of moral superiority is creeping into 
the policies or colleges and universities in this country when it comes 
to such things as military recruiting or ROTC activities on campus. On 
April 22, for example, California State University at Sacramento 
announced that it would phase out its ROTC programs because some at the 
university disagreed with military personnel standards--standards based 
on Federal law passed in this Congress.
  Examples like this should be seen for what they are--outrageous. It 
is nothing less than a backhanded slap at the honor and dignity of 
service in our Nation's armed forces; at those who have worn our 
Nation's uniform before; and at this Congress which has set in law 
military personnel standards.
  These colleges and universities need to know that their starry-eyed 
idealism comes with a price. If they are too good, or too righteous to 
treat our Nation's military with the respect it deserves; allow ROTC 
units to operate; or afford our Nation's armed services the same 
recruiting opportunities offered to private corporations--then they may 
also be too good to receive the generous level of taxpayer dollars 
presently enjoyed by many institutions of higher education in America.
  For our young men training to defend the freedoms of all Americans, 
and for all those who have proudly worn the uniform of this country, I 
urge my colleagues to support the Solomon amendment, and send a message 
over the wall of the ivory tower of higher education.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, in order to 
enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Science of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology.
  Mr. Chairman, under section 101(e) of H.R. 3254, the National Science 
Foundation is authorized to support education activities to encourage 
the participation of minorities who are underrepresented in science, 
engineering, and mathematics.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask, is it the intent of this section to direct 
the National Science Foundation to work with already-established 
minority engineering programs in the Nation's specific institutions in 
order to advance and increase participation of minority engineers at 
all levels of education?
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RUSH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
would indicate that the gentleman is correct. It is the committee's 
intent that the National Science Foundation works with all science and 
engineering programs that have been successful in increasing the 
participation of under-represented groups in science and engineering 
research and education.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the full committee agreed 
to include language in the final committee report that calls for the 
improvement of minority participation in science and engineering 
education. It is of fundamental importance that minority students have 
an opportunity to participate fully in science and engineering 
endeavors, especially at the undergraduate level.
  It is my hope that the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 
will look further into this matter to provide adequate Federal 
resources for minority students of science and engineering at all 
levels of education. I thank the distinguished chairman for his support 
in this matter.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3254, the National 
Science Foundation Act. NSF is the only Federal agency with the sole 
mission to support basic science and engineering research and education 
in our Nation's schools, colleges and universities. NSF is an important 
participant in research efforts in areas such as high performance 
computing, and communications, advanced materials, biotechnology and 
advanced manufacturing. Innovation in these areas is key to creating 
the economy of the future.
  If we are to realize the fullest potential for our Nation's economic 
future, we must ensure that opportunities exist for all Americans. To 
that end, I am pleased that the Science, Space, and Technology 
Committee adopted my amendment to support education efforts for 
underrepresented groups in science and engineering. There is a vast 
untapped resource in the children of our Nation. We must not let value 
of our young people's imagination be diminished by a failure to 
acknowledge that everyone--regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, 
disability, or financial situation--may have something valuable to 
offer for the future of our great Nation.
  I want to thank Science Subcommittee Chairman Boucher and ranking 
member Boehlert for their leadership and vision on this matter. By 
investing in our future now through funding the National Science 
Foundation, we can provide hope for all Americans that they will have a 
high-paying, high-quality job that will give the men and women of this 
country the financial security they need to raise a family.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
3254, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1994.
  This bill represents an important step forward in establishing strong 
basic research in the fields of science and engineering. It clarifies 
NSF missions, expands NSF participation in international scientific 
cooperation, and supports new education for underrepresented groups in 
science and engineering.
  NSF is the premier Federal agency for supporting research in physical 
and mathematical sciences at universities. The Foundation has played a 
pivotal role in the post-war era by nurturing excellence in U.S.-
university research and producing high-caliber scientists and 
engineers.
  The NSF bill authorizes a 6-percent increase in funding levels in 
fiscal year 1995. This increase is on par with the President's fiscal 
year 1995 Budget request which emphasizes new technology development in 
the area of high-performance computing and the establishment of an 
information superhighway.
  My congressional district, which is the home of Silicon Valley and 
Stanford University, have together made tremendous progress in high-
performance computing technology. The NSF is now well poised to 
complement their efforts by providing new research grants.
  H.R. 3254 also authorizes programs to encourage women, minorities, 
and other groups who are underrepresented in science to seek careers in 
this field. I believe these groups have not been adequately integrated 
into our Nation's most prestigious scientific bodies.
  This is especially the case for women who represent an increasing 
percentage of those students in science and engineering degree programs 
but who are still employed in low numbers in industry, academic 
institutions, and government research agencies.
  I urge my colleagues to support the NSF authorization bill as a way 
to begin dismantling the barriers which discourage women and minorities 
from participating in science. Bringing down these barriers will 
provide a more diverse and knowledgeable science base and enhance this 
Nation's economic competitiveness.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.

                              {time}  1645

  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Serrano) 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 the bill (H.R. 3254) to 
authorize appropriations for the National Science Foundation, and for 
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 414, reported the bill 
back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on the just-passed 
so-called Solomon amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
amendment?
  The Clerk will report the amendment on which a separate vote has been 
demanded.

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment: At the end of Title II, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 213. DENIAL OF AWARDS OF GRANTS OR CONTRACTS TO 
                   EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WHICH PREVENT MILITARY 
                   RECRUITING.

       (a) Denial of Funds.--The Director may not make a grant or 
     award a contract to any educational institution that has a 
     policy of denying, or which effectively prevents, any of the 
     military services of the United States from obtaining for 
     military recruiting purposes--
       (1) entry to campuses or access to students on campuses; or
       (2) access to directory information pertaining to students; 
     consistent with applicable law.
       (b) Procedures for Determination.--In determining 
     compliance with subsection (a), the Director shall--(1) 
     include on any grant or contract application questions as to 
     whether the educational institution has, by policy or 
     practice, effectively denied such entry or access for 
     recruiting purposes; and (2) inquire of the Department of 
     Defense whether such entry or access has been denied by an 
     institution before awarding such grant or contract to it.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--(1) the 
     term ``student'' means an individual enrolled in an 
     educational institution who is 17 years of age or older; and 
     (2) the term ``directory information'' means, with respect to 
     a student, the student's name, address, telephone listing, 
     date and place of birth, level of education, degrees 
     received, and the most recent educational institution 
     enrolled in by the student.

  Mr. SOLOMON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 331, 
noes 90, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 152]

                               AYES--331

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sabo
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--90

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (NJ)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kopetski
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swift
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Andrews (ME)
     Blackwell
     Bonilla
     Collins (GA)
     Doolittle
     Grandy
     Long
     Ridge
     Sangmeister
     Sharp
     Washington

                              {time}  1709

  Ms. FURSE, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HINCHEY, Mrs. MINK of 
Hawaii, and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SENSENBRENNER, VENTO, and HEFNER changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The question is on the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended was 
agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes apeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 396, 
noes 22, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 153]

                               AYES--396

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                                NOES--22

     Armey
     Ballenger
     Burton
     Coble
     Crane
     Duncan
     Goodling
     Hancock
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Paxon
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Roth
     Royce
     Sensenbrenner
     Solomon
     Stump
     Taylor (NC)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Blackwell
     Collins (GA)
     Darden
     Doolittle
     Fish
     Grandy
     Hinchey
     Long
     McCrery
     Ridge
     Sangmeister
     Tauzin
     Washington
     Wheat

                              {time}  1726

  Mr. ROYCE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DICKEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________