[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 59 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4662-S4664]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM

  Mr. ENZI. I would like to raise an issue that has been brought to my 
attention since the Labor Committee reported this bill in October. It 
relates to the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program and I 
want to

[[Page S4663]]

highlight the fact that recent NSF decisions may have a negative effect 
on this very successful program. I have worked closely on small 
business issues with my friend from Montana, Senator Conrad Burns, who 
also serves on the Small Business Committee with me. It is not my 
intention to hold up this legislation by offering an amendment at this 
time, but I want the Chairman, Senator Jeffords, to know that it is a 
very important issue for me. I would like to yield to Senator Burns for 
a minute and ask him to describe the situation.
  Mr. BURNS. On August 8, 1997, Ms. Linda G. Sundro, Inspector General 
for the National Science Foundation (NSF) recommended that NSF reduce 
their SBIR set-aside by approximately $2.5 million by excluding certain 
education and training costs, as well as program support overhead costs 
from their total extramural R&D budget. Although funded by the Congress 
as part of their overall R&D budget, the Inspector General concluded 
that these costs could be excluded because they do not fit the 
statutory definition of R&D as set forth in the Small Business Research 
and Development Enhancement Act of 1992, (Public Law No. 102.564, 15 
U.S.C. Part 638(e)(5)).
  The Inspector General's recommendation does not take into 
consideration the guidance provided by the Congress in determining the 
calculation. The legislation requires each agency ``which has an 
extramural budget for research or research and development'' (15 U.S.C. 
Part 638(f)(1)) to set-aside a percentage for the SBIR program. The 
legislation clearly defines extramural budget as ``the sum of the total 
obligations minus amounts obligated for such activities by employees of 
the agency in or through Government-owned, Government-operated 
facilities * * *'' (15 U.S.C. Part 638 (e)(1)). Under existing law, the 
only exclusion from the calculation is for funds dedicated to 
intramural R&D efforts.
  In its April 17, 1998 report on the SBIR program, the General 
Accounting Office identified the calculation of the extramural budget 
as an issue for the SBIR program. Their analysis found that each 
participating agency was utilizing different methodologies in the 
calculation. The GAO recommended that the SBA issue guidance to the 
participating agencies to ensure consistency across the program. The 
SBA agreed with this recommendation.
  Accordingly, I believe the NSF Inspector General's recommendation is 
inconsistent with the current law and would ask that the Director of 
the National Science Foundation hold the recommendation in abeyance 
until such time as the SBA issues guidance to the participating SBIR 
agencies.
  Mr. ENZI. Would the Senator yield for a question? This is clearly a 
very important issue for members of the Small Business Committee. Would 
the Senator agree that NSF's coordination with SBA is critical to 
ensuring a strong SBIR program?
  Mr. BURNS. I believe the NSF and all agencies participating in the 
SBIR program should coordinate with the SBA in determining their 
extramural research budgets. This is what the GAO recommend.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator from Montana and I thank you, Senator 
Jeffords, for considering this important issue.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues 
to support passage of S. 1046, the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 1998. University research continues to be a great 
American success story, and NSF can be proud of its role in helping to 
create and sustain this great research enterprise. We continue to ask 
much of NSF and our universities because we know what this system has 
contributed to the Nation in the past, and we know that greater 
contributions await us in the future.
  Mr. President, by themselves, universities cannot solve our national 
problems such as technological competitiveness, the environment, and 
social issues like crime, poverty, and education. However, the research 
and trained young people provided by our universities will continue to 
play a major role in addressing these pressing issues. S. 1046 
authorizes the continuation of the vital programs of NSF that support 
these efforts, including EPSCoR which has helped strengthen science and 
technology in many of our smaller states.
  I would like to take a moment and thank Senator McCain, Senator 
Kennedy, and Senator Jeffords for their efforts in getting this bill 
passed. The managers' amendment before the Senate today reflects 
agreement by the Commerce Committee and the Labor Committee on many 
issues relating to NSF's programs and funding. The two committees 
worked well together within the guidelines set forth in the standing 
order of March 3, 1988. Because of this bipartisan effort to address 
issues that are within the jurisdiction of the two committees, this is 
a good bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the National 
Science Foundation (NSF) authorization bill, which is before us today. 
Prior to this Congress, when I became chairman of the Communications 
Subcommittee, I served as chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, 
Technology and Space, which has jurisdiction over the authorizations 
for the NSF. I conducted several hearings on NSF during that time. I am 
also a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA-HUD 
Independent Agencies, which funds the NSF. As a result, I have had the 
opportunity to get to know this agency and its program as well.
  I will have to tell you that when I came to the U.S. Senate, I did 
not expect to become a champion for the National Science Foundation and 
for scientific research, education and technology. But, I quickly 
became a strong supporter.
  I have seen what this agency can do, and its importance to the people 
in our states. NSF is about seeking new scientific knowledge and using 
that knowledge. It is about helping the researchers and teachers in our 
colleges and universities and helping them to make certain that their 
students receive a good education, with scientific, mathematical, 
engineering and technological opportunities. It is about offering 
better training and materials for our K-12 teachers. And, it is about 
developing infrastructure, such as advanced telecommunication and 
computing opportunities. Such infrastructure is particularly important 
for rural states, such as Montana.
  NSF has funded research which led to Montana State University's Jack 
Horner's now famous work on dinosaurs. It has helped us start new 
program in computational biology. It has funded an Engineering Research 
Center, which has undertaken cutting edge research in networking 
connection and supported other networking and telecommunications 
programs. There is interest in new research opportunities on life in 
extreme environments, which could include the Yellowstone area, and in 
the plant genome initiative.
  I also want to say a few words about a program that is of particular 
importance to my state--the Experimental Program to Stimulate 
Competitive Research (EPSCoR). EPSCoR was created to assist states such 
as Montana become more competitive in the federal R&D arena. 
Unfortunately, federal R&D funds are highly concentrated in a few 
universities in a few states. That is not justifiable. Today's global 
economy requires that all parts of our nation share in scientific and 
technology development if we are to keep our entire nation and its 
industries and workforce competitive. Today, we know that scientific 
and technological problems and issues in one area of the country are 
likely to affect people in other areas. And, we know that we cannot 
have a healthy national science and technology system unless there is 
widespread support throughout our country for it.
  The EPSCoR program is the base for much of our rural states' 
scientific and technological activities. It helps Montana and 17 other 
states develop infrastructure. It helps us develop new programs and 
take advantage of special opportunities. It has recently been assisting 
our states on participating more fully in other NSF programs. And, it 
was instrumental in ensuring that the EPSCoR states participate in the 
vBNS connections program and the Next Generation Internet initiative. I 
believe in the EPSCoR program, and would like to see the program 
expanded

[[Page S4664]]

in terms of financial assistance, especially when NSF funding overall 
is increasing and also since the co-founding, which is scheduled to 
increase in this budget year, should be matched by a similar increase 
in the base EPSCoR program.
  I know that the report prepared last fall by the Senate Labor and 
Human Resources Committee endorsed by EPSCoR program, and we on the 
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee are equally 
supportive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, S. 1046 is deemed 
read a third time, the Labor Committee is discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 1273 and the Senate will now proceed to its 
consideration. Under the previous order, all after the enacting clause 
is stricken, the text of S. 1046, as amended, is inserted in lieu 
thereof, and the bill is deemed read a third time.
  The bill (H.R. 1273), as amended, was deemed read a third time.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill pass? On this 
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call 
the role.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 127 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inhofe
       
  The bill (H.R. 1273), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the bill was passed, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak 
as in morning business for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________