[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 50 (Thursday, April 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1808-H1819]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 126 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill, H.R. 1273.

                              {time}  1122


                     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. 
1273) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for 
the National Science Foundation, 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 California [Mr. Brown], each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner].
  (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 1273, the National Science Foundation Act 
of 1997. It is particularly appropriate that the House consider this 
legislation at this time because this week is National Science and 
Technology Week. This House can be proud of the work of the Members on 
both sides of the aisle in developing the blueprint of the 105th 
Congress for strong support of research, development, and science 
education.
  The National Science Foundation provides funding to over 19,000 
research and education projects in science and engineering annually. It 
does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 
colleges, universities, K-12 schools, businesses and other research 
institutions in all parts of the United States. The foundation accounts 
for about 25 percent of Federal support to academic institutions for 
basic research.
  This 2-year authorization improves our investment in America by 
strengthening our commitment to the National Science Foundation. The 
bill authorizes approximately $3.5 billion for fiscal year 1998. The 
bipartisan support for this bill demonstrates the committee's belief 
that the support of basic research will provide America with the lead 
role for science in the future. It is through basic research that we 
will make the fundamental discoveries that will become the economic 
drivers in the 21st century.
  H.R. 1273 provides for $2.56 billion, or a 5.4-percent increase over 
fiscal year 1997, in the research and related activities account. In 
fiscal year 1999, the bill then further increases the RR&A account to 
$2.74 billion, a 7-percent increase over fiscal year 1998. The research 
and related activities account is NSF's primary account. It provides 
the resources that allow the United States to uphold world leadership 
in a variety of science and engineering activities.
  This legislation follows through on the committee's commitment to 
improve math and science education. In the Education and Human 
Resources Directorate, the bill incorporates the President's request of 
$625 million, a 1.1-percent increase over fiscal year 1998, and then 
provides 3 percent growth in this program to over $644 million in 
fiscal year 1999.
  The major research equipment account completes funding for the 
construction of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory 
Program, LIGO, for short. This account provides funds for two new 
programs: the Millimeter Array Radio Telescope and the Polar Cap 
Observatory. The MMA will be the world's most sensitive, highest 
resolution millimeter-wavelength telescope and will provide a testing 
ground for theories of star birth, galaxy formation and the evolution 
of the universe. The Polar Cap Observatory will provide new measurement 
capabilities for studying and monitoring space weather, the conditions 
in space environment that can influence the performance of satellites, 
affect power grids and disrupt telecommunications.
  In addition, the bill provides for the one time, full authorization 
of the Antarctic Rehabilitation Program. As the distinguished chairman 
of the NSF's External Review Panel on Antarctic Programs, Norm 
Augustine, testified before our committee:

       It's our belief we would not send a ship to sea or a 
     spacecraft to orbit in the condition of the facilities that 
     we have at the pole.


[[Page H1809]]


  I am proud to say this legislation fully authorizes the resources 
necessary to rebuild the facilities in Antarctica and protect the 
health and safety of our scientists as well as the very fragile 
Antarctic environment.
  In our drive to hold down expenses, the salaries and expense account 
of NSF has been held to approximately 2-percent growth in fiscal years 
1998 and 1999. The committee commends NSF for their low overhead rate 
and expects them to continue to maximize efficiency and productivity.
  Finally, the Office of the Inspector General is funded at the 
President's request for fiscal year 1998 and provided a 3-percent 
growth in fiscal year 1999.
  I wish to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Basic 
Research Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], the 
ranking minority member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Barcia], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], 
ranking minority members of the full committee, for their efforts and 
support in crafting a bipartisan bill that received overwhelming 
support in the Committee on Science. I believe that this is an 
outstanding bill and urge Members to support H.R. 1273.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the National Science Foundation 
authorization bill, House Resolution 1273, which was developed in a 
bipartisan manner by the Committee on Science. House Resolution 1273 
signals the strong bipartisan support for the key role of the NSF in 
developing and sustaining the academic research enterprise of this 
Nation. NSF is the only Federal agency with the sole mission to support 
basic science and engineering research as well as education in our 
Nation's schools, colleges and universities. NSF programs support 
research in science and engineering, the operation of national research 
facilities, and science education at all levels of instruction. Such 
wide-ranging activities underpin the technological strength of our 
Nation through both the generation of new knowledge and the continued 
education of our scientists and engineers.
  In light of NSF's important role, I am pleased that House Resolution 
1273 provides real growth for those NSF research activities which 
support individual investigators and interdisciplinary research teams.

                              {time}  1130

  The authorization level increases in each year of the bill are above 
what is needed to offset inflation and, therefore, will allow NSF to 
pursue new initiatives in such areas as distributive intelligence and 
life in extreme environments, while sustaining core research activities 
in the major science and engineering disciplines. The research 
investments made by NSF generate the new knowledge that fuels our 
Nation's technological innovation and ultimately dictates our future 
economic strength.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to describe some recent examples that show 
the breadth and potential technological value resulting from NSF-
sponsored research.
  Materials scientists at Cornell University, for example, have 
investigated the characteristics of silk fiber spun by the golden orb 
weaving spider, which are stronger than steel and more elastic than 
Kevlar. In fact, through the tools of biotechnology, it is now possible 
to manufacture designer materials by producing genes which can express 
large amounts of this super strength material. The practical 
applications for such technologies are simply enormous.
  Power plants emit high levels of nitrogen oxides, which are health 
hazards and cannot be completely eliminated by using current catalysts. 
Researchers at Penn State University discovered a family of novel rare-
earth catalysts which can remediate nitrous oxide in flue gas and 
thereby enable the design of a new process which support 
environmentally safe power plants.
  At the University of Michigan the Center for Ultrafast Optical 
Science is working with ultrashort laser pulses in developing important 
applications to ophthalmology. Ultrashort laser pulses are composed of 
only a few optical cycles in light, and their duration is measured in 
femtoseconds. One femtosecond is one millionth of one billionth of a 
second. Ablation of material with femtosecond pulses is extremely clean 
in contrast to ablation performed by traditional lasers with a pulse 
duration 1,000 times longer. As very fine and accurate surgical cuts 
can be made without any collateral damage using ultrafast lasers, these 
devices are the perfect scalpel.
  In addition to supporting basic research, NSF programs help educate 
the next generation of scientists, engineers and technicians as well as 
improve science education for all of our K-12 students. Such outcomes 
are realized through a wide range of NSF activities, including graduate 
student support, research experience for undergraduates, development of 
curricular materials for science courses at all levels of instruction, 
development of educational applications of computer and communications 
technologies, and in-service training for K-12 teachers.
  I would particularly like to mention the NSF Advanced Technology 
Education Program, which is targeted for 2-year institutions. The 
program supports curriculum faculty development to improve the training 
of technicians critical to the high performance workplace. The ATE 
Program attains its goals through partnerships among 2-year 
institutions, universities, business, and industry.
  House Resolution 1273 supports the President's request for the 
education and human resources activities of NSF and provides sufficient 
growth in a second year to offset the effects of inflation. The bill 
will sustain existing programs while the basic research subcommittee 
reviews the impact of education programs during this Congress.
  Finally, the bill accepts the recommendation of the distinguished 
panel assembled by NSF to review the facilities necessary for the U.S. 
Antarctic program, which has also been very eloquently and 
comprehensively explained by our outstanding chairman, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], and authorization also is provided 
to allow for replacement, as the chairman explained, of the South Pole 
Station and for needed upgrades at other Antarctic stations.
  The value of research programs and the importance of the U.S. 
presence in Antarctica has been expressed by the administration and 
outside witnesses at committee hearings over the past 2 years. This 
bill will ensure that U.S. facilities in Antarctica are capable of 
supporting the most advanced research and will provide adequate safety 
for the scientists and support staff who must function in this very 
hostile environment.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, for his efforts to 
develop House Resolution 1273 in a great spirit of cooperation, and 
also especially commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner], the chair of the Committee on Science, as well as the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], an outstanding ranking 
Democratic member, for their leadership in moving the bill through the 
committee and to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I fully support H.R. 1273 and urge its approval by the 
House.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Brown], the distinguished former chairman of the 
Committee on Science in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
very much for yielding me this time, and I also want to commend him for 
the excellent work he is doing in his initial efforts as a ranking 
member of this very important subcommittee. I know that he will 
continue to do an excellent job in that regard.
  It is hardly necessary to speak in support of the National Science 
Foundation, since it has long enjoyed bipartisan support and continued 
budgetary growth. Not always as much as I would like, but in this 
particular bill and under these circumstances, I think that the 
budgetary growth which has been set forth by the chairman of the full 
committee represents a very reasonable program, and I am happy to 
commend him for that.

[[Page H1810]]

  I will not belabor all of the good points that I could make about the 
NSF, but I do want to say something about a very small line item which 
is in the bill that has not been in there before, and that is a 
provision providing for authorization of about a million dollars for 
international science cooperation through the funding of the United 
States-Mexico Foundation for Science.
  This foundation contributes to the scientific and technological 
strength of each country through fostering research and human resource 
development, and promoting collaborative solutions to common problems.
  Since this foundation was established in 1992, the United States-
Mexico Foundation has established a proven track record of supporting 
high quality international research. The additional funding authorized 
by this bill, which will be matched by Mexico, will enable the 
foundation to expand its activities from its current very small base 
and will thereby further advance United States-Mexican scientific and 
technological cooperation.
  We hope other U.S. agencies will likewise be able to support some of 
this binational research in areas that is focused on their individual 
missions, and we are looking forward to gradually building up a 
substantial base of funding for this very important binational 
research.
  I should mention here that I had the opportunity and the pleasure to 
visit with the leadership of the Mexican Government and Mexican 
scientific establishment just a few weeks ago to discuss the progress 
of the binational foundation, and I found uniform support at every 
level, from the president, through his science adviser, through the 
Secretary of State, and many other agencies, and all of the leading 
scientific institutions in Mexico, who wanted to continue this program 
and have it reach a reasonable level over the next several years, and 
we look forward to working with them in achieving this.
  I also want to conclude by not extolling again the chairman of the 
full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], but to include by reference the laudatory 
remarks I made previously about the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner]. It would be rather repetitious to say that on each one 
of these bills. But he has done a great job and we look forward to 
continued cooperative relationships with him.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge every Member to support this excellent bill.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time.
  Anyone who followed the debate over these matters in the last 
Congress knows that this House took a very short detour from our 
traditional and long-term path of bipartisan support for research and 
development and particularly for the work of the National Science 
Foundation. It was a path that the New York Times said would actually 
cripple American science.
  Fortunately, we have a new day and we are now back on the path of a 
bipartisan commitment to research and development. While we have a few 
differences over certain specifics of this bill and of other 
legislation that is being considered today, on the whole, we have 
agreement; and it is a testament to the work of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Brown], to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia], and to the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], their leadership, that we have 
come together once again to pursue support for science and for research 
and development from the Federal level.
  This National Science Foundation bill represents a slight increase 
over what we did in the Congress last year and over what President 
Clinton has requested. It would appear that we have found some 
consensus on just how vital funding for scientific research is, its 
importance in fostering scientific discovery and jobs that that 
discovery will produce.
  Our worldwide leadership in science and technology is a source of 
great pride and satisfaction for millions of Americans but, more 
importantly, it is a source of future jobs for millions of our young 
Americans who will be entering the job market in future years.
  Now we can talk about ways that this Congress can improve the lives 
of Americans; and there is little that we cannot accomplish through 
realistic investments in science and technology to produce those high-
skill, high-wage, high-tech jobs in the future.
  The area that I represent in and around Austin, TX is a good example. 
The investment made through the National Science Foundation through 
related programs of Federal investment in research and technology has 
provided the engine for economic growth, has attracted considerable 
private investment, and has provided us the kind of economic problems 
that the rest of the country would like to have, that being that we 
need, we have a shortage actually of many individuals in the high-
skilled area to fill jobs that are being created each month by our 
high-tech industries.
  Clearly, our Nation is in a fight on the economic front around the 
world; and if we are to remain competitive and if we are to be able to 
produce the kind of jobs that we need for our population, it will be 
through the kind of investment that we are making today in this 
National Science Foundation bill and in other bills to place America 
first when it comes to research, when it comes to science and 
technology.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sessions].
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, it is with great encouragement that I 
stand up today to rise to commend the chairman of the House Committee 
on Science for working very diligently on the bill H.R. 1273. I stand 
today as a proud member and a supporter of the committee as an advocate 
for research and development on the types of things that will make a 
real impact and make a difference in our country.
  This bill corrects years of neglect and promotes the most fiscally 
responsible part of our Federal budget. Research and development 
provides exponential returns to the taxpayer and enables our country to 
continue its long history of pressing the envelope of math, science, 
and technology.

                              {time}  1145

  As a freshman Member I was very encouraged by the hearings on this 
bill and others that were reported out by our Committee on Science last 
week. Throughout the hearings, there was a bipartisan support, not only 
that we have heard today from other Democrat Members of Congress, but 
also those on the committee who feel that if we have a competitive 
grant process and united feelings against specific earmarks of funds, 
we can make better progress. I believe both of these efforts have led 
to a bill that is proeconomic growth and for fiscal responsibility.
  I also believe that this bill actively attacks one of the most 
serious problems with America in education today. According to the 
third international mathematics and science study, eighth grade math 
and science students in the United States are considerably average when 
compared to students in developing countries. Average students are not 
going to keep the United States of America ahead of our foreign 
competitors and other competitors around the globe. As a nation, it is 
imperative that we encourage students, teachers, and administrators to 
focus their efforts on basic math and science skills. By providing 
competitive incentives, we have signaled our commitment to encourage 
these important skills and opportunities.
  Finally, our focus on competitive grants highlights a unique American 
way that we can solve our problems. Incentives and encouragement lead 
to productive answers and innovative solutions. This method is in 
direct conflict with many of the reforms circulating around Washington 
today. It seems that some of my colleagues think a Federal mandate can 
solve everything, but I think that really we have the answer when we 
talk about regulations and mandates that are put on people. I believe 
that a Federal mandate has never educated a student, inspired a 
scientist or invented the next generation in technology. However, the 
human desire to succeed has brought America more innovative ideas and 
scholastic achievements than a room of bureaucrats can think of in a 
lifetime.

[[Page H1811]]

  I think what we need to do is to support H.R. 1273, and I rise in 
support of that and wish to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner], the chairman, for not only his leadership but help in 
this process.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Capps].
  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in favor of this bill to 
reauthorize the National Science Foundation. As a new Member of the 
Congress, I must say that the bipartisan cooperation that has brought 
forward this legislation has been an example for the rest of the House 
to follow. I want to commend and thank the gentlewoman from Maryland 
[Mrs. Morella], chairman; the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon], 
ranking member; the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], 
chairman; and my esteemed colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Brown] for their outstanding work on this legislation.
  The bill before us today provides a healthy and worthy increase for 
the National Science Foundation. While I support the research 
community's call earlier this year for a 7-percent increase in science 
research and development, I am encouraged by the funding levels that 
this bill contains in these tight budgetary times.
  I have spent my professional life prior to coming here engaged in 
teaching and research, so I have a sincere appreciation for the 
critical role of research and education in our society. The National 
Science Foundation's mission to sponsor research and encourage new 
thinking and education is a critical element for our economic growth as 
we move into the 21st century. Much is said today about the need to 
educate our children for our increasingly competitive economic 
environment. I agree with this viewpoint.
  However, I also believe that education inspires individual and 
personal growth which inevitably leads to a more civilized and 
prosperous society. This is also what NSF programs achieve. The bill is 
evidence of the support that NSF has in the House and throughout the 
country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow].
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I will take just a moment to rise to 
commend both the chair of the committee and the ranking member of the 
committee as well as the ranking member of our subcommittee dealing 
with the National Science Foundation for the excellent work and the 
bipartisanship that has come from the Committee on Science this year. 
As a first-term Member, I am very pleased to be a part of a committee 
that is focused and committed to investing in scientific research and 
development, technology development, environmental research, and 
efforts through the National Science Foundation. Very important efforts 
are taking place on behalf of this country that are critical to our 
economic competitiveness in the future.
  We no longer as a country are looking at competition, business to 
business or State to State. It is definitely country to country. Our 
ability to maintain our economic advantage is only as strong as our 
willingness to invest in basic research and the development of 
technology in partnership with business. I am extremely pleased that 
the NIST budget has passed and that the advanced technology program and 
other important partnership efforts have been included this year that 
are critical. The National Science Foundation has a very important base 
that has been adopted by this committee. I would like to again commend 
our leadership on both sides of the aisle for a strong vision and 
commitment, and I am hopeful that we will be successful in maintaining 
this throughout the process.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
  For almost 50 years, the National Science Foundation has worked to 
expand the core of knowledge that has broadened our horizons in almost 
every field of science, engineering, and mathematics. We may not always 
see such direct applications of most of the research, but advancements 
in understanding of our planet, the composition of life, and the 
elements of technologies enrich our lives.
  Equally important in the mission of the NSF is its dedication to 
integrating education into its activities. Obviously, future scientific 
successes hinge on society's ability to train students to understand 
the fundamentals of current knowledge.
  In conducting research, undergraduate and graduate students must have 
adequate opportunities to learn from direct experience. And precollege 
students should not be left out of the picture. I can tell you as a 
former educator--and I know that many of my colleagues will agree--that 
if our students do to learn the basics of science in their youth, we 
will be hard pressed to find interested and prepared students at the 
higher levels.
  We must also remember that scientific education extends beyond the 
immediate research community. If our Nation's populace does not 
understand the issues facing our national science policies, they cannot 
make informed decisions that affect those policies.
  I understood the rationale for keeping the education and human 
resources accounts in check, and I look forward to further inquiries by 
this body into the successes of the programs in this category. However, 
pending such a review, I think that we should further expand our 
educational programs within the NSF and other agencies.
  We have an obligation to do as much as possible to support education, 
and in particular, the improvement of our students' math and science 
skills. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1273, The 
National Science Foundation Act of 1997. I am proud to have introduced 
this legislation.
  This 2-year authorization provides real growth to the National 
Science Foundation. To briefly summarize its provisions:
  The President's fiscal year 1998 request for NSF is $3.367 billion, a 
3-percent increase over the fiscal year 1997 appropriation levels. This 
bill authorizes over $3.505 billion for fiscal year 1998, a 7.2-percent 
increase over fiscal year 1997.
  Within the individual appropriations accounts, the bill authorizes 
$2.563 billion, or a 5.4-percent increase over fiscal year 1997, in the 
Research and Related Activities [R&RA] account. In fiscal year 1999, 
the bill increases the R&RA account to $2.740 billion, a 7-percent 
increase over fiscal year 1998.
  In the Education and Human Resources Directorate, this bill 
incorporates the President's request of $625.5 million, a 1.1-percent 
increase over fiscal year 1998, and then provides for 3-percent growth 
in this program to over $644 million in fiscal year 1999.
  The major research equipment account completes funding for the Laser 
Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory [LIGO] program. This 
account provides funds for two new programs: the Polar Cap Observatory 
and the Millimeter Array radio telescope. In addition, this bill 
provides $115 million for the one time, full authorization, of the 
Antarctic rehabilitation program.
  The salaries and expense account has been held to approximately 2-
percent annual growth in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999. The 
committee commends NSF for their low overhead rate and expects them to 
continue to maximize efficiency and productivity.
  The office of the inspector general is funded at the President's 
request for fiscal year 1998 and provided 3-percent growth in fiscal 
year 1999.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Before closing, I would like to remind my colleagues that this week 
is National Science and Technology Week. National Science and 
Technology Week is an informal and public education outreach program of 
the National Science Foundation, dedicated to expanding the 
participation by all Americans in the fields of science, technology, 
and engineering. Since its inception in 1985, National Science and 
Technology Week has gradually expanded in scope and impact, involving 
millions of Americans in national and local events.
  National Science and Technology Week is celebrated across the 
country, providing special opportunities in communities throughout the 
Nation to notice the major impact and importance that science and 
technology have on all aspects of daily life. The National Science 
Foundation presents this full week of informal science and engineering 
activities annually in April. This year's celebration, April 20-26, 
1997, has the them of ``Webs, Wires & Waves: The Science and Technology 
of Communication.'' This them recognizes the priceless impact that 
communications has had in shrinking the world and bringing people 
worldwide closer together. It allows individuals to take the 
opportunity to explore questions about communications, both those of 
nature as well as technology.
  The National Science Foundation attempts to reach its audience 
through various resources, especially the National Science and 
Technology Week Regional Network in 46 sites across the country, 
including a site in

[[Page H1812]]

New Mexico. The Space Center in Alamogordo, NM is very instrumental in 
providing training workshops for teachers and planning interactive, 
hands-on science events. These sites are resourceful in assisting in 
the distribution of education materials, which are issued annually, 
both in English and Spanish. These packets assist both formal and 
informal educators and parents in engaging children in innovative, 
hands-on learning activities geared to science, mathematics, and 
technology.
  Many of the activities this year will present new opportunities to 
engage the curiosity of ordinary people everywhere, affected daily by 
new capabilities unfathomed even a generation ago. During National and 
Technology Week, the National Science Foundation will again offer its 
``Ask a Scientist or Engineer'' over the Internet. Now in its third 
consecutive year, online access has been a popular and worthwhile tool, 
engaging the public's curiosity to explore and question the mysteries 
of science and technology. Online access will be available throughout 
the week at [email protected].
  I encourage the House and Senate to strongly support this outreach 
program, recognizing the importance of involving all people in the 
awareness that science, engineering, and technology are important in 
our lives today and crucial to our progress tomorrow. I hope you will 
join me in celebrating National Science and Technology Week.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of the reauthorization of the National Science Foundation. In the years 
since its creation, the NSF has provided funding for research that has 
led to technological innovations which have improved the lives of 
millions of people in this country and around the world.
  Many of our country's economists agree that technological innovation 
is responsible for between 30 and 50 percent of the United States' 
economic growth in the last 100 years. This has meant hundreds of 
thousands of jobs in every State of the Union.
  Without the NSF, there would be no Internet as we know it today. As 
many of you know, the Defense Department first created the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA]--creating a link of defense 
computers around the world. In 1981, NSF created the first nondefense 
computer network, called CSNET, at the request of our country's 
universities that did not have access to DARPA. In 1987 NSF further 
expanded into the world with NSFnet.
  Ten years later NSFnet has grown into the Internet--the latest 
frontier in our country's development. The uses for the Internet are 
still being developed. We already know it is a great research tool for 
our students, it is fast becoming a great place of economic activity, 
and the future may hold things we can't even think of.
  In Massachusetts and across the country the Internet is also becoming 
a way to bring people together to support their schools. Twice in the 
last year volunteers from industry, labor, government, schools and 
parents, have given up time on their weekends to work on MassNetworks. 
It is an effort to wire every school in the Commonwealth for computer 
networks and the Internet. It has been a great success--and I would 
like to thank all those volunteers.
  NSF no longer provides the backbone of the Internet. So, it has now 
turned its formidable energies to developing the next generation of 
computer networks and supercomputers.
  I am also a strong supporter of the Research Experiences for 
Undergraduates. This program provides funding for undergraduates to be 
hired by research professors. I have met students in this program, and 
all of them sing its praises. There are a number of students at the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which is in my district, who 
have benefited from this program.
  MIT has furthered this idea with its own called the Undergraduate 
Research Opportunities Program. This program is very similar except 
that the researcher does not need to apply for a grant to hire 
undergraduates--instead they can use their existing research funds for 
that purpose.
  Too often close working relationships with research professors are 
reserved for graduate students. This program recognizes that most 
undergraduates don't go to graduate school. This early interaction is 
vital to these kids' education. Their experiences will turn these kids 
into the great minds of the next century.
  The NSF continues to expand the opportunities of all Americans and I 
urge my colleagues to support its reauthorization.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I also 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 under the 5-minute 
rule by titles and each title shall be considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will report section 1.
  The Clerk read 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 Science Foundation 
     Authorization Act of 1997''.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER (during the reading). 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. 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. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the 
     Foundation;
       (2) the term ``Foundation'' means the National Science 
     Foundation;
       (3) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 1201(a) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965;
       (4) 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; and
       (5) 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) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) 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;
       (2) 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; and
       (3) the Foundation's efforts to contribute to the economic 
     competitiveness of the United States should be in accord with 
     that primary mission.
       (b) Fiscal Year 1998.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Foundation $3,505,630,000 for fiscal year 
     1998, which shall be available for the following categories:
       (1) Research and Related Activities, $2,563,330,000, of 
     which--
       (A) $330,820,000 shall be for Biological Sciences;
       (B) $289,170,000 shall be for Computer and Information 
     Science and Engineering;
       (C) $360,470,000 shall be for Engineering;
       (D) $452,610,000 shall be for Geosciences;
       (E) $715,710,000 shall be for Mathematical and Physical 
     Sciences;
       (F) $130,660,000 shall be for Social, Behavioral, and 
     Economic Sciences, including $1,000,000 for the United 
     States-Mexico Foundation for Science;
       (G) $165,930,000 shall be for United States Polar Research 
     Programs;
       (H) $62,600,000 shall be for United States Antarctic 
     Logistical Support Activities; and
       (I) $2,730,000 shall be for the Critical Technologies 
     Institute.
       (2) Education and Human Resources Activities, $625,500,000.
       (3) Major Research Equipment, $175,000,000.
       (4) Salaries and Expenses, $136,950,000, of which 
     $5,200,000 shall be for Headquarters Relocation.
       (5) Office of Inspector General, $4,850,000.
       (c) Fiscal Year 1999.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Foundation $3,613,630,000 for fiscal year 
     1999, which shall be available for the following categories:
       (1) Research and Related Activities, $2,740,000,000, 
     including $1,000,000 for the United States-Mexico Foundation 
     for Science.
       (2) Education and Human Resources Activities, $644,245,000.
       (3) Major Research Equipment, $90,000,000, of which no 
     funds are authorized for the Large Hadron Collider project at 
     the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) unless 
     the Director, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, 
     has transmitted to the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committees on Labor and Human 
     Resources and Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate a report on the impacts of such funding on the 
     operations and viability of United States high energy and 
     nuclear physics facilities.
       (4) Salaries and Expenses, $134,385,000.
       (5) Office of Inspector General, $5,000,000.

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

       If the amount appropriated pursuant to section 101 (b)(1) 
     or (c)(1) is less than the amount

[[Page H1813]]

     authorized under that paragraph, the amount available for 
     each scientific directorate under that paragraph 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.
                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. NATIONAL RESEARCH FACILITIES.

       (a) Facilities Plan.--The Director shall provide to 
     Congress, not later than December 1 of each year, a plan for 
     the proposed 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) Status of Facilities Under Construction.--The plan 
     required under subsection (a) shall include a status report 
     for each uncompleted construction project included in the 
     current and previous plans. The status report shall include 
     data on cumulative construction costs by project compared 
     with estimated costs, and shall compare the current and 
     original schedules for achievement of milestones for major 
     phases of the construction.
       (c) 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, 1997.

     SEC. 202. ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS.

       (a) National Science Foundation Act of 1950 Amendments.--
     The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 
     et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 4 (42 U.S.C. 1863)--
       (A) by striking ``the appropriate rate provided for 
     individuals in grade GS-18 of the General Schedule under 
     section 5332'' in subsection (g) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``the maximum rate payable under section 5376''; and
       (B) by redesignating the subsection (k) that was added by 
     section 108 of the National Science Foundation Authorization 
     Act of 1988 as subsection (l);
       (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 of the House of 
     Representatives.'';
       (3) in section 14(c) (42 U.S.C. 1873(c))--
       (A) by inserting ``be entitled to'' between ``shall'' and 
     ``receive'';
       (B) by inserting ``, including traveltime,'' after 
     ``Foundation'';
       (C) by striking ``the rate specified for the daily rate for 
     GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``the maximum rate payable under 
     section 5376''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Members of the Board and special commissions may waive 
     compensation and reimbursement for travel expenses.''; and
       (4) by striking ``Atomic Energy Commission'' in section 
     15(a) (42 U.S.C. 1874(a)) and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``Secretary of Energy''.
       (b) National Science Foundation Authorization Act, 1976 
     Amendments.--Section 6(a) of the National Science Foundation 
     Authorization Act, 1976 (42 U.S.C. 1881a(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``social,'' the first place it appears.
       (c) National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988 
     Amendments.--(1) Section 117(a)(1)(B)(v) of the National 
     Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 
     1881b(1)(B)(v)) 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.''.
       (2) Section 117(a)(3)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1881b(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``Science and Engineering 
     Education'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Education and 
     Human Resources''.
       (d) Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act 
     Amendments.--The Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities 
     Act is amended--
       (1) in section 34 (42 U.S.C. 1885b)--
       (A) by amending the section heading to read as follows: 
     ``participation in science and engineering of minorities and 
     persons with disabilities''; and
       (B) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) The Foundation is authorized to undertake or support 
     programs and activities to encourage the participation of 
     persons with disabilities in the science and engineering 
     professions.''; and
       (2) in section 36 (42 U.S.C. 1885c)--
       (A) by striking ``minorities,'' and all that follows 
     through ``in scientific'' in subsection (a) and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``minorities, and persons with disabilities in 
     scientific'';
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking ``with the concurrence of the National 
     Science Board''; and
       (ii) by amending the second sentence thereof to read as 
     follows: ``In addition, the Chairman of the National Science 
     Board may designate a member of the Board as a member of the 
     Committee.'';
       (C) by striking subsections (c) and (d);
       (D) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively;
       (E) 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 women, 
     minorities, and persons with disabilities.''; and
       (F) in subsection (d), as so redesignated by subparagraph 
     (D) of this paragraph, by striking ``additional''.
       (e) Technical Amendment.--The second subsection (g) of 
     section 3 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 203. INDIRECT COSTS.

       (a) Matching Funds.--Matching funds required pursuant to 
     section 204(a)(2)(C) of the Academic Research Facilities 
     Modernization Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 1862c(a)(2)(C)) shall 
     not be considered facilities costs for purposes of 
     determining indirect cost rates.
       (b) Report.--The Director of the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy, in consultation with other relevant 
     agencies, shall prepare a report analyzing what steps would 
     be needed to--
       (1) reduce by 10 percent the proportion of Federal 
     assistance to institutions of higher education that are 
     allocated for indirect costs; and
       (2) reduce the variance among indirect cost rates of 
     different institutions of higher education, including an 
     evaluation of the relative benefits and burdens of each 
     option on institutions of higher education. Such report shall 
     be transmitted to the Congress no later than December 31, 
     1997.

     SEC. 204. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.

       Persons temporarily employed by or at the Foundation shall 
     be subject to the same financial disclosure requirements and 
     related sanctions under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 
     as are permanent employees of the Foundation in equivalent 
     positions.

     SEC. 205. EDUCATIONAL LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR ACTIVE DUTY.

       In order to be eligible to receive funds from the 
     Foundation after September 30, 1997, an institution of higher 
     education must provide that whenever any student of the 
     institution who is a member of the National Guard, or other 
     reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States, 
     is called or ordered to active duty, other than active duty 
     for training, the institution shall grant the member a 
     military leave of absence from their education. Persons on 
     military leave of absence from their institution shall be 
     entitled, upon release from military duty, to be restored to 
     the educational status they had attained prior to their being 
     ordered to military duty without loss of academic credits 
     earned, scholarships or grants awarded, or tuition and other 
     fees paid prior to the commencement of the military duty. It 
     shall be the duty of the institution to refund tuition or 
     fees paid or to credit the tuition and fees to the next 
     semester or term after the termination of the educational 
     military leave of absence at the option of the student.

     SEC. 206. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY INSTITUTE.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 822 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (42 U.S.C. 6686) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Critical Technologies Institute'' in the 
     section heading and in subsection (a), and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``Science and Technology Policy Institute'';
       (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``As determined by the 
     chairman of the committee referred to in subsection (c), 
     the'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``The'';
       (3) by striking subsection (c), and redesignating 
     subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g) as subsections (c), (d), 
     (e), and (f), respectively;
       (4) in subsection (c), as so redesignated by paragraph (3) 
     of this subsection--
       (A) by inserting ``science and'' after ``developments and 
     trends in'' in paragraph (1);
       (B) by striking ``with particular emphasis'' in paragraph 
     (1) and all that follows through the end of such paragraph 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``and developing and 
     maintaining relevant informational and analytical tools.'';
       (C) by striking ``to determine'' and all that follows 
     through ``technology policies'' in paragraph (2) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``with particular attention to the 
     scope and content of the Federal science and technology 
     research and develop portfolio as it affects interagency and 
     national issues'';
       (D) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) Initiation of studies and analysis of alternatives 
     available for ensuring the long-term strength of the United 
     States in the development and application of science and 
     technology, including appropriate roles for the Federal 
     Government, State governments, private industry, and 
     institutions of higher education in the development and 
     application of science and technology.'';
       (E) by inserting ``science and'' after ``Executive branch 
     on'' in paragraph (4)(A); and
       (F) by amending paragraph (4)(B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) to the interagency committees and panels of the 
     Federal Government concerned with science and technology.'';

[[Page H1814]]

       (5) in subsection (d), as so redesignated by paragraph (3) 
     of this subsection, by striking ``subsection (d)'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``subsection (c)''; and
       (6) by amending subsection (f), as so redesignated by 
     paragraph (3) of this subsection, to read as follows:
       ``(f) Sponsorship.--The Director of the Office of Science 
     and Technology Policy shall be the sponsor of the 
     Institute.''.
       (b) Conforming Usage.--All references in Federal law or 
     regulations to the Critical Technologies Institute shall be 
     considered to be references to the Science and Technology 
     Policy Institute.

     SEC. 207. 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. 208. 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 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 shall exclude from 
     consideration for grant agreements made by the Foundation 
     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 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 a 
     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. 209. 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 Committees on 
     Labor and Human Resources and Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate.
       (b) Notice of Reorganization.--The Director shall provide 
     notice to the Committees on Science and Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives, and the Committees on Labor and 
     Human Resources, 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 Foundation.

     SEC. 210. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM.

       With the year 2000 fast approaching, it is the sense of 
     Congress that the Foundation 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 Foundation 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 
     Foundation is unable to correct in time.

     SEC. 211. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

       The National Science Foundation is authorized to 
     participate in the National Oceanic Partnership Program 
     established by the National Oceanic Partnership Act (Public 
     Law 104-201).

     SEC. 212. 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 Director 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?


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Coburn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Coburn:
       Page 6, after line 11, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 104. UNITED STATES MAN AND THE BIOSPHERE PROGRAM 
                   LIMITATION.

       No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act shall be used 
     for the United States Man and Biosphere Program, or related 
     projects.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. What it does 
is limit the amount of money that the NSF can spend for the United 
States Man and Biosphere Program and related projects.
  It is important that the people recognize that the Biosphere Reserve 
and World Heritage sites are under the guidance of the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization also known as UNESCO. 
The United States withdrew from that Organization in 1984 because of 
gross financial mismanagement.
  Over 68 percent of our national parks, preserves, and monuments have 
been designated as United Nations World Heritage sites, Biosphere 
Reserve or both. There are currently 47 of those sites in the United 
States, covering an area the size of Colorado. Under the relative 
agreements, the United States is promising to manage lands in 
accordance with international guidelines. Many times local government, 
private properties are never consulted in these management plans. This 
is a clear violation of private property rights. The biosphere 
programs, including the United States Man and Biosphere Program, have 
never been authorized by any Congress, never been authorized, but still 
received this past year and this year will receive over $700,000 of 
taxpayers' money.
  The National Science Foundation distributed more than $400,000 in 
grants to this unauthorized program despite the fact that the program 
has never had a consideration or vote in Congress and has never been 
approved by a body of the Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to recognize that if we 
are going to balance our budget, the one thing that has to happen is 
that the Congress has to decide whether or not we are going to 
authorize programs. If we are going to authorize programs, then we 
ought to fund them. But if we are not going to authorize programs, we 
should not let other agencies do our job instead.
  The fact is, is there are over 15 different Government agencies that 
are contributing moneys for other purposes to the biosphere program. It 
is my feeling and many others that this should not happen, that it 
gives away a responsibility of Congress, that in fact being 
unauthorized, and also invades the personal property rights of those 
people who own land around these parks and reserves.
  The Committee on Science, it also should be noted that we did vote to 
take out money out of NASA that was used for this very purpose on a 
voice vote in the Committee on Science markup. All we are doing is 
extending the same guidance to the National Science Foundation as was 
given to NASA.
  It would be my request that this body consider this amendment in the 
spirit in which it is given: No. 1, in terms of fiscal responsibility 
we should not be giving moneys to unauthorized programs; No. 2, 
especially programs that violate the very spirit of freedom and control 
of personal property rights that our citizens enjoy.
  I would ask concurrence from other Members in this body on this.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of 
the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  I would just like to make a few brief points. I would like to point 
out that the NSF's contribution to the Man and Biosphere Program is 
$50,000 a year, provided through an interagency transfer to the State 
Department. NSF

[[Page H1815]]

funds pooled with other agency funds are used to support five to six 
projects at about $200,000 each. Research grants are peer reviewed and 
then approved by the executive committee of the Man and Biosphere 
Program comprised of about 15 agency officials, including a person from 
the NSF.
  I would like to also point out that all NSF moneys are used only for 
research purposes, not to acquire additional land. The issue of the 
United Nations perhaps having influence or control or authority over 
U.S. lands, private and public, is completely false. Neither the United 
Nations nor any other international body has any authority over any 
public or private U.S. lands which have received recognition as a 
biosphere reserve. Only voluntary guidelines exist for biosphere 
reserves. No international biosphere reserve treaty or biosphere 
reserve convention exists.
  In 1995, many managers from biosphere reserves around the world, 
representatives of conservation groups and scholars met in Seville, 
Spain, to set some voluntary framework for international science and 
conservation cooperation. Among those documents were the Seville 
Strategy for Biosphere Reserves and the statutory framework for the 
World Network for Biosphere Reserves. No statutory law or treaty 
exists, nor is any being contemplated or proposed for this network.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
that has been offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn]. I 
think there are two reasons why we should do this.
  First, the NSF contributes $50,000 for this program. It is a 
controversial program, it is a program that has been set up by the 
United Nations, and as the gentleman from Oklahoma has stated, it has 
never been voted on by the Congress. The question is whether or not we 
can spend $50,000 on better research than this. I think we can. There 
is the secretariat in the State Department that is supposed to 
coordinate all of this money. It seems to me that there are a lot of 
people on the payroll, there is an awful lot of traveling around. That 
is not research in my mind. What is research is the type of stuff that 
the NSF can do inhouse with peer review grants to our universities, to 
our high schools, to our research institutions in the United States of 
America.
  So it is a question of whether we want to spend the money on Man and 
the Biosphere or whether we want to spend the money on the other very 
worthwhile NSF research projects. I vote for spending the money on the 
other worthwhile NSF research projects.
  Second, the gentleman from Oklahoma raises a very good point. The 
committee did offer, or did adopt, an amendment that he offered to the 
NASA bill that prohibits NASA funds from being contributed into this 
pot. The same arguments that I gave against using NSF funds for this 
pot are valid for NASA funds. I think it was probably an oversight that 
he was not able to offer the similar amendment to the NSF bill. This 
simply corrects the oversight, makes the Congress consistent in both 
NSF and NASA, and I would urge support of the gentleman from Oklahoma's 
amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that we would not get involved in a lengthy 
debate over this amendment, and I would only like to make a few brief 
statements to amplify on some of the things that the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Barcia] has already said. I really would like to urge the 
author of this amendment to spend a little more time in becoming 
acquainted with the research purposes of this program. I think that as 
a professional who understand the importance of research, he would be 
able to understand the significance of this international network of 
preserves which maintain in a condition that can be used for study and 
research areas around the globe which have a unique ecosystem niche or 
which protect a unique ecosystem niche of one sort or another. This 
means that in these protected areas over periods of time we can observe 
the impact of what human beings are doing on a global basis to specific 
kinds of areas, particular specific environments, which may have great 
value to us over the years.
  That is the reason that we have this voluntary program and whose only 
purpose really is to establish a basis for scientific research to study 
impacts over time of what is happening. Now I honestly believe that the 
gentleman, if he would observe the program in more detail, would be 
impressed by the long-term value which this program contributes.

  Now I understand that it has become controversial. I regret that that 
has been the case. But the controversy is not in my opinion over the 
merits of the program. The controversy is over the fact that some 
people, and I mean no disrespect to these people, feel that this is a 
conspiracy or a plot by the United Nations to take over the United 
States or something of that sort. Now, if one believes in this fantasy, 
then one of course wants to strike out at anything involving the U.N., 
and this is one of those programs which is a U.N.-sponsored program 
which they might want to do.
  But as has already been mentioned, there is nothing here which 
provides the U.N. any authority whatsoever over any territory of the 
United States. These biosphere reserves are offered voluntarily as 
study sites within the framework of this U.N. program. They can 
withdraw at any time, any time. There is no loss of local, State or 
Federal control over these biospheres, no part of the law is changed in 
any way, shape or form. The amount of money involved is minuscule. The 
$50,000, for example, that may be spent by the National Science 
Foundation is so ridiculously small that it would be normally 
unobservable. The money spent, adding up as I understand it to less 
than a million dollars by other agencies, is research money either for 
the agency or by a university research group or some other group that 
wants to use these reserves to establish certain environmental research 
findings that would be useful to everybody in the world over a period 
of time.
  So I very strongly urge that this amendment be defeated, and I even 
more strongly urge that the individual who authored it, the gentleman 
for whom I have great respect, would take the time to understand the 
full implications of this program and the value that it contributes on 
a global basis to research that will benefit all of us in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would gut 
one of our most successful international environmental programs. I 
would like to briefly describe what the Man and the Biosphere Program 
does and what it does not do.
  The Man and the Biosphere Program is a coordinated research mainly 
carried out by university research grants. The objective is to study 
representative ecological systems and compare regional results with 
studies elsewhere both in the United States and worldwide. In order to 
carry out the program, study areas called biosphere reserves have been 
designated within the United States and in other participating 
countries that reflect the unique ecological systems that need to be 
examined.
  As is described by the Congressional Research Service, ``Biosphere 
Reserve recognition does not convey any control or jurisdiction over 
such sites to the United Nations or to any other entity. The United 
States and/or State and local communities where biosphere reserves are 
located continue to exercise the same jurisdiction as that in place 
before the designation.'' Thus there is no question that this is not a 
property rights issue, nor an international plot to take over U.S. 
lands.
  Yet, sadly, there remains a uniformed opinion among some that has 
transformed itself into an irrational fear over the loss of U.S. 
sovereignty. There has been a great many inaccurate and groundless 
anecdotes about this program that I am certain could be corrected given 
enough time today.
  This would not be a very wise use of our time however. I will just 
make a few general comments about this issue.
  The idea that the United Nations is taking over U.S. lands, public 
and private, is completely false. No international treaty or convention 
exists that even remotely affects U.S. sovereignty.
  The designation of a biosphere reserve does not have any effect on 
the status, use, or value of non-Federal lands. There is absolutely no 
evidence that any restrictions have been placed on any private lands in 
the vicinity of a biosphere reserve because it was a reserve. For an 
area to be nominated as a reserve, such an area must already have legal 
protection as a protected area, area of managed use, wilderness area, 
or research natural

[[Page H1816]]

area. There have been no new restrictions placed on such lands.
  Biosphere reserves will not circumvent the Constitution or infringe 
on the laws enacted by Congress. The Federal or State agencies 
responsible for biosphere protected areas are all the agencies we have 
jurisdiction over, there is no new authority conveyed by the Man and 
the Biosphere Program.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, opponents of the Man and the Biosphere Program 
have asserted that U.N. troops have had a firsthand role in 
establishing control over these biosphere reserves, U.N. roadblocks 
have been set up, that some secret international conspiracy called 
Agenda 21 exists for seizing control, and so on. These charges would be 
laughable if it were not for the tragic consequences that this type of 
paranoia has bred over the past year.
  I hope that we take a rational and moderate view toward this issue 
today and defeat this amendment. The opponents of the Man and the 
Biosphere Program simply have not met the burden of proof that it is 
part of a conspiracy or that it in any way has affected property 
rights. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman I have 
read everything available to use on this program. The people I 
represent wholeheartedly disagree with this program. Even though it 
does have benefits they still disagree, and that even though a 
ridiculously small amount like $700,000 in terms of what we spend does 
seem small, but when the average family income in the district is 
$13,000, that is a tremendous amount of money, and when we are trying 
to balance a budget and not take money from our grandchildren, $700,000 
on an unauthorized project is a tremendous amount of money.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to put my strength or my convictions 
or my words behind my colleague from Oklahoma who is watching out for 
the taxpayers' interests. As my colleagues know, sometimes we get so 
involved with the big picture that we miss some of the details, and 
when talking about the details in Washington, DC, we are talking about 
hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars that slip right on by and 
end up being spent on what most Americans would think are looney 
programs. And I have to say that I honestly believe that this biosphere 
program is one of those looney programs for which we could have better 
spending in other NSF research programs, and it would be much better to 
have this money that is being spent for what I consider also to be.
  As my colleagues know, one of the things when I came up here, and I 
will just be very honest about it, is, yes, we have a situation where 
all political people, we are all elected, and sometimes people are 
attracted to projects that have a lot of publicity and are trendy 
projects, and I hate to say this, but it appears to be from what I read 
about the biosphere program that it is a trendy project, but it does 
not make any sense to me what I read about it, and I think that there 
are other ways that we could spend taxpayers' dollars that would be 
much more beneficial, like making sure no money is spent on this sort 
of looney program. We are ensuring that those dollars will be spent on 
something a little bit more substantive.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just 
thought I would give us a rundown of where the $700,000 came from last 
year so we can all know where it came from since none of this was 
authorized and it came from several different agencies.
  The Air Force gave $50,000. That is really defense of our country. 
The Bureau of Land Management gave $20,000; the EPA gave $18,000; the 
Forest Service gave $75,000; the National Biologic Service gave 
$30,000; the National Park Service, $60,000; NASA, $50,000; NOAA, 
$50,000; the National Science Foundation, $50,000; the Peace Corps gave 
$11,000 of their budget to the Project Man and Biosphere. The State 
Department gave $240,000 of their money to the biosphere program last 
year. The State Department; I am having trouble connecting what that 
has to do with the State Department in terms of protecting that. USAID, 
which is not quite biosphere, it gave $60,000. We spent $7,000 in 
Denmark out of this money, we spent $11,000 on the European market, we 
spent $11,000 in the Mexican biosphere project, and we spent $23,000 in 
the Russian biodiversity information project.
  So I guess the question comes is if this is a legitimate project, let 
us bring it through the Congress, let us bring it through the Committee 
on Science, let us authorize it and then put the money there. Let us 
not let bureaucrats decide how we are going to fund something that we 
may think is right, and all we are asking with this amendment is that 
we not fund money for an unauthorized project, and if it has merits, 
let it stand on its own merit and go through the process that any other 
thing in this Congress is supposed to do. That means come through the 
committee process, be authorized and be voted on by both Houses of 
Congress, and get the money.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would compliment my colleague from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn]. While a short time here, he has become a 
champion of the taxpayers and watching for these little things that 
might sneak by the rest of us, and we really appreciate his diligence 
on this issue and other issues, I might add as well.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Coburn amendment would prohibit the National 
Science Foundation from distributing grants from the U.S. Man and 
Biosphere Program which is the mechanism the United Nations uses to 
study and designate biosphere reserves in the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, few Americans really realize that over the last 25 
years increasingly large amounts of Federal land have been designated 
for international land use programs such as the biosphere reserves. I 
would like to lay out some facts about this program.
  Here in the United States a total of 47 sites in the United States 
have been designated already as U.N. biosphere reserves with virtually 
no congressional oversight and no congressional hearings. The Biosphere 
Reserve Program is under the jurisdiction of the U.N. Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Organization, commonly referred to as Unesco. 
Now it is very, very important to note that the United States actually 
pulled out of Unesco in the mid-1980's because of gross financial 
mismanagement, at the urging of our President, Ronald Reagan.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition, there is no formal international agreement 
concerning biosphere reserves, and I think that is very important to 
note when we are trying to appropriate several hundred thousand 
dollars. The U.S. program operates without legislative direction and is 
not authorized by Congress. The U.S. biosphere reserves now proximate 
an area the size of the State of Colorado, the eighth largest State in 
the Nation. A biosphere reserve is a federally zoned and coordinated 
region consisting of three areas or zones that meet certain minimum 
requirements established by the United Nations. The inner or most 
protected area, the core zone, is usually Federal lands, but the outer 
two zones contain non-Federal property, and that means an encroachment, 
an imposition, of rules and regulations again into private property. By 
allowing these international land use designations, the United States 
promises to protect designated areas and regulate surrounding lands if 
necessary to protect the designated areas. Honoring these agreements 
forces the Federal Government to prohibit or limit some uses of private 
lands outside the internationally designated area unless our country 
wants to break a pledge to other nations. The Federal regulatory 
actions that result have a potential of causing a significant adverse 
impact on the value of private property and on the local and regional 
economy surrounding these areas. Also disturbing is that the 
designation of biosphere reserves rarely involves consulting the public 
and the local government. In fact, Unesco policy apparently discourages 
an open nomination process for the designation of these lands for 
biosphere reserves.

[[Page H1817]]

                              {time}  1215

  In their operational guidelines, in UNESCO's own operational 
guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, it 
states, and I quote, ``in all cases, as to maintain the objectivity of 
the evaluation process and to avoid possible embarrassment to those 
concerned. The State national party,'' they refer to the United States 
as the State, ``the State party should refrain from giving undue 
publicity to the fact that a property has been nominated inscription 
pending the final decision of the committee of the nomination in 
question.''
  Now, participation of the local people in the nomination process is 
essential to make them feel a shared responsibility with the State 
party in the maintenance of the site but should not prejudice further 
decisionmaking by the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that says it all. Last year, when the Committee 
on Resources held a hearing on this issue, our suspicions about the 
lack of local involvement were confirmed. We heard testimony from local 
officials all around the country who felt that their role in the land 
management process had been significantly diminished by these 
designations. Many of these people did not even know that their 
property and surrounding lands were even being considered for 
designation until final decisions were made.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear to me that biosphere reserve designations 
give the international community an open invitation to interfere in 
domestic land use decisions. More seriously, the underlying 
international land use agreements potentially have several significant 
adverse effects on the American system of government. The policymaking 
authority is further centralized at the Federal executive branch level, 
and the role that the ordinary citizen has in the making of this policy 
through their elected representatives is totally diminished. The 
executive branch may also invoke these agreements in an attempt to 
administratively achieve an action within the jurisdiction of the 
Congress but without consulting Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge strong support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in looking at these facts, it is particularly 
distressing that the National Science Foundation has contributed more 
than $40,000 tax dollars to this unauthorized and sovereignty 
threatening program.
  With that in mind, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support 
of this amendment, which will not only stop the expenditure of 
unauthorized Federal funds, but will also help keep the sovereignty of 
our lands where it belongs; in the people's house.
  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think there is paranoia going on here having to do 
with a fear about Unesco, the United Nations and various things; and I 
think it is completely overblown. The research has already been 
authorized, that is point No. 1, and the research that has been 
authorized does not infringe upon property rights. I think that this 
ought to be emphasized.
  The biosphere reserve designation does not convey any control or 
jurisdiction over such sites of the United Nations or to any other 
entity. The United States and/or State and local communities where 
biosphere reserves are located continue to exercise the same 
jurisdiction as that in place before the designation, and areas are 
listed only at the request of the country in which they are located. 
These areas can be removed from the biosphere reserve list at any time 
by a request from that country.
  Mr. Chairman, I am reading from a CRS report for Congress. I want to 
add to that that CRS is not known to lie to Congress. I am opposed to 
the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make one point. I 
believe it was a mistake in language, but I would like to ask the 
gentleman a question. This program has never been authorized by any 
Congress of the United States; is that the gentleman's understanding?
  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, it was before 
I got here, but I understand that we authorized the research. We did 
not designate whether the research would take place.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Brown] to please clarify that for me.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, we do have reference to the 
concept of the biosphere reserves. That is a U.N. designation. We do 
not authorize that. All of the research done within those biospheres is 
conducted with Federal money. That research is authorized, however.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. That is exactly my 
point. We have never as a body in this Congress authorized the U.S. Man 
and Biosphere project. We have, in fact, authorized moneys that then 
have been spent on it for an unauthorized program. That is exactly why 
we should support this amendment and not allow agencies to spend money 
on unauthorized projects.
  Again, I would reemphasize, if this program has good merits, it 
should come before the appropriate committees of Congress, receive its 
authorization and receive its funding. To fund it any other way is, 
first of all, inappropriate and is deceitful. Yes, there is in the far 
Western States certain paranoia about this, but why should there not be 
if we are funding it and not bringing it for authorization?
  So I would say we understand that it does not have anything to do 
with about whether we are environmentally friendly or not. The fact is 
that, if it is a legitimate program, then let us bring it before the 
committees, let us authorize it and then let us fund it.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
continue to yield, I want to indicate that there are some things that 
we should agree on. If the gentleman is willing to admit that there is 
a little paranoia out there, and I have some of it in my district, I 
can assure him, I would be willing to admit that we should authorize 
specifically our participation, even though it is a voluntary 
participation, in the U.N. Biosphere Program. There is no reason why we 
should not put that into suitable legislation, and I will commit myself 
to making an effort to do that as soon as possible.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] to prohibit 
National Science Foundation funds to be used for purposes relating to 
the U.S. Man and Biosphere Program. On behalf of many of my 
constituents in southern Missouri, I commend Mr. Coburn's efforts to 
prevent future funding for this program.
  Mr. Chairman, large portions of my district in southern Missouri have 
been designated by the Man and Biosphere Program as a proposed site. 
Fortunately, after a groundswell of opposition and strong grassroots on 
the part of property owners throughout our region, the proposed Ozark 
Highlands Man and Biosphere has been dropped. However, that is not to 
say that future proposals will not emerge that could again potentially 
pose problems for private land owners throughout my congressional 
district and the Nation.
  It is important to understand that Congress has no direct oversight, 
input, or direction over this program. It has never been authorized by 
Congress and therefore should not be funded. Just as important, the 
public and local governments are rarely consulted. This is wrong and 
should not be funded with taxpayers' dollars.
  The U.S. Man and Biosphere Program goes to the heart of a larger 
problem in this country--that is land management restrictions for both 
our Nation's public and private lands. In fact, many folks would be 
surprised to know that within the last 25 years, more and more of our 
Nation's land has become subject to international land-use 
restrictions. Right now, a total of 67 sites in the United States have 
been designated as United Nations Biosphere Reserves or World Heritage 
sites. While there is no current U.N. involvement in our domestic land 
management decisions, we should not be establishing additional forums 
that could eventually lead to international input in our own domestic 
decisions regarding this country's public and private lands.
  I want to, again, reiterate my strong support of the amendment by Mr. 
Coburn to prohibit funding for this unauthorized program and appreciate 
his efforts on behalf of private property owners throughout this 
country.

[[Page H1818]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


             amendment offered by ms. jackson-lee of texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Page 20, 
     insert after line 18 the following:

     SEC. 213. ENHANCEMENT OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS PROGRAMS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Director shall, to 
     the greatest extent practicable and using existing authority, 
     donate surplus computers and other research equipment to 
     elementary and secondary education schools to enhance their 
     science and mathematics programs. The Director shall report 
     annually to the appropriate Committees of Congress on the 
     Director's activity under this section.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Diaz-Balart). The gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as a relatively new Member of 
this body, I have been very proud of the work of the House Committee on 
Science, both under the leadership of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Brown], my ranking member, and the chairmanship of the majority.
  One of the issues that we have raised as we confront this whole story 
of the 21st century is, will we be prepared and will our children be 
prepared? With that in mind, I am very concerned that our schools in 
the Nation continue to encourage our young people to be involved 
expertly, if you will, in science and mathematics programs. There is 
not one of us who has not talked to a 5th grader, a 6th grader, a 9th 
grader, and then maybe an 11th grader or 12th grader, and we see the 
progress of change on the issues of science and math; the sparkling 
eyes of the 3rd grader and 4th grader and 5th grader and then the 
waning interest of maybe those in middle school and high school. It is 
extremely important, I believe, that we in the Government lend 
ourselves to encouraging the study of math and science.
  This amendment responds to that interest. In 1997, the number of 
children in the United States that enrolled in public schools between K 
through eighth grades are 33,226,000. The number of children enrolled 
in public schools between grades 9 and 12 are 13,299,000. The number of 
children enrolled in private schools between K to 8th grades are 
4,547,000, and the number of children between grades 9 and 12 are 
1,329,000, for a total of 51 million children. We have the 
responsibility to educate our children.
  Science has value and importance because of the beneficial 
applications of scientific finds in the overall economy. It was of 
great excitement for me to join one of my elementary schools where a 
teacher single handedly opened up a science a lab with all kinds of 
trinkets, if you will, that she had gathered from the parents of 
children, parents who are involved in the science arena who brought 
different items to her attention and she created a touch-and-see 
laboratory. Because of that, that will instill in those children the 
opportunity and the desire to be proficient in science and in math, 
helping us explore our world and space in the 21st century.
  Further, the benefits have tangible results and a better educated 
citizenry graduating from our Nation's schools, universities and 
graduate schools. Because of the work done by the National Science 
Foundation, America will be better able to compete in the global 
economy of tomorrow.
  This amendment complements the National Science Foundation by 
allowing them to donate surplus computers and other research equipment 
to elementary and secondary educational schools to enhance their 
science and mathematics programs. What better source of this kind of 
equipment than the cutting-edge agency that deals with science research 
on a continuous basis? If we are to prepare our children for the 
demands of science and mathematics in the future, they should be 
allowed to receive the benefits of federally funded programs which are 
revenue-neutral by using surplus equipment that may be of benefit to 
strengthening science and mathematics programs.
  This amendment would direct the National Science Foundation to look 
at its equipment and be able to ensure that our schools, rural and 
urban throughout the Nation, have access to this very valuable and 
current scientific equipment. Math and science are key, Mr. Chairman, 
and I believe anywhere and anyhow this Congress can help our children 
be excited about math and science and being prepared for the 21st 
century, we should engage in whatever way possible.
  Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support me in this amendment. Most 
of all, I ask them to support our children by allowing them and giving 
them encouragement to participate in science and mathematics throughout 
this Nation.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to say of the amendment which has been 
offered by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] that the 
majority is willing to accept the amendment. It is clear that we need 
in our elementary and secondary educational schools greater computing 
ability as well as a better means of instructing students in the use of 
computers, and to the extent that we can assist in the Federal 
Government with surplus computers and other research equipment, it is a 
great step forward.
  My only comment is that this action should also extend to higher 
education because they can also make particularly good use of surplus 
research equipment and, to a certain extent, computers.
  My hope is that we will donate good equipment and not junk equipment. 
And I think the schools may have to be a bit discriminating as to what 
they accept, because they may accept greater maintenance liabilities 
than they think if they are not careful. But there is certainly a noble 
intent behind the amendment. I am pleased on behalf of the majority to 
say that we appreciate it and are willing to accept it.

                              {time}  1230

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as one of the individuals on 
the committee, being a scientist that I admire along with the other 
scientists that are there, let me thank the gentleman for that.
  Let me say that I look forward to having the opportunity in the 
future to work on institutions of higher learning. One of the aspects 
of this amendment is that we ask the agency to report back to the 
committee. In that, I hope that we can be assured that no junk has been 
given, and work with the agency to ensure that that would not happen.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
   Mr. Chairman, I do this not to belabor the amendment, which 
obviously on both sides we agree to. I would like to just indicate how 
important I think it is. It moves us a long way forward in making sure 
that all of our schools do have access to the kind of equipment that 
will help them to cross this bridge into the 21st century.
   Mr. Chairman, I specifically want to pay tribute to the gentlewoman 
from Texas, who, despite the fact that she is not a scientist, is 
taking the leadership role in this whole area of adequate 
communication, networks, advanced computing equipment, and other things 
that are so important to education in today's world.
  It is remarkable that someone who does not claim to be a scientist 
and have a background in the information revolution should be as 
assiduous as she has been in making sure that at every opportunity we 
make some contribution to enhancing our progress in this vital area. I 
want to commend the gentlewoman for that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
  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.

[[Page H1819]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Petri) having assumed the chair, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Chairman pro tempore 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that the Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1273) 
to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for the 
National Science Foundation, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 126, 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.
  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? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment 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.

                          ____________________