[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 50 (Thursday, April 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1804-H1808]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY AUTHORIZATION ACT OF
1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 127 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1274.
{time} 1101
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
1274) to authorize appropriations for the National Institute of
Standards and Technology for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Duncan in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] and
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Sensenbrenner].
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to present H.R. 1274,
the National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of
1997.
I would like to thank and congratulate the subcommittee chairwoman,
the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] and the ranking member,
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] for crafting such a fine
bill.
H.R. 1274 authorizes all the programs under the Technology
Administration in the Department of Commerce that require
appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. The Technology
Administration includes the Office of the Under Secretary and the
Office of Technology Policy in NIST, which is responsible for the vast
majority of programs that make up the Technology Administration.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1274 is a fiscally responsible bill. It authorizes
$609 million for fiscal 1998, a decrease of over $92 million, or 13
percent from the administration's request.
In fiscal year 1999 the bill authorizes a total of $628 million,
again $116 million or 16 percent below the administration's projected
budget.
While spending less than the administration requested, the bill
manages to do more. In authorizing NIST programs, the bill prioritizes
funding for NIST laboratory functions, increasing their funding by 5
percent for fiscal 1998 and 3 percent for fiscal 1999, while reducing
funding for lower priority programs such as the advanced technology
program, and providing no funding for new administration initiatives
such as the experimental program to stimulate competitive technology,
or EPSCOT, for short.
Specifically, the bill authorizes $278.6 million for NIST laboratory
activities in fiscal 1998 and $286.9 million in fiscal 1999. The NIST
laboratories have been called the crown jewel of the Technology
Administration, and H.R. 1274 will help ensure that they have
sufficient funding to continue their vital work of safeguarding the
accuracy of standards necessary for domestic and international
commerce.
H.R. 1274 includes $117.8 million for the manufacturing extension
program in fiscal 1998 and $111.3 million in fiscal 1999. These totals
will allow for full funding of all 75 existing MEP centers and will
cover the administrative costs associated with running the program.
The bill also reforms and authorizes reduced funding for ATP in
fiscal 1998 and fiscal 1999. ATP is authorized at $185 million in 1998
and $150 million in fiscal 1999. These levels represent decreases of
$40 million and $75 million, respectively, from the fiscal year 1997
appropriated total of $225 million. The bill further reforms the
program's match requirements, requiring a 60 percent match from all
joint venture grant recipients and non-small business single awardees.
To ensure that ATP grants are not simply displacing private capital,
the bill also contains language requiring a review of ATP applications
to ensure that an ATP grant is actually required in order to enable the
project to go forward.
Finally, the bill authorizes funding for NIST critical maintenance
and construction needs for fiscal 1998 and fiscal 1999. In order to
ensure that construction funding is used in the most appropriate
manner, H.R. 1274 includes a certification requirement precluding the
Department from obligating any money to new construction unless it
meets the requirements of NIST's new facilities plan.
Accordingly, the authorization language includes provisions to reduce
scientific research earmarks, to require the Committee on Science to
receive notice of any reprogramming of NIST funds, and to express the
sense of Congress that NIST should address the year 2000 computer date
field program.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1274 is a sound bill. It is fiscally responsible,
and will help ensure that NIST programs, which
[[Page H1805]]
are some of our Nation's most important technology research and
development programs, receive the funding they require during the next
2 fiscal years.
I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting the National
Institute of Science and Technology Authorization Act of 1997.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1274, the National Institute
of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 1997. This bill
authorizes all the programs in the Technology Administration, including
the programs of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
H.R. 1274 represents bipartisan agreement on a sensible U.S. science
and technology policy. As Chairman Sensenbrenner stated, the bill
before us today represents a number of changes to H.R. 1274 as
introduced. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Sensenbrenner] and the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]
for working with us to resolve some of our concerns.
My remaining reservation about H.R. 1274 centers around the funding
level for the Advanced Technology Program. The funding level allows
only for a modest number of new awards to be made in 1998, and allows
for no new awards in 1999. Both authorization levels represent
significant cuts below the fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997
appropriated levels. One of the criticisms of the ATP has been the lack
of thorough evaluation of the program. I would like to point out that
this is a relatively new program, and only 42 projects have been
completed.
In addition, the ATP has not had stable funding. As a result, we do
not have the hard data needed to evaluate this program objectively and
rationally.
With this reservation, I support H.R. 1274, which moves overall U.S.
policy in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this
bill, as well.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume
to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], who is the chair of
the subcommittee.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full
Committee on Science for yielding the time to me, and for the
leadership that he has shown and that the gentleman from California
[Mr. Brown] as ranking member has shown on that committee.
I rise today in support of H.R. 1274, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 1997, legislation that I
introduced on April 10 of this year. The bill is, as has been
mentioned, truly bipartisan. It has been cosponsored by the gentleman
from California [Mr. Brown], the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon],
the ranking members of both the full committee and the Subcommittee on
Technology, as well as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], and the gentlewoman from Texas
[Ms. Jackson-Lee], all distinguished members of the Committee on
Science.
NIST is the Nation's oldest Federal laboratory. It was established by
Congress in 1901 as the National Bureau of Standards, and subsequently
renamed NIST.
As a part of the Department of Commerce, NIST's mission is to promote
economic growth by working with industry to develop and apply
technology, measurements and standards. As the Nation's arbiter of
standards, NIST enables our Nation's businesses to engage each other in
commerce and participate in the global marketplace.
The precise measurements required for establishing standards
associated with today's increasingly complex technologies require
NIST's laboratories to maintain the most sophisticated equipment and
the most talented scientists in the world. To date, NIST has succeeded,
and the science conducted by the Institute is a vital component of the
Nation's civilian research and technology development base.
H.R. 1274 authorizes $609 million for fiscal year 1998 and $628
million for fiscal year 1999 for the Technology Administration. NIST's
programs account for all but $7 million of that total in fiscal year
1998.
The care of NIST's functions are conducted by NIST's laboratories.
The bill prioritizes these functions, increasing their funding by 5
percent in fiscal year 1998 and 3 percent in fiscal year 1999. The
increases will ensure that the laboratories have sufficient funding to
maintain the high quality of their work, while expanding their services
in three areas.
First of all, the bill includes a $2.5 million increase in the 1998
budget from the levels recommended by the administration for the
physics program to support reengineering measurement services to
simplify the delivery of measurement assurance at the point of use.
This initiative should increase the accuracy and lower the cost of
calibration for the end users of NIST standards.
Second, H.R. 1274 authorizes an additional $4 million for fiscal year
1998 for the Computer Science and Applied Mathematics Program to
augment NIST work in the field of computer security. The increase is
intended to enable NIST, through its programs, to improve computer
security throughout the Federal Government.
Third, the bill includes a half million dollar increase in fiscal
year 1998 from the levels recommended by the administration for the
Technical Assistance Program to support improving measurement standards
to facilitate international trade and provide additional funding to
implement the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995.
H.R. 1274 also authorizes funding for NIST's most critical
maintenance and construction needs. The bill includes $16.7 million in
fiscal year 1998 and $67 million in fiscal year 1999 for construction
and maintenance of NIST facilities.
The funding is sufficient to cover the administration's request for
maintenance in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, and it includes
$50 million in fiscal year 1999 for NIST's top new facility priority,
the Advanced Metrology Laboratory. In order to ensure that the
construction funding is used in the most appropriate fashion, H.R. 1274
includes the certification requirement precluding the Department from
obligating any money to new construction unless it meets the
requirements of NIST's new facilities plan.
In order to help offset these increase, the bill reduces funding for
lower-priority programs at NIST, and in the Technology Administration.
Therefore, the bill includes a reduction of $40 million and $75
million to the Advanced Technology Program in fiscal years 1998 and
1999, respectively. While I support the ATP program, I believe H.R.
1274's authorizations of $185 million in fiscal year 1998 and $150
million in fiscal year 1999 are sufficient for the program.
H.R. 1274 also does not authorize funding for the $1.7 million
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology, called
EPSCOT, and the $350,000 program in support of the administration's
foreign policy.
Along with funding NIST's laboratories, H.R. 1274 also authorizes
full funding of all 75 existing Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Centers and the administrative costs that are associated with running
the program for the next 2 years.
The bill also authorizes $4.1 million in fiscal year 1998 and $5.3
million in fiscal year 1999 for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Program. These totals will allow for the program's expansion into
education and health care over the next 2 years.
Finally, the bill contains a number of good Government provisions,
including a sense of Congress on the year 2000 computer problem. As a
strong proponent of addressing this impending crisis, I am pleased that
this provision has not only been included in the NIST authorization
bill, but all of the Committee on Science's authorizations.
I am hopeful that with continued pressure from the Committee on
Science and from Congress, the administration will fix the problem
before it is too late.
{time} 1115
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1274 is both fiscally responsible and
scientifically sound. It will help NIST remain the world's foremost
scientific research institution for the establishment of standards and
the development of new technologies.
[[Page H1806]]
I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 1997.
Again, my appreciation to the chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], and the ranking member,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], my ranking member, the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] of the Subcommittee on Technology
and the members.
I also want to offer accolades to the staff who worked very hard on
this inch by inch: on our side, Richard Russell and Ben Wu; on the
minority side, Mike Quear and Jim Turner.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], ranking member on the Committee
on Science.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking minority
member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon],
for yielding me this time.
I rise in support of H.R. 1274. I support most of the funding
provisions, although I have a few reservations which the subcommittee
ranking member has pointed out.
Many of our concerns were resolved in the manager's amendment offered
during the markup and the committee adopted an amendment, the Boehlert-
McHale amendment, which lifts the 6-year cap on Federal support for
manufacturing extension partnership centers, which helps to assuage
some of my problems with the bill.
There are a few additional matters which we hope to continue to work
with the majority on during the further progress of the bill. I am
confident that I can safely urge my colleagues to support the bill.
In conclusion, let me add a word about the legislative progress of
this bill. Most of my colleagues will not recall, but we had some
problems with this bill last year. I remember them very vividly because
they represented a situation which I felt both the process and the
results were wrong.
I only make this statement, not to rehash the past, but to point out
the marked difference in process and content this year and to praise
the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Sensenbrenner] for his spirit of cooperation with the minority, his
evenhanded management of the committee, and for all of his other many
good traits which I really never suspected until I saw him in action as
chairman during the course of these last few months.
It has been a pleasure to work with him. I look forward to continuing
the cooperative relationship that we have had and to continue to
produce the good work which I know our committee is capable of doing.
Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to share my
concerns about the Advanced Technology Program. First, let me say I am
a strong believer in research and development. My own explosives
manufacturing business stems from my father's research into ammonium
nitrate. After considerable research and development of new, safe, low-
cost explosives, two successful companies were founded that to this day
provide hundreds of jobs to people in Utah and other States.
Research and development is the backbone of competitive enterprise.
But I do not believe that the Advanced Technology Program is the best
way to encourage corporate research and development. This program has
some troubling flaws. I think it would be irresponsible to give $40
million more to a program that has the problems ATP has.
Let me give you an example of one problem. ATP is designed to fund
long-term, high-risk programs that would not be funded by the private
sector. To qualify, applicants must assure the Government that they
could not get funding anywhere but from the ATP. They make that
assurance in writing. Yet, a recent poll by the General Accounting
Office of those who received ATP funding showed that fully half
acknowledged they could have obtained funding somewhere else or would
have gone ahead with their research without outside funding.
That tells us the money isn't going to the projects ATP was designed
to fund: Research projects that would never be done if it wasn't for
ATP.
That's a serious problem. Now, the Democrats want to toss another $40
million of taxpayers' hard earned money into this program without
correcting that flaw. President Clinton would like to go farther,
throwing another $275 million into the ATP in the next 4 years, more
than doubling the size of the program.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is nothing more than corporate welfare.
And not even very efficient corporate welfare, since apparently half of
the companies that have received money from ATP could have gotten the
money privately. That means tens of millions of taxpayer dollars--maybe
hundreds of millions of dollars--that could have been spent to build
roads and improve our schools, or reduce our Federal deficit was spent
to assist companies that apparently didn't need governmental
assistance. If we are serious about getting Federal spending under
control, that thought should be deeply troubling to each of us.
This amendment is the very thing American taxpayers are sick of. The
lavish, reckless corporate welfare of this amendment is the kind of
excess that appalls and angers our constituents. This program has
already grown 2,150 percent in just 7 years. And now the Democrats want
to fatten it even more. If President Clinton gets his way, by 2002,
funding for the ATP will be 5,000 percent greater than it was in 1990.
In 1990, Congress gave it $10 million. By 2002, President Clinton wants
it to receive half a billion dollars. If that isn't an example of the
runaway Federal program frightened Americans talk about, I don't know
what is.
What shocks me most is that this amendment would pour tens of
millions more into it and President Clinton and the Democrats want to
pour hundreds of millions more dollars into a program that has not,
from 1990 to today, been able to spend all of the money it has been
given. As a fiscal conservative, that stuns me. In 1990, ATP carried
over $9.3 million of the $10 million it was given. Those carryovers
have swollen year to year. Last year, ATP carried over $168 million.
And now we want to give ATP $40 million more?
Ladies and gentlemen, when some politicians tell me we can't balance
our Federal budget, I want to point to programs like ATP.
If we want to get our Federal spending under control, let's start
here. If we have any regard at all for how hard our constituents work
for their money, we can't throw $40 million more of their hard-won
dollars away on this program. If we are serious about getting a bloated
Federal budget under control, we will reject this amendment. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered by sections as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment. Pursuant to the rule, each
section is considered as having been read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
preprinted in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered as having been read.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Institute of
Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 1997''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
The Clerk will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SCIENTIFIC AND
TECHNICAL RESEARCH AND SERVICES.
(a) Laboratory Activities.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the Scientific
and Technical Research and Services laboratory activities of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology--
(1) $278,563,000 for fiscal year 1998, of which--
(A) $38,104,000 shall be for Electronics and Electrical
Engineering;
(B) $18,925,000 shall be for Manufacturing Engineering;
(C) $31,791,000 shall be for Chemical Science and
Technology;
(D) $30,372,000 shall be for Physics;
(E) $50,914,000 shall be for Material Science and
Engineering;
(F) $13,404,000 shall be for Building and Fire Research;
(G) $47,073,000 shall be for Computer Science and Applied
Mathematics;
(H) $19,376,000 shall be for Technical Assistance; and
(I) $28,604,000 shall be for Research Support; and
(2) $286,919,890 for fiscal year 1999, of which--
(A) $39,247,120 shall be for Electronics and Electrical
Engineering;
[[Page H1807]]
(B) $19,492,750 shall be for Manufacturing Engineering;
(C) $32,744,730 shall be for Chemical Science and
Technology;
(D) $31,283,160 shall be for Physics;
(E) $52,441,420 shall be for Material Science and
Engineering;
(F) $13,806,120 shall be for Building and Fire Research;
(G) $48,485,190 shall be for Computer Science and Applied
Mathematics;
(H) $19,957,280 shall be for Technical Assistance; and
(I) $29,462,120 shall be for Research Support.
(b) Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce
for the Malcolm Bladrige National Quality Program under
section 17 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation
Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a)--
(1) $4,134,500 for fiscal year 1998; and
(2) $5,289,000 for fiscal year 1999.
(c) Construction and Maintenance.--(1) There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for
construction and maintenance of facilities of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology--
(A) $16,692,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
(B) $67,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.
(2) None of the funds authorized by paragraph (1)(B) for
construction of facilities may be obligated unless the
Secretary of Commerce has certified to the Committee on
Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate that the
obligation of funds is consistent with a plan for meeting the
facilities needs of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology that the Secretary has transmitted to those
committees.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
The Clerk will designate section 3.
The text of section 3 is as follows:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE OFFICE OF THE
UNDER SECRETARY FOR TECHNOLOGY.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Commerce for the activities of the Under Secretary for
Technology and the Office of Technology Policy--
(1) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
(2) $7,205,000 for fiscal year 1999.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3?
The Clerk will designate section 4.
The text of section 4 is as follows:
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR INDUSTRY
TECHNOLOGY SERVICES.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Commerce for the Industrial Technology Services activities of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology--
(1) $302,900,000 for fiscal year 1998, of which--
(A) $185,100,000 shall be for the Advanced Technology
Program under section 28 of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n); and
(B) $117,800,000 shall be for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnerships program under sections 25 and 26 of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and
278l); and
(2) $261,300,000 for fiscal year 1999, of which--
(A) $150,000,000 shall be for the Advanced Technology
Program under section 28 of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n); and
(B) $111,300,000 shall be for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnerships program under section 5 and 26 of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and
278l).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
remainder of the bill be printed in the Record, and open to amendment
at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of
a substitute is as follows:
SEC. 5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT
AMENDMENTS.
(a) Amendments.--Section 28 of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or contracts'' in subsection (b)(1)(B),
and inserting in lieu thereof ``contracts, and, subject to
the last sentence of this subsection, other transactions'';
(2) by inserting ``and if the non-Federal participants in
the joint venture agree to pay at least 60 percent of the
total cost of the joint venture during the Federal
participation period under this section, which shall not
exceed 5 years,'' in subsection (b)(1)(B) after
``participation to be appropriate,'';
(3) by striking ``(ii) provision of a minority share of the
cost of such joint ventures for up to 5 years, and (iii)'' in
subsection (b)(1)(B), and inserting in lieu thereof ``and
(ii)'';
(4) by striking ``and cooperative agreements'' in
subsection (b)(2), and inserting in lieu thereof ``,
cooperative agreements, and, subject to the last sentence of
this subsection, other transactions'';
(5) by striking ``, provided that emphasis is'' in
subsection (b)(2) and inserting in lieu thereof ``on the
condition that grant recipients (other than small businesses
within the meaning of the Small Business Act) provide at
least 60 percent of the costs of the project, with
emphasis'';
(6) by adding after subsection (b)(4) the following:
``The authority under paragraph (1)(B) and paragraph (2) to
enter into other transactions shall apply only if the
Secretary, acting through the Director, determines that
standard contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements are not
feasible or appropriate, and only when other transaction
instruments incorporate terms and conditions that reflect the
use of generally accepted commercial accounting and auditing
practices.'';
(7) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ``and be of a nature
and scope that would not be pursued in a timely manner
without Federal assistance'' after ``technical merit''; and
(8) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(k) Nothwithstanding subsection (b)(1)(B) and subsection
(d)(3), the Director may grant extensions beyond the
deadlines established under those provisions for joint
venture and single applicant awardees to expend Federal funds
to complete their projects, if such extension may be granted
with no additional cost to the Federal Government and it is
in the Federal Government's interest to do so.
``(l) The Secretary, acting through the Director, may vest
title to tangible personal property in any recipient of
financial assistance under this section if--
``(1) the property is purchased with funds provided under
this section; and
``(2) the Secretary, acting through the Director,
determines that the vesting of such property furthers the
objectives of the Institute.
Vesting under this subsection shall be subject to such
limitations as are prescribed by the Secretary, acting
through the Director, and shall be made without further
obligation to the United States Government.''.
(b) Additional Amendments.--(1) Section 28 of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n) is
further amended by striking the period at the end of the
first sentence of subsection (d)(11)(A) and inserting in lieu
thereof the following: ``or any other participant in a joint
venture receiving financial assistance under this section, as
agreed by the parties, notwithstanding the requirements of
section 202 (a) and (b) of title 35, United States Code.''.
(2) The amendment made by this subsection shall be
effective only with respect to assistance for which
solicitations for proposals are made after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 6. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM CENTER
EXTENSION.
Section 25(c)(5) of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(c)(5)) is amended by striking
``, which are designed'' and all that follows through
``operation of a Center.'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``.
After the sixth year, a Center may receive additional
financial support under this section if it has received a
positive evaluation through an independent review, under
procedures established by the Institute. Such an independent
review shall be required at least every two years after the
sixth year of operation. Funding received for a fiscal year
under this section after the sixth year of operation shall
not exceed the proportion of the capital and annual operating
and maintenance costs of the Center received by the Center
during its sixth year of operation.''.
SEC. 7. MALCOLM BALDRIGE QUALITY AWARD.
Section 17(c)(3) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a(c)(3)) is amended by
inserting ``, unless the Secretary determines that a third
award is merited and can be given at no addition cost to the
Federal Government'' after ``in any year''.
SEC. 8. NEXT GENERATION INTERNET.
None of the funds authorized by this Act, or any other Act
enacted before the date of the enactment of this Act, may be
used for the Next Generation Internet. Notwithstanding the
previous sentence, funds may be used for the continuation of
programs and activities that were funded and carried out
during fiscal year 1997.
SEC. 9. LIMITATIONS.
(a) Prohibition of Lobbying Activities.--None of the funds
authorized by this Act shall be available for any activity
whose purpose is to influence legislation pending before the
Congress, except that this subsection shall not prevent
officers or employees of the United States or of its
departments or agencies from communicating to Members of
Congress on the request of any Member or to Congress, through
the proper channels, requests for legislation or
appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient
conduct of the public business.
(b) Limitation on Appropriations.--No sums are authorized
to be appropriated to the Director of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology for fiscal years 1998 and 1999
for the activities for which sums are authorized by this Act,
unless such sums are specifically authorized to be
appropriated by this Act.
(c) Eligibility for Awards.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology shall exclude from consideration for
grant agreements made by the Institute after fiscal year 1997
any person who received funds, other than those described in
paragraph (2), appropriated for a fiscal year after fiscal
year 1997, under a grant agreement from any Federal funding
source for a project that was not subjected to a competitive,
merit-based award process. Any exclusion from consideration
pursuant to this subsection shall be effective for a period
of 5 years after the person receives such Federal funds.
(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the
receipt of Federal funds by a person due to the membership of
that person in a class specified by law for which assistance
is awarded to members of the class according to a formula
provided by law.
(3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
``grant agreement'' means a
[[Page H1808]]
legal instrument whose principal purpose is to transfer a
thing of value to the recipient to carry out a public purpose
of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United
States, and does not include the acquisition (by purchase,
lease, or barter) of property or services for the direct
benefit or use of the United States Government. Such term
does not include cooperative agreement (as such term is used
in section 6305 of title 31, United States Code) or a
cooperative research and development agreement (as such term
is defined in section 12(d)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(1))).
SEC. 10. NOTICE.
(a) Notice of Reprogramming.--If any funds authorized by
this Act are subject to a reprogramming action that requires
notice to be provided to the Appropriations Committees of the
House of Representatives and the Senate, notice of such
action shall concurrently be provided to the Committee on
Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.
(b) Notice of Reorganization.--The Secretary of Commerce
shall provide notice to the Committees on Science and
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the
Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and
Appropriations of the Senate, not later than 15 days before
any major reorganization of any program, project, or activity
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
SEC. 11. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM.
With the year 2000 fast approaching, it is the sense of
Congress that the National Institute of Standards and
Technology should--
(1) give high priority to correcting all 2-digit date-
related problems in its computer systems to ensure that those
systems continue to operate effectively in the year 2000 and
beyond;
(2) assess immediately the extent of the risk to the
operations of the Institute posed by the problems referred to
in paragraph (1), and plan and budget for achieving Year 2000
compliance for all of its mission-critical systems; and
(3) develop contingency plans for those systems that the
Institute is unable to correct in time.
SEC. 12. BUY AMERICAN.
(a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--No funds
appropriated pursuant to this Act may be expended by an
entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the
assistance the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4
of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, popularly
known as the ``Buy American Act'').
(b) Sense of Congress.--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 Congress that entities receiving such assistance should,
in expending the assistance, purchase only American-made
equipment and products.
(c) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing
financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary of
Commerce shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a
notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the
Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to the bill?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose, and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr.
Dreier] having assumed the chair, Mr. Duncan, 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. 1274) to
authorize appropriations for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other purposes,
pursuant to House Resolution 127, he 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.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 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, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________