[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 72 (Wednesday, June 5, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3182-H3203]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               INVESTING IN AMERICA'S FUTURE ACT OF 2002

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 432 and ask for its immediate consideration.

                              {time}  1315

  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page H3183]]

                              H. Res. 432

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4664) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     years 2003, 2004, and 2005 for the National Science 
     Foundation, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Science. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Science now printed in the bill. Each section of 
     the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
     be considered as read. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 432 is a fair, open rule 
providing for consideration of H.R. 4664, the Investing of America's 
Future Act. The purpose of this legislation is to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2003, 2004 and 2005 for the National 
Science Foundation.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Science. The rule waives all points of order against consideration 
of the bill.
  Additionally, the rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Science now printed in the 
bill be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, 
and provides that the bill shall be considered for amendment by 
section. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole has the authority 
to accord priority in recognition of Members who have preprinted their 
amendments in the Congressional Record.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  As an independent Federal agency, the National Science Foundation's 
mission is to support science and engineering among all disciplines. 
Currently, the NSF funds research and education activities at more than 
2,000 universities, colleges, schools, businesses and other research 
institutions throughout the United States.
  Federal investment in educating America's youth in the foundation 
areas of math, science and technology is the only way to maintain our 
competitive edge in a global economy and to create economic prosperity 
here at home. The ever changing world of science demands that the 
research behind it keep pace with the times.
  This legislation will provide a 15 percent annual increase for NSF 
through fiscal year 2005, providing critical financial support that 
will ensure our Nation's continued advancement in science, education 
and research. Much like this Republican-led Congress has kept its 
commitment to double funding for the National Institutes of Health, 
this legislation will initiate a plan to double NSF moneys over a 5-
year period.
  This kind of increase is consistent with President Bush's focus on 
education improvements, such as the Math and Science Partnership Act 
and the Undergraduate Math and Science Education Improvement Act. This 
increase will also supply dollars for the countless major research 
equipment projects that have been approved but simply await funding.
  Technology, science and research are powerful components in our 
development of society. Continually advancing science and research will 
discover new cures for diseases, improve our quality of life and create 
jobs and economic growth across America. As someone who hails from a 
State and region that has fully embraced the value and potential this 
type of scientific research offers, I can attest to how important this 
investment is to our future.
  NSF-funded projects often bring national and even international 
attention to towns and cities across America, and sustained research 
efforts and collaborations have meant growth and new employment 
opportunities in those areas. This ripple effect energizes communities 
and attracts young Americans to fields and job markets like science and 
engineering, areas that are key to making American industry more 
competitive across the globe.
  The long-time president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
physicist Karl Taylor Compton, once said, ``Modern science has 
developed to give mankind a way of securing a more abundant life.'' 
Through this important investment in science, technology and research, 
this Congress can help ensure for the American people and communities 
across our Nation a more abundant life.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this fair and open rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me 
the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and open rule for a noncontroversial 
bill. H.R. 4664, Investing in America's Future Act, will reauthorize 
the National Science Foundation, including an increase in funding for 
the NSF by 15 percent for each of the next three fiscal years. This 
increase will result in the doubling of the NSF budget over the next 5 
years.
  NSF is a critical institution whose mission is to promote the 
progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity and 
welfare; and to secure the national defense.
  In doing so, NSF has worked with and funded research institutions all 
across the country. For example, NSF has granted over $311 million to 
Massachusetts last year, including $3.3 million to the Worcester 
Polytechnic Institute, and $1.9 million to the University of 
Massachusetts at Dartmouth to fund very, very important projects that 
are vital to our national security and our national defense.
  This reauthorization bill was unanimously referred to the House by 
the Committee on Science. The funding level called for in this 
legislation is above the President's request, and it addresses the 
growing imbalance between Federal support of biomedical research and 
physical sciences research. It also helps to ensure that America's 
present and future scientists and engineers are globally competitive.
  The 21st century holds a great deal of promise, but there are also 
serious challenges ahead. Fortunately, the United States has some of 
the finest researchers and research institutions in the world. We must 
ensure that the scientific community in this country has the resources 
they need to meet our challenges.
  The bill before us today I think is an important step in that effort. 
Mr. Speaker, I commend the members of the Committee on Science for 
their bipartisan work on this important bill. I ask Members to support 
this open rule and to support the Investing in America's Future Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith), the sponsor of this important legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, this legislation 
is

[[Page H3184]]

named the Investing in America's Future Act because that is really what 
it is. Basic research is what is needed to develop new ideas for 
products that the world demands. It is how we develop ways to increase 
the efficiency and productivity in the way we produce those certain 
products. Basic research, which NSF has done such a tremendous job in 
its peer review, is really key to not only our economic security but 
our national security. Smart weapon technology come from basic 
research.
  Let me for just a moment quote a previous statement from NIH, the 
National Institutes of Health. They said if you do not do more 
research, basic research coming from NSF, we are going to have to set 
up our own division for basic research in NIH. Adequate basic research 
is key to our health, key to our economy, key to our national security.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  In preparation for the discussion of the bill itself, I would just 
like to offer some general comments about the nature of basic research 
and the importance of funding basic research because that often raises 
questions in the mind of the public and, consequently, questions in the 
minds of the Congress.
  Basic research is that research which is done to understand the basic 
underpinnings of science, the basic underpinnings of the nature of our 
universe and how it operates. It is very broadly based. It is not 
specifically directed toward any particular problem in society and 
sometimes not even toward a problem in the sciences. It is an effort to 
really learn more about the universe and how it and all its composite 
parts work.
  That makes it very difficult to defend in the political process, but 
let me simply point out to my colleagues some of the results of basic 
research that we take for granted today.
  In the 1930s, there was some research done on a very esoteric topic 
called stimulated coherent emission of radiation. This was theoretical 
work. It was very low cost work. The National Science Foundation did 
not exist. It was done by a professor and a few others working 
together, and they deduced that it was possible to have stimulated 
emission of light where one would have one photon, one particle of 
light, hitting an atom in an excited state, and one would have another 
photon come out that was exactly like the one that came in, and yet the 
one that came in would be unaffected. So one obtains double the amount 
of light and the light was coherent; that is, the wavelengths matched 
and the light was in phase.
  This was essentially an unremarkable result in 1930 because no one 
had yet imagined a way in which it could be done, but after World War 
II, during which we learned a lot about more advanced physics, and 
researchers began investigating this with microwave radiation and 
discovered, in fact, it did work; this work was done by Charles Townes, 
a good friend of mine, a good physicist, who is now at Berkeley. He 
discovered that he could direct a microwave photon at an excited atom 
and get two microwave photons out that were coherent, traveling in 
exactly the same direction, in phase, and with identical frequencies.
  He immediately recognized that this could also lead to light 
amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, and so the laser was 
developed about 1960, or in that time frame. It was a laboratory 
curiosity.
  I remember the first time I saw a laser and played with it. It was 
almost a toy, and we had fun with it. What an amazing thing, that one 
could amplify light! And yet everyone today is familiar with lasers; 
They have become ubiquitous. We use them for everything from lining up 
sewers to making certain that the tiles in the ceiling of a building 
are level, to conducting surgery of various types, on to many other 
uses, cutting metals and cutting cloth. Most likely the dresses and 
suits that are being worn here today were cut by laser initially before 
they were sewn together. All of this is based on the initial research 
work done in 1930.
  Let me take another example, nuclear magnetic resonance, an esoteric 
bit of research which occurred while I was in graduate school. Who 
really cared about the nuclear spins and magnetic moments of hydrogen 
nuclei? Yet that nuclear magnetic resonance work which forms the basis 
for what we today call magnetic resonance imaging, a fantastic medical 
advance. diagnostic tool, the MRI, which look inside our bodies and 
tell us whether we have cancer, or a torn muscle, or something else. 
Similarly, the CT scan came out of research in high-energy elementary 
particle physics, an esoteric topic as far removed from everyday life 
as we can imagine.

                              {time}  1330

  The question is, so what? The point is simply that during the past 
decade the marvelous economic expansion we enjoyed was, according to 
Alan Greenspan and other experts, almost entirely based on the basic 
research that we funded some 30 to 50 years ago. If we want to continue 
to enjoy economic growth and expansion, if we want to continue to lead 
the world, we have to also continue leading the world in basic 
research.
  That is what this bill is all about, continuing to lead the world in 
basic research so that our children and grandchildren are going to have 
the same economic advantages that we enjoy today, just as our parents 
and our grandparents invested in basic research so that we could enjoy 
the fruits of that today. That is what this bill is about.
  That is why the Congress must pass this bill so that we adequately 
fund basic research and continue the economic base and growth that we 
enjoy today, and so that we can continue to expand our basic 
understanding of the universe and all it contains, and learn about the 
scientific processes that constantly occur.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. And this is the first time I have had him yield to me in his 
capacity as a member of the Committee on Rules. We are all very proud 
of that accomplishment for him and thank him for his great leadership 
there and on this bill, which is a very important one.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the 
legislation, and I commend the Committee on Science for their excellent 
work on this reauthorization for the National Science Foundation 
funding. For a long time, our colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), has sponsored a bill and given us all the 
opportunity to register our support for drastically increasing the 
funding of the National Science Foundation. I am so pleased now that 
the Committee on Science has taken up that leadership, and the 
considerable leadership of the chairman, et cetera, of the committee to 
make this a possibility; that we would be on a path to doubling the 
National Science Foundation budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I serve as a member of the House Subcommittee on Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on 
Appropriations. A number of years ago, we set off on this path to 
double the funding for the National Institutes of Health. We are in our 
last year of that doubling effort. It was very important to the health 
of the American people. So, too, is the doubling of the National 
Science Foundation. Not only do we have to do this, but we should do 
more.
  We had the Tech Talent Act, which encourages young people and mentors 
them in studying math and science so that we have the seed corn for us 
to have the scientists who will maintain and improve and enhance our 
technological base, and as well, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers) said, our economic base as well.
  Our progress in the National Institutes of Health, the Human Genome 
Project and other progress, really springs from the improved 
instrumentation that came from the technology side of it, the hard 
sciences, physical sciences side of it, the nonbiomedical science. So 
we all benefit across the board in terms of biomedical research, which 
is so important to the American people; the economic success, which is 
so important to our country; and also the fulfillment of the young 
people who have the talent and should be encouraged to study math and 
science and become scientists.

[[Page H3185]]

  So I am absolutely delighted today that in this bipartisan way we can 
come to the floor. I commend the distinguished chairman of the 
committee and the subcommittee, as well as the Members on both sides of 
the aisle, for making this a reality for the Congress to take this vote 
and make it a reality for our country; and I will do everything in my 
power working with them to ensure that this can be translated not only 
into an authorization but an appropriation as well.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today in support of the rule and as a cosponsor and 
strong supporter of H.R. 4664, the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act, or Investing in America's Future Act.
  I want to commend the members of the Committee on Rules for this open 
rule, and the chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert); and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hall) of the Committee on Science; as well as the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Research, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith); and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson), for expeditiously ushering this bill through that 
committee and to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, a distinguished committee, chaired by Senators Gary Hart 
and Warren Rudman, released a report on national security at the 
beginning of 2001. While it did not receive a lot of public attention 
at the time, the Hart-Rudman report has been revisited often since 
September 11. One aspect of the report with particular relevance to the 
bill we are considering today is its finding and recommendation on the 
importance of basic research. According to the Hart-Rudman report on 
national security, and I quote, ``The U.S. Government has seriously 
underfunded basic scientific research in recent years. The quality of 
the U.S. education system, too, has fallen well behind those of scores 
of other nations. The inadequacies of our systems of research and 
education pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next 
quarter century than any potential conventional war that we might 
imagine.''
  The report goes on to recommend doubling the Federal Government's 
investment in science and technology research and development by 2010. 
Mr. Speaker, the bill we pass today takes an important step in the 
right direction.
  In addition to supporting basic research at colleges and universities 
nationwide, the NSF works to ensure that American teachers and 
professors have the skills, training, and equipment to prepare future 
scientists and researchers. This is critical as science and technology 
become increasingly important to our economy, our health, our 
environment, and our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and this bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
say that this is a good rule. It is an open rule. It is nice to have an 
open rule. More importantly, this is a good bill and deserves the 
support of all our colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Since the dawn of man, the human race has been ingrained with a 
fascination and need to slip beyond its boundaries and explore the 
unknown. From across the continents to the depths of the ocean and to 
the far reaches of space, that pioneer spirit continues to this day.
  The National Science Foundation embraces that spirit with its record 
of excellence in research, education, technological advancement, and 
discovery. They make possible the pioneer spirit within us all.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supplying the necessary tools to 
the National Science Foundation so they can continue along the path of 
important contributions to America and to mankind. Their programs are 
an important demonstration of how efficient government investment can 
return great dividends to society. There is no better time to invest in 
America's future.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Pursuant to House Resolution 
432 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 4664.

                              {time}  1339


                     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. 4664) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2003, 2004, 
and 2005 for the National Science Foundation, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Isakson 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 New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to bring to the floor today 
H.R. 4664, the Invest in America's Future Act, which was approved 
unanimously by the Committee on Science. This landmark bill would put 
the National Science Foundation on a track to double its budget over 
the next 5 years, while, at the same time, imposing strict new 
management requirements to ensure that the National Science Foundation 
continues to spend our money wisely.
  This Congress has already demonstrated its faith in and reliance on 
the National Science Foundation several times in recent months, and I 
hope and expect that we will continue to do so today. Earlier this 
year, by the overwhelming margin of 400 to 12, we passed a 
cybersecurity bill that relied on NSF to fund the research needed to 
protect our Nation's computer systems and networks. At this time last 
year, we passed by voice vote a bill to initiate the President's math 
and science education partnerships, a program that NSF is now beginning 
to carry out; and we have passed appropriation bills that have included 
generous, if still insufficient, increases for the National Science 
Foundation.
  So the 107th Congress is already on record as acknowledging the vital 
role played by NSF in both research and education, and we have already 
recognized the Foundation's need for additional funds. Today, we take 
the next logical step.
  The scale of NSF's budget today is simply not commensurate with the 
breadth and importance of its mission. Congress reached that same 
conclusion about the National Institutes of Health, and we have 
followed through by doubling that research agency's budget. But health 
research is not the only kind of research on which our Nation depends. 
And, indeed, even health research itself depends on advances outside of 
biomedicine, the kinds of advances that produce new research tools and 
new understandings of chemistry and physics.
  So it is time to give NSF, a much smaller agency than NIH, a budget 
commensurate with its mission. When we look at the new fields of 
science and engineering that will boost our economy in this new 
century, fields like nanotechnology, where do we turn to ensure that 
our Nation's researchers stay at the cutting edge? The National Science 
Foundation. When we look at the field of information technology, which 
facilitates every activity in today's economy, where do we turn to 
ensure that the U.S. remains at the cutting edge? NSF. When we consider 
our even more urgent need for a highly skilled technologically-literate 
workforce, where do we turn to ensure that our education system, from 
kindergarten through postgraduate work, is preparing the people we 
need? You

[[Page H3186]]

guessed it, the National Science Foundation.
  We turn to the National Science Foundation to solve some of our most 
pressing problems. We cannot turn from NSF when we decide where to 
invest Federal funds. It is time to give NSF the money it needs.
  But do not take my word for it. Do not even take the word of all the 
university and research groups that have endorsed this bill. They are 
the obvious beneficiaries. Instead, listen to the major industrial 
entities that are backing this bill, groups like the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the Semiconductor Industry Association, 
and Technet. They understand that federally funded basic research, 
research which industry has little incentive to fund, is needed to keep 
the American economy humming.
  But some may still wonder, despite the support for raising NSF's 
budget, whether the agency can handle such a significant increase. I 
would argue that there is no agency better placed to handle it. NSF is 
a lean agency that spends little of its budget on administration. It is 
the only agency in the entire Federal Government that received a green 
light rating from the Office of Management and Budget for the quality 
of its operations. It is repeatedly cited as a model of how Federal 
agencies should be run.
  But despite NSF's stellar record, this bill will not allow the agency 
to rest on its laurels. The bill imposes several new management 
requirements to ensure that Federal taxpayer dollars are wisely spent.

                              {time}  1345

  There is a new report NSF must submit to Congress explaining how it 
decided to allocate its funding. There is a new requirement to ensure 
that the public has greater access to National Science Board meetings. 
There is a new joint NSF-NASA advisory committee on astronomy research.
  Most importantly, there is a new process to prioritize major 
equipment projects and to manage them more consistently. Right now, 
there is no way for anyone outside the foundation to understand how 
these large projects, like new telescopes and research stations, are 
selected or ranked.
  Under our bill, the director and the board will have to agree on a 
list of projects in priority order that will be submitted to the 
Congress. Actual budget proposals may still have to depart from that 
order, but at least we will all be starting with the same information 
in evaluating such budget proposals.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible bill, it is a needed bill, it is 
a bill that has garnered widespread support in committee and outside 
this Chamber, and it deserves support from all of us today. In passing 
this bill, we do nothing more, and nothing less, than reaffirm some 
basic principles: That being the world leader in research is important 
to our Nation's health, defense, and economic well-being; that 
improving science and math education is critically important; that a 
great Nation should not skimp on its investments to improve human 
understanding of natural phenomena.
  It is through NSF that we turn those principles into actions. To 
paraphrase Daniel Webster, it is a small agency, but there are those of 
us who love it. I urge support for this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Investing in America's Future Act 
of 2002, H.R. 4664, a 3-year reauthorization bill for the National 
Science Foundation.
  The bill represents a bipartisan effort by the Committee on Science 
to provide the level of resources necessary to sustain the important 
work of the National Science Foundation in science and engineering 
research and education.
  I want to congratulate the chairman of the Subcommittee on Research, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the ranking Democratic member, 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for their 
efforts to craft this bill. I also thank the chairman of the Committee 
on Science, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for his 
leadership in working closely with this side of the aisle in developing 
the bill.
  NSF is our premier agency for support of basic research at academic 
institutions in the physical sciences and the nonmedical biological 
sciences, in mathematics, and in engineering. Basic research 
discoveries launch new industries that bring returns to the economy far 
exceeding the original public investment.
  The Internet, which emerged from the research projects funding by DOD 
and NSF, strikingly illustrates the payoff potential of such research 
expenditures. In fact, over the past 50 years, half of U.S. economic 
productivity can be attributed to the technological innovation and the 
science that has supported it.
  Unfortunately, the simple truth is that during the 1990s we 
underinvested in the fields that NSF supports.
  A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences provides 
specific examples that make this case. The report shows that between 
1993 and 1999 Federal research support at academic institutions fell by 
14 percent in mathematics, by 7 percent in physics, by 2 percent in 
chemistry, and by 12 percent in electrical engineering.
  Inadequate funding for basic research in such important fields 
imposes a price on society, because new ideas are lost that would 
otherwise underpin future technological advances.
  Of even more importance, anemic funding of academic science and 
engineering research reduces the numbers of new young scientists and 
engineers who constitute the essential element necessary to ensure the 
Nation's future economic strength and security.
  H.R. 4664 authorizes funding growth for NSF of 15 percent per year 
for 3 years, bringing the total authorization level to $7.3 billion by 
the third year. This follows a funding path to double NSF's budget over 
5 years, as was proposed by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson) in the NSF authorization bill she introduced, and I 
cosponsored, last year.
  We were not alone in calling for substantial funding increases. Such 
prominent figures as Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, former House 
Speaker Gingrich, and former presidential science advisor Allan Bromley 
have pointed out the importance of increasing support for basic 
research in science and engineering.
  The coalition for National Science Funding, a group of 80 scientific, 
engineering, and professional societies, universities, and 
corporations, specifically called for providing a 15 percent funding 
increase for the NSF this year as the next step in doubling the NSF 
budget.
  The funding growth proposed by H.R. 4664 will enable the foundation 
to expand its investment in cutting-edge research initiatives and shore 
up its core research programs.
  Equally important, the bill will increase efforts to improve the 
skills of K-12 science and math teachers, develop better science and 
math curricular materials, and attract more women and minorities to 
careers in science and engineering.
  H.R. 4664 is an important bill that will help ensure the Nation 
maintains a vigorous basic research enterprise, which is an essential 
component for a strong economy for our national security.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend this measure to my colleagues and ask for 
their support and its passage in the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time 
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) to control the time 
for the remainder of the debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation to 
increase the National Science Foundation budget by 15 percent for next 
year. This bill will put us on the path to double the NSF budget over 
the next 5 years.
  Science inspires us to conquer the unknown, invent what does not 
exist, and improve what already exists. It all begins with research.
  President Bush's budget proposal recognized the importance of science 
funding with a 9 percent increase in science and technology spending. 
That is the

[[Page H3187]]

good news. But among the various science agencies, the increases in 
amounts varied greatly.
  The National Institutes of Health, NIH, received the lion's share of 
funding under the administration's proposal. The NIH budget has 
increased to a point where it is now larger than the rest of the 
budgets of the science agencies put together, and the proposed increase 
alone in NIH funding is larger than the research budget of the National 
Science Foundation.
  Biomedical research is important and the NIH should receive adequate 
funding. The administration's proposed budget rightly recognized the 
importance of our physical health. But, Mr. Chairman, our citizens' 
economic health is just as important as their physical health.
  The NSF funds the cutting edge research that allows the U.S. to 
dominate the high technology field. Our commitment to the funding in 
the bill ensures that our technological preeminence will continue. 
Scientific research at the NSF has greatly enhanced our lives and has 
advanced science and technology. Consider the benefits of better 
weather forecasting, the saved lives that result from MRIs, the promise 
of faster semiconductors, and breakthroughs in nanotechnology that will 
drive our scientific efforts in the new century.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4664 improves the quality of math and science 
education with $200 million in funding for the Math and Science 
Partnerships Initiative, which encourages more students to enter 
graduate level science studies.
  In our technology-driven economy, math and science skills are 
essential. If we want to prepare the next generation with the skills 
they need for success, we must increase their knowledge of science. 
Either we continue to invest in the sciences, or risk losing the 
ability to lead the world in research. This legislation recognizes the 
priority of research and development, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to 
commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hall), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) for allowing me to share this time, and for 
their leadership and imagination in bringing H.R. 4664, the Investing 
in America's Future Act of 2002 before us today for our consideration.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important piece of 
legislation. I have long been a passionate advocate for the National 
Science Foundation and the work they oversee. This work begins the 
laudable goal of doubling NSF's budget over the next 5 years.
  Competition for NSF grant funding is very intense. Every year NSF 
receives about 30,000 proposals for research in education projects. Of 
these, about one-third only are funded. These grants usually go to 
colleges, universities, academic consortia, nonprofit institutions, and 
small businesses. The NSF also supports collaborative projects between 
universities and industry, as well as U.S. participation in 
international cooperative research and education efforts.
  By increasing the amount of money available for grants, the NSF will 
be able to greatly enhance opportunities for scientific inquiry, and 
will generate invaluable progress in a wide range of fields. The 
resulting discoveries will help drive economic growth and enhance the 
quality of life for all Americans.
  NSF is the second largest source of federal funds for academic 
research. Students of mathematics, science, the environment and 
engineering will be better able to compete in the global marketplace 
because the investments made by NSF will generate exciting 
opportunities to enhance their studies.
  I believe our Nation is well served by increasing the resources 
available for NSF. For these and many other reasons, I am proud to 
support this bill and I know this measure will pass the House today 
with overwhelming bipartisan support. This day will mark a day when we 
make the future of this country immeasurably brighter and bigger 
because investing in science is always a good investment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the angel of NIST.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the guardian of the Committee on 
Science for yielding the time to me.
  It is with great pleasure that I rise as a very proud cosponsor to 
speak on behalf of H.R. 4664, the National Science Foundation 
Reauthorization Act. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the ranking members for 
their leadership on this issue. This committee has had a congenial 
disposition; but the bipartisan nature under which we have operated to 
produce this bill is a true tribute to the leadership and consensus-
building skills on both sides of the aisle. I hope we can continue to 
work together to produce this kind of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, 5 years ago we made a historic pledge to double the 
budget of the National Institutes of Health. It took a lot of hard work 
to get the initial commitment, and even more to see it through. Despite 
a war on terrorism and an economic downturn, Congress and the 
administration kept its word and fulfilled that promise. The NIH is 
funding twice the work it did a mere 5 years ago. That is a tremendous 
accomplishment. In the 21st century, revolutions in our understanding 
of biology will rival those of physics in the 20th, and work sponsored 
by the NIH must continue to be a priority.
  However, their initiatives cannot and must not be pursued 
exclusively. Science has become intricately interconnected; discoveries 
in one drive innovations in others. Without adequate research into the 
underlying fields of physics and chemistry, advancements in biology and 
medicine will stall. If we expect the myriad achievements of recent 
years to continue, we must support the underpinning science and 
engineering more robustly. As such, I believe we need a more balanced 
portfolio and need to champion the traditional areas of research, as 
well as the exciting new projects that have generated so many headlines 
of late.

                              {time}  1400

  In addition, we must do a better job of training the next generation 
of scientists and engineers. Fewer and fewer Americans are undertaking 
technical careers, accepting the torch from elder scientists and 
building on the accomplishments of generations past. We have made up 
for this shortfall largely by relying on foreign students and post-docs 
to fill the ever widening void. This is a poor long-term solution, and 
we must find ways to arrest the decline of American scientists.
  The National Science Foundation is uniquely positioned to accomplish 
both of these goals. As the premier supporter of the overall scientific 
enterprise, the NSF has the exclusive ability to balance research and 
education dollars. They already reach across the entire scientific 
spectrum, touching all of the major disciplines, and can ensure 
underfunded areas of science and technology receive adequate support.
  They are also the primary Federal agency when it comes to science 
education. They more than anyone else are responsible for supporting 
new scientists in all of the physical disciplines, and they are 
prepared to target traditionally underrepresented groups to fill the 
gaps.
  I myself had the opportunity to work with NSF on the Congressional 
Commission on the Advancement of Women, Minorities and Persons with 
Disability in terms of recognizing the important contribution that they 
can make to the development of our next generation of scientists and 
engineers. As our society becomes more and more technologically 
focused, we must ensure that our educational system is training our 
youth to meet the rigorous demands of the future. The NSF has a vital 
role to play. I know that they are up to the task.
  What is more, the NSF has consistently scored at the top of all 
government agencies when it comes to efficient and effective use of 
resources. The GAO routinely gives them favorable evaluations. They are 
one of only a few agencies to successfully comply with GPRA 
requirements. They have all the tools, and they know how to use

[[Page H3188]]

them. All they need are the resources. With this bill, they will have 
them.
  I have been a consistent advocate of an increased science portfolio. 
This is the way to go. The NSF deserves our support. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the NSF reauthorization. H.R. 4664 
is a good bill, it is a bipartisan bill; and I want to compliment 
Chairman Boehlert, Chairman Smith, and the ranking members for closely 
working together so that both sides are well represented in this 
legislation. Even during these tight budget times, investing in basic 
research like that at NSF is a wise and fiscally-prudent decision. I 
strongly believe we must make significant long-term investments in this 
Nation's sciences. This bill does just that.
  The need for increased funding at NSF is clear. Recent data published 
by the National Academy of Sciences on Federal funding for basic 
research shows us that we are not meeting today's challenges. Sadly, 
there is strong evidence of declining basic research funding in many of 
the physical science areas. However, since NSF is the source of 36 
percent of the Federal funding for basic research that is performed at 
universities and colleges in the physical sciences, we now have a 
chance to reverse course.
  In my home State of California, NSF partners with the University of 
California on numerous research proposals in the physical sciences. I 
know that this bill will continue to support those needed partnerships 
for our long-term science and research needs. It is clear that in this 
instance, the returns to the Federal Government far exceed our public 
investment. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this bill to 
increase the NSF budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I would like to add to the comments I made a moment ago under the 
discussion for the rule but apply those comments specifically to the 
National Science Foundation.
  Over the past decade, we have had some interesting trends in the 
funding of scientific research in the United States. However, we have 
failed to keep pace with that of other nations. At the moment, we are 
spending less on research compared to GDP in the United States than 
Japan does and the gap is increasing, not decreasing. Even worse, we 
are spending less compared to our GDP than Germany does. Even worse, we 
are rapidly being overtaken by South Korea. We are losing ground. Yet 
we are supposed to be the superpower, the world's leader, not only in 
military might but also in research and advancement. We have to change 
that trend. We made a good step in that direction a few years ago when 
we doubled the NIH budget over a period of 5 years. It is high time we 
do precisely the same for the National Science Foundation.
  Just to illustrate the impact of what has happened and how things 
have gotten out of balance, I have here a very small chart, which I 
hope my colleagues can read, and at least see the trend lines, which 
shows very clearly what has happened to NIH, as shown on the top line. 
A few years ago NIH was bundled fairly closely to NASA and Department 
of Energy research. We decided to double it, and it has shot up 
exponentially as happens when you double things, whereas NASA is 
holding its own or slightly down, and DOE, the Department of Energy, 
has gone down.
  We are spending less on research in the Department of Energy now than 
we did 10 years ago, in real dollars. The National Science Foundation, 
our most important basic research entity, is struggling along at the 
bottom of the chart. It had slight increases over the past decade, but 
very slight. I maintain that that is out of balance. As the rate of NIH 
goes up, NSF should also go up, because the National Institutes of 
Health builds its research on the basic research that is done under the 
auspices of the National Science Foundation. They go to the well of 
this basic research periodically and build on what has been developed 
there. But if they go to the well and the well is empty, all the money 
that we have spent for NIH is not going to count for much. It is 
essential that we proceed with the doubling that is proposed in this 
bill for the National Science Foundation. I commend Chairman Boehlert 
and Chairman Smith for leading the charge in this effort. It is 
something that we must do and that we can do.
  To those who are worried about budget busting, let me simply point 
out that this year's increase in the National Institutes of Health is 
greater than doubling the NSF budget will be. In other words, this 
year's increase in NIH is greater than the total current budget of the 
National Science Foundation. At the very least, we can easily afford to 
double the NSF budget; and by doing that over 5 years, we are spending 
one-fifth of what we have been spending each year to increase NIH.
  This is a good bill. I urge that my colleagues vote for it. I urge 
that we pass this bill and put this doubling program into effect.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time and Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Hall and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson) for their efforts in getting this bill. I am 
proud to be a cosponsor as well.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 4664, Investing in America's Future 
Act. This legislation, that will increase the funding for the National 
Science Foundation, is critical and it is probably more critical at 
this time than anyone can imagine. I believe that maintaining our 
Nation's global scientific and economic leadership provides the best 
justification for funding basic research, and that is really what we 
are talking about here. I also believe that a solid academic foundation 
in math and science education is critical to our success as a Nation in 
the 21st century.
  As the lead source of Federal funding for basic research at colleges 
and universities, NSF supports research and educational programs that 
are crucial to technological advances in the private sector and for 
training our next generation of scientists and engineers. NSF funds 
cutting-edge research in science and technology that is critical in the 
United States. The research funded by the foundation has played a 
pivotal role in raising the standards of living in the United States as 
well as around the world.
  As we have already heard from others, with a very small portion of 
Federal spending, the National Science Foundation has had a powerful 
impact on national science and engineering. Every dollar invested in 
this agency returns manifold in its worth in economic growth. For 
example, over 25 percent of the Federal support for academic 
institutions for basic research is provided through the National 
Science Foundation and almost 50 percent of the funding for nonmedical 
research at universities is provided through the National Science 
Foundation. NSF also provides 46 percent of the basic research in 
engineering performed at colleges and universities and also helps train 
more than 25,000 graduate students each year. I am pleased with the 
accomplishments that NSF has made in research and education 
initiatives, and I strongly support the doubling of NSF's budget by the 
proposed increase of 15 percent over the next 3 years in pursuit of 
this effort.
  As the former superintendent of schools of my home State of North 
Carolina, I have worked for many years to improve science and 
mathematics education in our schools. We need better science and 
mathematics education in the K-12 classrooms if we are going to have it 
in university students. Quality instruction is the key to helping 
students learn in these critical fields. At a time when we are trying 
to improve the quality and quantity of science and mathematics in 
America, appropriate investments in NSF is critical to enabling our 
students to compete in today's knowledge-based economy. This increase 
in NSF budget will

[[Page H3189]]

help ensure that improving science and mathematics education remains a 
national priority. I urge the vote and signature by the President.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Grucci).
  (Mr. GRUCCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GRUCCI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 
4664, the Investing in America's Future Act. This bill would 
reauthorize the National Science Foundation at its highest level for 
the next 5 years, placing it in an unprecedented doubling track. I 
thank Chairman Smith and Chairman Boehlert for the time on the floor 
today to speak on this very important issue and for their leadership on 
this increasingly important issue.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation. H.R. 4664 
not only takes a decisive step to doubling the funding for the National 
Science Foundation but also is a clear example of the support of this 
House in scientific discovery and growth. Now more than ever science 
and technology are leading the way to not only expand America and make 
it the best it can be but also to protect our citizens and improve our 
homeland security. Technologies such as radiation detectors and 
highest-level x-ray are keeping our homes, our businesses, and our 
transportation systems safe every day. But these critical technologies 
originate from the same place, from the Federal laboratories and 
university research that benefit from the National Science Foundation. 
Basic research is key to generating these ground-breaking and important 
technologies that we utilize in our lives every day.
  My district is the home to leaders in basic research, the Brookhaven 
National Laboratory and the State University of New York at Stony 
Brook. These great institutions have benefited greatly from the support 
and funding from the National Science Foundation, advancing their 
endeavors and educational opportunities for students and scientists 
alike.

                              {time}  1415

  I am pleased that the bill includes important language clarifying the 
selection process of the Major Research Equipment Account. These large 
scale research projects are some of the best science our Nation has to 
offer, and it is imperative that a clear selective process is in place 
with congressional oversight. I thank the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Boehlert) for his leadership on this issue and for including 
this language in the bill.
  The National Science Foundation represents the best in math and 
science education. In order for our Nation to remain a world leader in 
discovery and innovation, we must strive to educate our younger 
generation, engaging them in math and science activities.
  It is no surprise that the bill is entitled the Investing in 
America's Future Act, because that is exactly what we will succeed in 
doing by passing this legislation. Educational programs funded by the 
National Science Foundation offer students opportunities for exciting 
studies in innovative fields of learning. From as early as grade school 
through to the post-doctoral level, the National Science Foundation 
provides the much-needed support to those students striving to achieve 
in the science field.
  Again, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this very important 
legislation and thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) 
for the time to speak here today. I look forward to the passage of this 
exciting bill and urge a ``yes'' vote from my colleagues.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4664, to authorize funds for 
the National Science Foundation. As a proud cosponsor of this 
legislation, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman 
Boehlert) and the ranking members for their excellent work on this; but 
I also want to reinforce my strong support for the $50 million funding 
for the Advanced Technological Education Program in FY 2002 and $55 
million for the program in 2003.
  The Advanced Technological Education Program is an NSF program 
designed to help community colleges train high-tech workers. It is the 
only NSF program focused solely on community colleges. This program 
provides funds for both existing and new ATE programs.
  These programs will become increasingly important as our economy 
becomes more dependent on technologically skilled workers. In fact, 
every single one of the top 10 fastest-growing occupations identified 
by the Department of Labor will require specialized knowledge in the 
fields of math and science. ATE programs will fund technology, math and 
science programs that will directly contribute to student success in 
those fields.
  A few weeks ago my colleague the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Price) and I introduced H.R. 4680, the Science Undergraduate Community 
College Education Enhancement Act, or, as we call it, SUCCEED. This 
bill will further direct ATE money to important science, math and 
technology two-year education programs.
  Almost half of all college students in America are enrolled in 
community colleges, but many of the core math and science programs at 
these institutions are now severely underfunded. This is unacceptable, 
especially at a time when our knowledge-based economy depends on a 
workforce with a solid grounding in math and science.
  The SUCCEED Act will function in several areas. First of all, it will 
expand the scope of existing grant programs to not only focus on the 
advanced upper division courses, but on the basics in math and 
technology skills and science skills that are necessary for success in 
more advanced course work.
  In addition and importantly, it will expand partnerships between 2-
year and 4-year institutions. Increasingly, our 2-year community 
colleges are partnering with 4-year institutions, and the SUCCEED Act 
will provide funding for integrated research between community and 4-
year colleges.
  This bill will also provide access to state-of-the-art equipment for 
our classrooms. We cannot expect our students in the community colleges 
to learn the kind of advanced skills they need if we do not have the 
fundamental infrastructure and equipment for them to learn those 
skills.
  Finally, this bill will establish an external advisory committee to 
study how the effectiveness of this legislation is proceeding and to 
disseminate critical information to share that with other 2-year 
institutions.
  Again, I want to thank the staff of the Committee on Science for 
their outstanding work, and my own staff member, Ms. Kate Sinner, for 
her work on this. Thanks again to the gentleman from New York (Chairman 
Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank everyone involved with this, but none 
more than the gentleman I am about to introduce to consume the balance 
of our time. The gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Smith) is the spark 
plug behind this legislation. He is serving with great distinction on 
that very important Subcommittee on Research, and he constantly reminds 
us every single day about the importance of the work we are about.
  Before yielding the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Chairman Smith), I would like to note that we have a staff that is 
second to none on the Committee on Science, Republicans and Democrats, 
all professionals working well together to fashion the type of product 
that we can bring to the floor with a great deal of pride. This is one 
such product, and the man most responsible for it is the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith) be allowed to control the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is recognized 
for 9 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) 
for those gracious remarks.

[[Page H3190]]

  Mr. Chairman, I feel privileged to be allowed to be the sponsor of 
this legislation, H.R. 4664. But, as we all know, we have a fantastic 
scientific community out there, and NSF is one of the lead agencies 
that has done such a tremendous job. In our committee, it has been a 
bipartisan support, right from the get-go, with the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Research.
  The last time this agency was authorized was in 1998 as part of a 3-
year bill that expired at the end of fiscal year 2000. That is why I 
think it is so important that we move ahead with this legislation 
today, to make sure that the House has the kind of oversight of all 
agencies of government, as it is destined to do.
  Let me just say that it is so clear from every evaluation and every 
economic analysis that the Federal investment in science and technology 
is about as good an investment as you can possibly make with the 
Americans' taxpayer money to make sure that we have the basic research 
for national security. Smart bombs and smart weapons and the 
technological ability of our economic security come from this kind of 
basic research.
  It is also important for our economy, and we have been credited by 
Mr. Greenspan and many others that our economic strength is derived 
from the basic research that we have worked on over the last 50 years, 
and certainly not the least is the strength of the health in the United 
States.
  I would like to give one quote that is very interesting, and that is 
from Harold Varmus, the former director of NIH. He said, ``Congress is 
not addressing with significant vigor the compelling needs for 
adequately funding the National Science Foundation, which is the basis 
of a lot of the research and a lot of the tools they are using at 
NIH.''
  This bill is the product of 2 years of hearings and examinations of 
NSF activities by the Committee on Science and our Subcommittee on 
Research; and during this time the committee received input from 
prominent scientists, economists, government officials and from other 
experts with an interest in improving federally funded basic research.
  In the end, we arrived at three principal conclusions. One, NSF is a 
model government agency with an exemplary record of supporting basic 
research within a peer-reviewed, competitive grant process that funds 
only the best cutting-edge research, and does so using under 5 percent 
of the total budget in overhead costs.
  Second, as a relatively small Federal agency responsible for just 4 
percent of the total Federal research development expenditures, NSF-
funded research has led to a myriad of discoveries that have improved, 
as I mentioned, public health, strengthened our economy, and enhanced 
our lives and well-being in many ways we could not have imagined 30 
years ago.
  Three, a number of areas within NSF programs require additional 
funding to assure continued advancements in the Nation's scientific 
enterprise. Among them are funding new education initiatives, 
alleviating grant pressure within a system that cannot fund over 30 
percent of highly rated research proposals.
  Again, of all of these highly rated research proposals, we only end 
up being able to fund 30 percent of the excellent ideas that are coming 
in from all of the universities and research facilities. It is for 
these reasons that the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), I and every member of the Committee on 
Science called for significant increases in support for NSF in this 
legislation.
  I say this as a true fiscal conservative that strongly supports the 
President's efforts to keep nondefense discretionary spending in check 
so we can fully focus our budget on the Federal Government's number one 
priority of defending our Nation, and basic research is part of that 
responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill today. Let me say this 
about research and what we do in the United States, and I think it 
needs to be said. Research is a very important part of what we do here 
in the United States, and it is a very important part of our economic 
growth.
  About half of the economic growth in the United States today is as a 
result of research which has been funded in the past. We represent 
about 4 percent of the world's population, but we represent about 44 
percent of the money that is spent on basic research. That is 
important, and there is a correlation.
  I was fortunate to go and visit some of our national labs. They truly 
are national treasures. What they do through the National Science 
Foundation, not only through our labs but our universities around the 
country, makes a big, big difference.
  A few years ago I was privileged to meet with a fellow by the name of 
Gene Fry. Now, Gene Fry is a researcher at a little company called 3M. 
Now, this probably was not original, but he said something very 
important that day. He said if we knew what we were doing, it would not 
be research.
  There is a lot of truth to that. A lot of the projects that we fund 
at the beginning it is hard to defend. But ultimately the reason that 
we live in the world we live in today is because brave legislatures in 
the past and brave business people in the past have been willing to 
invest in projects that may not have made a lot of sense at the time.
  I think we have to have the courage to stand up and say research is a 
very important responsibility to the Federal Government. We get a huge 
rate of return on the money that we invest in research, and we will 
determine today what kind of a world our children will live in. This is 
an important bill. I am happy to rise in support of it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 6 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member 
of the Subcommittee on Research.
  (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
strong support of H.R. 4664, the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 2002. I want to thank the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Boehlert); the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hall); and the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Smith) for working 
with me and the rest of the committee in a bipartisan manner on this 
important piece of legislation that makes a strong statement about our 
commitment to invest in America's future.
  H.R. 4664 places the National Science Foundation on the path to 
double its budget in 5 years, which was the goal of H.R. 1472, the NSF 
authorization bill that I introduced last April 2001. I introduced H.R. 
1472 because I strongly believed that investing in basic research, math 
and engineering research is essential to the future economic prosperity 
and global competitiveness of our country. Even after September 11, 
what we are depending on most now will be the kinds of technology that 
the research from the National Science Foundation has brought to the 
forefront.
  The National Science Foundation plays a leading role in educating our 
youth in math and sciences and training the scientists and engineers of 
tomorrow, and the agency is working to ensure that tomorrow's high-tech 
workers reflect a diversity of America. It is my sincere hope that my 
colleagues will recognize the importance of basic research to our 
Nation's future and will pass H.R. 4664.
  The National Science Foundation expends only 3.8 percent of the 
Federal research and development funds, yet this relatively small 
amount belies the importance of the agency to our country. The National 
Science Foundation provides 23 percent of the basic research funding at 
academic institutions. For specific research areas, the National 
Science Foundation's role at universities is even larger. It funds 36 
percent of research in the physical sciences, 49 percent of research in 
the environmental sciences, 50 percent of research in engineering, 72 
percent of research in mathematics, and 78 percent of research in 
computer science. So, clearly, the National Science Foundation plays a 
disproportionately important role in funding some of the most basic 
research areas that have implications far beyond their own academic 
area.

[[Page H3191]]

                              {time}  1430

  To give an idea of the quality and importance of the NSF-funded 
research to our Nation, consider the fact that over 100 Nobel prizes 
have been awarded to scientists supported by the National Science 
Foundation research in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology and 
medicine and economics. In nearly every field of science and 
engineering are examples of outstanding research supported by the 
National Science Foundation. This research leads to critical advances 
in the understanding of our world and in technology that improves our 
lives.
  For example, the National Science Foundation support at the National 
Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois 
developed the first Internet browser that led to the explosive growth 
of the World Wide Web. The National Science Foundation-funded research 
in atmospheric chemistry identified the ozone depletion over the 
Antarctic, the ozone hole, as it has come to be known. NSF-funded 
research on mathematics and solid modeling led to the widespread use of 
computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing that has 
revolutionized industry and enhanced workplace productivity. These are 
but a few examples of the scientific breakthroughs that have been 
funded by the NSF in recent years, and this and other research 
supported by NSF ultimately strengthens our economy. The connection 
between research funding and the strength of the economy has been 
expounded by such diverse sources as former presidential science 
advisor Allen Bromley, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former 
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and the Hart-Rudman Commission for 
National Security. Yet despite the importance of basic research to the 
future economic health and well-being of our country, NSF now must 
decline more than $1 billion worth of high quality research proposals 
each year. Why? Because NSF's budget is insufficient to meet the 
demands of our Nation's vibrant research sector.
  Mr. Chairman, while it is true that everyone must learn to live 
within their budget, and NSF has, it is a shame that top-notch 
proposals go unfunded for lack of resources. It is essential that our 
Nation's premier science research agency has the resources it needs to 
fund advances that could lead to the next World Wide Web or deciphering 
the genome of a critically important crop. Our generation has 
benefitted enormously from the investment of our parents and 
grandparents made in basic research decades ago, and we owe it to our 
children to see that they enjoy the same pace of technological 
advancement that we have enjoyed. It is critical that we invest in 
basic research today that will lead to better life tomorrow.
  These are but a few examples of the scientific breakthroughs that 
have been funded by NSF in recent years, and this and other research 
supported by the NSF ultimately strengthens our economy. The connection 
between research funding and the strength of the economy has been 
expounded by such diverse sources as former presidential science 
advisor Allen Bromley, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former 
speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and the Hart-Rudman Commission on 
National Security.
  Yet despite the importance of basic research to the future economic 
health and well-being of our country, NSF now must decline more than 1 
billion dollar's worth of high quality research proposals each year. 
Why? Because NSF's budget is insufficient to meet the demands of our 
Nation's vibrant research sector. Mr. Chairman, while it is true that 
everyone must learn to live within their budget, and NSF has, it is a 
shame that top-notch proposals go unfunded for lack of resources.
  In addition to funding basic research at our Nation's laboratories, 
the National Science Foundation makes essential investments in training 
the scientists and engineers of tomorrow. NSF research awards and 
direct research fellowships help train over 24,000 graduate students 
each year, the future scientists and engineers essential to our high-
tech economy. The bill before us today seeks to strengthen NSF's 
graduate research fellowships by funding more research grants and 
increasing the average grant size and duration.
  NSF programs also help to improve science education for all students 
and to prepare them for citizenship in a world increasingly dominated 
by technology. Today we continue to have manpower shortages in many 
high technology fields, and many industries rely on the labor and brain 
power of foreign nationals. The ideal way to alleviate the shortages is 
by ensuring that our Nation's children of all races and both genders 
receive the basic grounding in science and mathematics that will 
prepare them to pursue careers as scientists, engineers and 
technologists. Now, more than ever, we need to ensure that an adequate 
number of Americans choose careers in the sciences and engineering. We 
cannot allow inadequate funding to cripple NSF's efforts in this area.
  Mr. Chairman, over the past few months, there has been a great deal 
of debate about the appropriate level of funding for the National 
Science Foundation. Some have proposed essentially flat levels of 
funding, while others have proposed a small 8.8% increase for one 
fiscal year. These levels are simply not enough for an agency as highly 
regarded and as critical to the future well-being of our Nation as the 
National Science Foundation. I say that we must double the budget of 
NSF and invest in our Nation's future. H.R. 4664 was developed in a 
bipartisan fashion and enjoys the strong support of the Science 
Committee. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the 
Committee on Science for its work in putting together this 
reauthorization for the National Science Foundation. This bill shows us 
the path we must take to ensure that our Nation continues to lead the 
world in technological innovation and in scientific capacity, by 
doubling Federal funding for the NSF over the next 5 years, just as we 
have done for the National Institutes of Health.
  In a widely-circulated letter last year, Dr. Harold Varmus, the 
former director of the NIH, made it clear that we do health research no 
favors when we underfund basic research in the physical sciences. 
Physical science disciplines are often the key not only to providing 
the tools used in conducting health research, but in delivering the 
benefits of health research to the public.
  Just take a walk through any hospital surgical unit or emergency 
room, where you will be surrounded by more pieces of medical technology 
than you can count, and you will quickly understand this point.
  I also want to draw the attention of Members to the bill's 
reauthorization of the National Science Foundation's Advanced 
Technology Education program. The ATE program is the only NSF program 
targeted to community colleges.
  Associate-degree-granting colleges educate the vast majority of the 
three to five technicians that support each engineer, scientist, and 
medical doctor across this Nation.
  Meeting the demand for high-tech workers by both our modernizing 
manufacturing sector and our new-economy enterprises requires 
strengthening undergraduate education in science, mathematics, and 
technology at associate-degree-granting colleges, where nearly half of 
all undergraduate college students are enrolled. That is the purpose of 
the ATE program, which provides grants to 2-year institutions to 
develop new curricula and teaching methods and materials in advanced 
technology fields.
  I have worked on our Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent 
Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations to increase ATE funding, 
and we have enjoyed some successes. However, current funding is still 
under $40 million a year, and cut of $950,000 has been recommended by 
the administration for the next fiscal year. A more adequate 
authorization would offer considerable help.
  Fortunately, the Committee on Science accepted an amendment offered 
by my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), to 
authorize the ATE program at $50 million for fiscal year 2003, with a 
$5 million increase for each of the next 2 fiscal years.
  In fact, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and I have 
introduced legislation to more broadly expand and strengthen the ATE 
program.
  In addition to increasing funding for the program, the Science 
Undergraduate Community College Education Enhancement Development Act, 
the SUCCESS Act, H.R. 4680, would give community colleges more 
flexibility to develop innovative core math

[[Page H3192]]

and science curricula, and would provide more opportunities for 
community college students to have research experiences at 4-year 
institutions.
  Our bill would also establish an advisory committee, comprised of 
representatives from industry and academia, to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the ATE program and to make recommendations on how it 
can be improved. Also, it would promote the dissemination of ATE 
results to community college systems across the Nation.
  While the increased authorization level for the ATE program is 
included in the bill before us now, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Baird) was successful in adding the remaining provisions of H.R. 4680 
to the Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology 
Improvement Act, which was also recently approved by the Committee on 
Science.
  I again congratulate the Committee on Science and our colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle for the fine work they have done today in 
bringing H.R. 4664 to the House floor. I urge all of our colleagues to 
support it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from 
California, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this legislation. It is, I 
think, very important, and I think the committee, under the leadership 
of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), has done an excellent job.
  We heard that the National Science Foundation provides only a few 
percent of the total Federal research and development budget, but it 
provides a large fraction of the support for mathematics, biological 
sciences, earth sciences, social sciences, and engineering.
  We have all heard about the many things that have come out of NSF 
research: the work in thin film technology, in genetics, in magnetic 
resonance imaging, CD players, printers, Taxol, and so forth.
  It is also important to recognize the return on investment to this 
Federal investment. Economists will argue about whether the return on 
investment in research and development is 20 percent, 40 percent, or 60 
percent. Whatever it is, it is extraordinarily high. This is one of the 
best things that we as a Congress can do who have been entrusted with 
the worthwhile expenditure of taxpayer money.
  As one Member of Congress who himself has conducted NSF-funded 
research, and who every year that I have been in Congress has worked to 
see the NSF budget increased, I am very pleased to see the NSF on this 
faster growth path, because we can talk about funding the National 
Institutes of Health and other health-related research here in the 
United States, but unless we invest in the research that leads to 
improved techniques and instrumentation and the training of scientists, 
that investment in health research will not yield the returns that we 
should be getting from it.
  Just today I have been having some briefings with investigative and 
intelligence organizations. They have reminded me just today how much 
they are dependent on research that is coming out of the National 
Science Foundation for their work in dealing with anthrax and other 
pathogens.
  Finally, I would say the most important work that the National 
Science Foundation is doing is the work in our schools, particularly in 
the pre-college setting. The members of the committee are to be 
commended for putting together such a good authorization bill.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me. I would like to commend the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Committee on Science and the chairman and ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Research for their leadership on this issue.
  Investment in research and development is one of the single largest 
contributing factors to the Nation's past, present, and future economic 
growth. The U.S. high technology industry spends more on R&D than on 
any other industry, but because corporations feel acute pressure to 
focus scarce research dollars on market-driven product development, the 
Federal Government must play an integral role in the longer-term basic 
research that leads to fundamental innovations.
  Federal support for basic research has contributed to the development 
of the Internet, personal computers, the silicon chip, lasers, fiber 
optics, supercomputers, and magnetic resonance imaging. The first 
graphical web browser, high-speed networks, artificial intelligence, 
databases, and the graphical user interface all have their roots in 
government-sponsored research.
  Over the past few years, funding for research in the physical 
sciences has declined as a fraction of overall R&D spending. Funding 
for the National Institutes of Health now makes up over half of all 
non-defense research, and the proposed research at NIH funding this 
year is as large as NSF's entire budget.
  This funding imbalance threatens long-term research at a time when we 
are quickly approaching the physical limits to semiconductor 
performance. A new technological revolution is needed if we are going 
to continue improving computer performance like we have in the past few 
years. It is essential that we invest in basic research to provide the 
scientific basis for this technological revolution so that we can 
maintain the gains in productivity that lead to economic growth.
  A sustained public and private investment in R&D will also foster a 
skilled American work force, stimulate new technologies, and maintain 
U.S. dominance in vital industries, elements critical to retaining the 
United States' global economic leadership in the new millennium.
  The 2001 report of the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security 
for the 21st Century determined that ``the scale and nature of the 
ongoing revolution in science and technology . . . pose critical 
national security challenges to the United States.''
  To address the challenge, the commission recommended a doubling of 
all Federal funding for science and technology research and development 
by 2010. I believe we should strive to achieve this goal, and I 
recommend and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4664.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that it would be nice just to include myself 
in the good remarks made by both sides of the aisle on the importance 
of basic research.
  One area that we have not talked about that I think is so important 
in NSF is it keeps young, quality minds at that university staying in 
research, so it encourages the talented young people in our university 
systems to stay on, to get their Master's degrees and their Doctor's 
degree.
  Just in terms of sort of proving that point, if we are looking at all 
the Nobel Laureates in physics, in chemistry, and in economics, most 
every one of those individuals at one time in their career had an NSF 
grant. So part of the tremendous success of the program is keeping 
these talented young people in that research arena to do what is 
necessary to strengthen our economy, to improve our public health, and 
certainly to add to our ability to defend ourselves and our national 
security.

                              {time}  1445

  America's position as a world leader in science and education is a 
key element to our national security. Let me just mention in the report 
on national security in the 21st century, the Hart-Rudman Commission 
noted that and, I will quote, ``The inadequacies of our systems of 
research and education pose a greater threat to U.S. national security 
over the next quarter century than any potential conventional war that 
we might imagine.''
  It is important that we move ahead, that we improve our education 
system, that we work more diligently than we ever have before, keeping 
more students in the math and sciences as they

[[Page H3193]]

move their careers through high school and into the college arena.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to summarize by saying that I 
believe we have put together a strong piece of legislation that will 
allow Congress to demonstrate its commitment to continuing the economic 
gains and technological advances of recent years through support of 
fundamental basic research. The increase in this legislation is a sound 
investment and is brought by bipartisan support, was passed through 
both the Subcommittee on Research and the full Committee on Science by 
a unanimous vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support the bill.
  I would like to point out that NSF-funded research has also directly 
benefited America's effort in response to the events of 9/11--
supporting emergency grants pioneering the use of genomics as a tool in 
forensic analysis of microbes after last October's anthrax attacks. 
Also, an NSF-funded robotics grant led to the development of software-
guided robots that were used successfully to search the rubble and 
locate victims at the World Trade Center Disaster site.
  NSF research has also led to faster computer Magnetic Resonance 
Imaging the Internet, Doppler radar, discoveries of new planets, new 
polymers materials that are used in products ranging from clothing to 
automobiles, and most recently, fundamental plant genomics research 
that will lead to improved crop varieties that increase yields while 
better protecting the environment. These are just a few examples, but 
the list goes on and on.
  I want to reiterate that NSF has supported these achievements with an 
efficiency that is almost unheard of in the Federal Government. NSF has 
been recognized for it's strong management--as the only cabinet agency 
to receive a ``green light'' rating in the President's budget. Mitch 
Daniels, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, has 
hailed NSF as ``one of the true centers of excellence in government.''
  Let me summarize by saying that I believe we have put together a 
strong piece of legislation that will allow Congress to demonstrate its 
commitment to continuing the economic gains and technological 
advancements of recent years through support of fundamental basic 
research. The increase in this legislation is a sound investment and 
has broad bipartisan support, was passed through both the Research 
Subcommittee and the full Science Committee by voice vote, and I urge 
all members to support the bill.
  NSF has supported the research of more than half of the United States 
Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, and economics. Since 1989, 80% 
of NSF-funded Nobel prize winners were funded by NSF before winning the 
prize.
  Research supported by the National Science Foundation has led to a 
myriad of discoveries, technologies, and products that improve our 
daily lives, including: a greater understanding of bacteria, viruses, 
and the structure of DNA; medical diagnostic tools, such as Magnetic 
Resonance Imaging (MRI); the Internet, web browsers, and fiber optics, 
which have revolutionized global communication; automated DNA 
sequencing machines; polymer materials used in products ranging from 
clothing to automobiles; Doppler radar used for accurate weather 
forecasting; artificial skin that can help recovering burn victims; 
economic research in game and decision theory which has led to a 
greater understanding of economic cycles; and discoveries of new 
planets, black holes, and insights into the nature of the universe.
  More recently, NSF-funded research has benefited America's effort in 
response to the events of 9/11. An NSF-funded grant led to the 
development of software-guided robots that were used successfully to 
search the rubble and locate victims at the World Trade Center disaster 
site. Also, NSF supported emergency grants pioneering the use of 
genomics as a tool in forensic analysis of microbes after last 
October's anthrax attacks.
  These advances have all come from an agency that receives only 4% of 
the total annual Federal spending for R&D.
  NSF has also been the lead Federal agency in a number of national 
science initiatives, such as those in information technology, plant 
genomics, and nanotechnology.
  The National Science Foundation's innovative education programs work 
to ensure that every American student receives a solid foundation in 
science and math through support for the training and education of 
teachers, the public, and students of all ages and backgrounds, and by 
supporting research into new teaching tools, curricula, and 
methodologies.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my concern 
over this legislation that will double the National Science 
Foundation's (NSF) budget in five years. I feel that while we have 
taken the effort to double the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and 
now NSF, this committee has neglected NASA. I am supportive of our 
commitment to NSF and have a history of such support. At this time, 
however, given the lack of attention this committee has given NASA, I 
cannot support this particular piece of legislation.
  NASA's budget has been neglected for over a decade. When one 
considers inflation, the NASA budget is not keeping pace. This sends 
the wrong message. As a medical doctor and scientist, I very much 
appreciate the work that NIH and NSF do, but to keep NASA out in the 
cold I feel is the wrong approach. No other agency has such a daring, 
exciting and public mission. It is time we treated NASA as a valued 
Federal agency instead of letting it wither on the vine.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4664, the 
Investing in America's Future Act. Past investment in fundamental 
scientific research has fueled growth of our economy, trained our 
technological workforce, and provided the research needed for national 
and homeland security. It is time to ensure our future prosperity and 
security by recognizing the important work performed by the National 
Science Foundation (NSF), the only agency devoted to supporting basic 
science research in science, math, and engineering across all fields 
and science and math education at all levels.
  This legislation will double the NSF's budget over the next five 
years. Increasing funding for the NSF demonstrates the recognition of 
the lasting benefits that basic research provides to our economic and 
national security. The increase would also be used to expand core 
science programs to fund highly ranked grant proposals, pursue new 
initiatives like nanotechnology and biocomplexity, and fully fund K-12 
education programs that have been authorized by the House of 
Representatives. In addition, the bill provides greater transparency to 
the process through which major research and facilities construction 
projects are evaluated, prioritized, and selected for funding by 
requiring the Director to develop a list of proposed projects, ranking 
the relative priority of each for funding. This will allow Congress and 
NSF to expand its investments in cutting-edge research initiatives and 
to preserve its core research and education programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that investing in basic science, 
math, and engineering research is essential to the future economic 
prosperity and global competitiveness of our country and an important 
investment for the future. For these reasons, I support this 
legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 4664, I 
rise in support of this important bill that will put the National 
Science Foundation on a track to double its budget in five years.
  I thank Chairman Boehlert and my colleagues in the Science Committee 
for their hard work on this bill.
  I think we all recognize that investing in basic research is critical 
for a strong economy and national security. In the past 50 years, half 
of U.S. economic productivity can be attributed to technological 
innovation and the science that has supported it. Despite this fact, 
over the last two decades Federal investment in R&D has fallen by one-
third as a share of the GDP.
  This bill will help put us on the right track. Federal investment in 
science underpins our global competitiveness and our prosperity. NSF-
funded research made possible the discovery of the ``ozone hole,'' 
developed the first Web browser, advanced the field of molecular 
genetics, and funded much of the early research leading to the 
development of speech activation and recognition technology. Less 
directly but no less importantly, NSF is often the major source of 
support for education and training of Ph.D. scientists and engineers, 
many of whom have gone on to make major private-sector contributions in 
the development of cell phones, fiber optics, and computer assisted 
design.
  NSF provides fully 23% of total Federal support for university 
research--or nearly half excluding NIH sponsored biomedical research. 
From sources such as former science advisor to the first President 
Bush, Allen Bromley, and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, to 
the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security, we hear that Federal 
funding for research is a necessary precondition for continued economic 
success and security in our high technology economy.
  I think former Speaker Newt Gingrich said in best in a 1999 
Washington Post op-ed. He wrote that ``Out of our sense of patriotism 
and our own enlightened self-interest, we should . . . insist that 
Federal investment in scientific research be doubled over the next five 
years. . . . Anything less will weaken the future for all of us.''
  Mr. Chairman, I agree, and I urge support of this important bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the 
Members of the Science Committee, subcommittee, sponsor, and all the 
Members who worked so hard on

[[Page H3194]]

H.R. 4664, the Investing in America's Future Act of 2002.
  I would like to take this opportunity today to voice my strong 
support for this legislation.
  This legislation authorizes additional funding to a very important 
organization, the National Science Foundation.
  The bills directs NASA to jointly establish an Astronomy and 
Astrophysics Advisory Committee to assess and provide recommendations 
regarding the coordination of astronomy and astrophysics programs at 
each agency.
  This is one of the several provisions in this bill that would 
strengthen NASA. NASA plays a huge role in the 18th Congressional 
District, as many of my constituents are employed there.
  The continued development of this nation's science program ought to 
be one of this nation's top priorities. By establishing a joint 
committee on astronomy to assess coordination of astronomy programs 
between the agencies and to assess the activities of the agencies 
relative to recommendations of the surveys conducted by the National 
Academy of Sciences, this bill would further make the science program 
accountable to Congress.
  As a member of the Science Committee, I can attest to the fact that 
we have held numerous hearings investigating and asking relevant 
questions on how to best fund the NSF and how to best make it 
accessible and accountable to Congress.
  By focusing directly on the research initiatives such as information 
technology, nanoscale science and engineering, and mathematical 
sciences, as well as the Major Research Instrumentation program, H.R. 
4664 further enhances the research and education departments of the 
National Science Foundation.
  Let me also voice my strong support for the funding of minority 
institutions in science education. This provision will open the door 
for many future scientists to carry the torch for many years to come.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation, which will reauthorize the National Science Foundation for 
the next three years. This bill is of the highest priority to me and to 
many colleges and universities in my district. I've already heard from 
students, professors and administrators from the University of 
Wisconsin who have told me that a lack of serious commitment to science 
funding and research would not only stunt the growth and education of 
many qualified students, but would also seriously cripple some of their 
most critical research efforts. This is why I'm delighted with the 
commitment in this legislation to increase NSF funding by 15 percent 
each year for the next three years. This commitment is similar to the 
highly successfully funding commitment that doubled the National 
Institutes of Health budget over the past five years.
  The NSF funds 25% of the basic research conducted in universities 
across the nation, and a considerably higher percentage in selected 
fields. The NSF funds 425 grants for well over $60 million at the 
University of Wisconsin-Madison alone, helping to make UW-Madison one 
of the top research universities in the country. NSF grants and 
fellowships also help train over 24,000 graduate students each year, 
many of whom go on to make major contributions in academia and 
industry. University research funded by the NSF trains new generations 
of scientists and engineers, but without the type of funding increase 
outlined in this legislation, universities will be forced to limit the 
number of graduate students that they are able to admit to these 
programs.
  One example of a thriving NSF project in my district is the IceCube 
Neutrino telescope, which is headed by UW-Madison. When completed, this 
groundbreaking new telescope will look deep into our universe in ways 
that traditional telescopes cannot. It is truly on the cutting edge of 
astronomical research and will allow us to view the universe in an 
entirely new and innovative manner. Furthermore, IceCube has been 
subjected to exhaustive peer review and is one of many shining examples 
of the sound science and basic research that the NSF successfully 
fosters.
  It is my sincere hope that funding levels outlined in this 
legislation are met when it comes time to fund the NSF. Science funding 
for research should be and often is a result of bipartisanship. I am 
pleased that this is the case today. In that spirit, I urge a yes vote 
on this legislation and urge appropriators to fully fund the NSF at 
these new levels.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of a bill designed to improve the security, economy, and 
standard of living of all Americans, the Investing in America's Future 
Act, H.R. 4664. The bill accomplishes this by putting the nation's 
premier science agency, the National Science Foundation, on track to 
double its budget in five years.
  Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that America has long recognized that 
its long-term strength and security, and its ability to recover and 
sustain high levels of economic growth, depends on maintaining its edge 
in scientific achievement and technological innovation. Biomedical 
advances have permitted us to live longer, healthier, and more 
productively. Advances in agriculture technology have permitted us to 
be able to feed more people at a cheaper cost. The information 
revolution can be seen today in the advanced instruments schools are 
using to instruct our children and in the vast information resources 
that are opened up as a result of the linkages created by a networked 
global society. Our children today can grow up to know, see, and read 
more, be more diverse, and have more options in their lives for 
learning and growing. Other emerging technologies--such as 
nanotechnology--have untold potential to make our lives more existing, 
secure, prosperous, and challenging.
  Many companies also recognize this and they, therefore, focus their 
industrial, economic, and security policies on the nurturing and 
diffusion of technological advancement through all levels of society in 
a deliberate fashion. Countries that follow this path of nurturing 
innovation focus a lot of their efforts into recruiting and training 
the very best engineers and scientists, ensuring that a pipeline which 
pumps talented and imaginative minds and skills is connected to the 
needs of the country's socio-economic and security enterprise.
  It always pays to be mindful of the fact--especially in the wake of 
the September 11 events--that there is a strong and tight linkage 
between our national security and the level of science and technology 
proficiency in America. Our strength and leadership in the world is 
based on the might of our defense, strength of our economy, and the 
quality of our education system. Without any one of these three 
components the global preeminence of the nation suffers. These three 
components are, in turn, maintained on a foundation of strong 
leadership in the business of scientific and technological innovation, 
which keeps the engines of progress moving forward.
  To remain a strong nation, we must ensure that the single most 
important element that keeps us dynamic, innovative, prosperous, and 
secure--and therefore strong--is there for us: our science and 
technology enterprise. In short, we need to support the NSF and we need 
to support this bill.
  I am honored to be a sponsor of this important legislation in the 
United States House of Representatives and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4664, the 
``Investing in America's Future Act.'' This bill reauthorizes the 
National Science Foundation (NSF) for three years, increasing its 
funding by 15% each year. Today we are taking an important step forward 
by enhancing our commitment to our nation's science enterprise and 
setting a long-term goal of doubling the budget of NSF.
  The National Science Foundation is the only Federal agency devoted to 
supporting basic research in science, math, and engineering across all 
fields and science and math education at all levels. In fact, NSF funds 
25% of the basic research conducted in U.S. universities, and a 
considerably higher percentage in selected fields. NSF grants and 
fellowships help train over 24,000 graduate students each year, many of 
whom go on to make major contributions in academia and industry.
  My district is home to one of our nation's premier scientific 
research institutions, the California Institute of Technology 
(Caltech), and one of the most prominent beneficiaries of NSF grant 
funding. In fiscal year 2001, Caltech received 31% of its total federal 
agency research support from NSF, totaling near $44 million. And 
Caltech is not alone. In fiscal year 1999, NSF provided 16% of the 
total federal research and development funds provided to ALL California 
universities, an impressive sum of $367 million.
  By increasing NSF funding, we will enable this fine institution to 
expand core science programs, fund highly ranked grant proposals that 
would otherwise go unfunded, and pursue new initiatives such as 
nanotechnology and biocomplexity. We must continue to support the 
backbone of our new economy--fundamental scientific research and 
education--by supporting the National Science Foundation and its many 
groundbreaking endeavors.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4664 and to remain steadfast in 
our commitment to our nation's science enterprise.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered by sections as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment and each section is 
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

[[Page H3195]]

in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments 
will be considered read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Investing in America's 
     Future Act of 2002''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in 
the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  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.

       In this Act:
       (1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the National Science 
     Board established under section 2 of the National Science 
     Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861).
       (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the National Science Foundation.
       (3) Foundation.--The term ``Foundation'' means the National 
     Science Foundation.
       (4) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
       (5) National research facility.--The term ``national 
     research facility'' means a research facility funded by the 
     Foundation which is available, subject to appropriate 
     policies allocating access, for use by all scientists and 
     engineers affiliated with research institutions located in 
     the United States.
       (6) United states.--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.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Fiscal Year 2003.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the National Science Foundation $5,515,260,000 for fiscal 
     year 2003.
       (2) Specific allocations.--Of the amount authorized under 
     paragraph (1)--
       (A) $4,138,440,000 shall be made available to carry out 
     Research and Related Activities, of which--
       (i) $704,000,000 shall be for networking and information 
     technology research;
       (ii) $238,450,000 shall be for the Nanoscale Science and 
     Engineering Priority Area;
       (iii) $60,090,000 shall be for the Mathematical Sciences 
     Priority Area; and
       (iv) $75,900,000 shall be for Major Research 
     Instrumentation;
       (B) $1,006,250,000 shall be made available for Education 
     and Human Resources, of which--
       (i) $50,000,000 shall be for the Advanced Technological 
     Education Program established under section 3 of the 
     Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 
     1862i); and
       (ii) $30,000,000 shall be for the Minority Serving 
     Institutions Undergraduate Program;
       (C) $152,350,000 shall be made available for Major Research 
     Equipment and Facilities Construction;
       (D) $210,160,000 shall be made available for Salaries and 
     Expenses; and
       (E) $8,060,000 shall be made available for the Office of 
     Inspector General.
       (b) Fiscal Year 2004.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the National Science Foundation $6,342,550,000 for fiscal 
     year 2004.
       (2) Specific allocations.--Of the amount authorized under 
     paragraph (1)--
       (A) $4,735,600,000 shall be made available to carry out 
     Research and Related Activities, of which--
       (i) $774,000,000 shall be for networking and information 
     technology research;
       (ii) $286,140,000 shall be for the Nanoscale Science and 
     Engineering Priority Area;
       (iii) $90,090,000 shall be for the Mathematical Sciences 
     Priority Area; and
       (iv) $85,000,000 shall be for Major Research 
     Instrumentation;
       (B) $1,157,190,000 shall be made available for Education 
     and Human Resources, of which $55,000,000 shall be for the 
     Advanced Technological Education Program established under 
     section 3 of the Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 
     1992 (42 U.S.C. 1862i);
       (C) $225,000,000 shall be made available for Major Research 
     Equipment and Facilities Construction;
       (D) $216,460,000 shall be made available for Salaries and 
     Expenses; and
       (E) $8,300,000 shall be made available for the Office of 
     Inspector General.
       (c) Fiscal Year 2005.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the National Science Foundation $7,293,930,000 for fiscal 
     year 2005.
       (2) Specific allocations.--Of the amount authorized under 
     paragraph (1)--
       (A) $5,445,940,000 shall be made available to carry out 
     Research and Related Activities;
       (B) $1,330,770,000 shall be made available for Education 
     and Human Resources;
       (C) $285,710,000 shall be made available for Major Research 
     Equipment and Facilities Construction;
       (D) $222,960,000 shall be made available for Salaries and 
     Expenses; and
       (E) $8,550,000 shall be made available for the Office of 
     Inspector General.

     SEC. 4. OBLIGATION OF MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT FUNDS.

       (a) Fiscal Year 2003.--None of the funds authorized under 
     section 3(a)(2)(C) may be obligated until 30 days after the 
     first report required under section 7(a)(2) is transmitted to 
     the Congress.
       (b) Fiscal Year 2004.--None of the funds authorized under 
     section 3(b)(2)(C) may be obligated until 30 days after the 
     report required by June 15, 2003, under section 7(a)(2) is 
     transmitted to the Congress.
       (c) Fiscal Year 2005.--None of the funds authorized under 
     section 3(c)(2)(C) may be obligated until 30 days after the 
     report required by June 15, 2004, under section 7(a)(2) is 
     transmitted to the Congress.

     SEC. 5. ANNUAL PLAN FOR ALLOCATION OF FUNDING.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     legislation providing for the annual appropriation of funds 
     for the Foundation, the Director shall submit to the 
     Committee on Science of the House of Representatives, the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate, and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions of the Senate, a plan for the allocation of funds 
     authorized by this Act for the corresponding fiscal year. The 
     portion of the plan pertaining to Research and Related 
     Activities shall include a description of how the allocation 
     of funding--
       (1) will affect the average size and duration of research 
     grants supported by the Foundation by field of science, 
     mathematics, and engineering;
       (2) will affect trends in research support for major fields 
     and subfields of science, mathematics, and engineering, 
     including for emerging multidisciplinary research areas; and
       (3) is designed to achieve an appropriate balance among 
     major fields and subfields of science, mathematics, and 
     engineering.

     SEC. 6. PROPORTIONAL REDUCTION.

       (a) Overall Amounts.--If the amount appropriated pursuant 
     to section 3(a)(1), (b)(1), or (c)(1) is less than the amount 
     authorized under that paragraph, the amount available under 
     each subparagraph of paragraph (2) of that subsection shall 
     be reduced by the same proportion.
       (b) Research and Related Activities Amounts.--If the amount 
     appropriated pursuant to section 3(a)(2)(A) or (b)(2)(A) is 
     less than the amount authorized under that subparagraph, the 
     amount available under each clause of that subparagraph shall 
     be reduced by the same proportion.

     SEC. 7. NATIONAL RESEARCH FACILITIES.

       (a) Prioritization of Proposed Major Research Equipment and 
     Facilities Construction.--
       (1) Development of priorities.--
       (A) List.--The Director shall develop a list indicating by 
     number the relative priority for funding under the Major 
     Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account that 
     the Director assigns to each project the Board has approved 
     for inclusion in a future budget request. The Director shall 
     submit the list to the Board for approval.
       (B) Updates.--The Director shall update the list prepared 
     under paragraph (1) each time the Board approves a new 
     project that would receive funding under the Major Research 
     Equipment and Facilities Construction account and as 
     necessary to prepare reports under paragraph (2). The 
     Director shall submit any updated list to the Board for 
     approval.
       (2) Annual report.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and not later than each June 
     15th thereafter, the Director shall transmit to the Congress 
     a report containing--
       (A) the most recent Board-approved priority list developed 
     under paragraph (1);
       (B) a description of the criteria used to develop such 
     list; and
       (C) a description of the major factors for each project 
     that determined its ranking on the list, based on the 
     application of the criteria described pursuant to 
     subparagraph (B).
       (3) Criteria.--The criteria described pursuant to paragraph 
     (2)(B) shall include, at a minimum--
       (A) scientific merit;
       (B) broad societal need and probable impact;
       (C) consideration of the results of formal prioritization 
     efforts by the scientific community;
       (D) readiness of plans for construction and operation;
       (E) international and interagency commitments; and
       (F) the order in which projects were approved by the Board 
     for inclusion in a future budget request.
       (b) Facilities Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Section 201(a)(1) of the National Science 
     Foundation Authorization Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 1862l(a)(1)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall prepare, and include 
     as part of the Foundation's annual budget request to 
     Congress, a plan for the proposed construction of, and repair 
     and upgrades to, national research facilities, including full 
     life-cycle cost information.''.
       (2) Contents of plan.--Section 201(a)(2) of the National 
     Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 
     1862l(a)(2)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, including costs 
     for instrumentation development'' after ``described in 
     paragraph (1)'';
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);

[[Page H3196]]

       (C) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(D) for each project funded under the Major Research 
     Equipment and Facilities Construction account--
       ``(i) estimates of the total project cost (from planning to 
     commissioning); and
       ``(ii) the source of funds, including Federal funding 
     identified by appropriations category and non-Federal 
     funding;
       ``(E) estimates of the full life-cycle cost of each 
     national research facility;
       ``(F) information on any plans to retire national research 
     facilities; and
       ``(G) estimates of funding levels for grants supporting 
     research that will make use of each national research 
     facility.''.
       (3) Definition.--Section 2 of the National Science 
     Foundation Authorization Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 1862k note) 
     is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (5) as 
     paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Full life-cycle cost.--The term `full life-cycle 
     cost' means all costs of development, procurement, 
     construction, operations and support, and shut down costs, 
     without regard to funding source and without regard to what 
     entity manages the project.''.
       (c) Project Management.--No national research facility 
     project funded under the Major Research Equipment and 
     Facilities Construction account shall be managed by an 
     individual whose appointment to the Foundation is temporary.

     SEC. 8. MAJOR RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION.

       The Foundation shall conduct a review and assessment of the 
     Major Research Instrumentation Program and provide a report 
     to Congress on its findings and recommendations within 1 year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act. The report shall 
     include--
       (1) estimates of the needs, by major field of science and 
     engineering, of institutions of higher education for the 
     types of research instrumentation that are eligible for 
     funding under the guidelines of the Major Research 
     Instrumentation Program;
       (2) the distribution of awards and funding levels by year 
     and by major field of science and engineering for the Major 
     Research Instrumentation Program, since the inception of the 
     Program; and
       (3) an analysis of the impact of the Major Research 
     Instrumentation Program on the research instrumentation needs 
     that were documented in the Foundation's 1994 survey of 
     academic research instrumentation needs.

     SEC. 9. ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Foundation and the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration shall jointly establish 
     an Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (in this 
     section referred to as the ``Advisory Committee'').
       (b) Duties.--The Advisory Committee shall--
       (1) assess, and make recommendations regarding, the 
     coordination of astronomy and astrophysics programs of the 
     Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration;
       (2) assess, and make recommendations regarding, the status 
     of the activities of the Foundation and the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration as they relate to the 
     recommendations contained in the National Research Council's 
     2001 report entitled ``Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New 
     Millennium'', and the recommendations contained in subsequent 
     National Research Council reports of a similar nature; and
       (3) not later than March 15 of each year, transmit a report 
     to the Director, the Administrator of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Congress on the 
     Advisory Committee's findings and recommendations under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2).
       (c) Membership.--The Advisory Committee shall consist of 13 
     members, none of whom shall be a Federal employee, 
     including--
       (1) 5 members selected by the Foundation;
       (2) 5 members selected by the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration; and
       (3) 3 members selected by the members selected under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2).
       (d) Selection Process.--Initial selections under subsection 
     (c)(1) and (2) shall be made within 3 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act. Initial selections under 
     subsection (c)(3) shall be made within 5 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act. Vacancies shall be filled 
     in the same manner as provided in subsection (c).
       (e) Chairperson.--The Advisory Committee shall select a 
     chairperson from among its members.
       (f) Coordination.--The Advisory Committee shall coordinate 
     with the advisory bodies of other Federal agencies, such as 
     the Department of Energy, which may engage in related 
     research activities.
       (g) Compensation.--The members of the Advisory Committee 
     shall serve without compensation, but shall receive travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in 
     accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (h) Meetings.--The Advisory Committee shall convene, in 
     person or by electronic means, at least 4 times a year.
       (i) Quorum.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     majority of the members serving on the Advisory Committee 
     shall constitute a quorum for purposes of conducting the 
     business of the Advisory Committee.
       (2) Exception.--The selection of a member under subsection 
     (c)(3) shall require a vote of \3/4\ of the members appointed 
     under subsection (c)(1) and (2).
       (j) Duration.--Section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act shall not apply to the Advisory Committee.

     SEC. 10. BOARD MEETINGS.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure that 
     the Board complies with the requirements of section 552b of 
     title 5, United States Code, that all meetings, with the 
     exception of specific narrow statutory exemptions, be open to 
     the public.
       (b) Compliance Audit.--The Inspector General of the 
     National Science Foundation shall conduct an annual audit of 
     the compliance by the Board with the requirements described 
     in subsection (a). The audit shall examine the extent to 
     which the proposed and actual content of closed meetings is 
     consistent with those requirements.
       (c) Report.--Not later than February 15 of each year, the 
     Inspector General of the National Science Foundation shall 
     transmit to the Congress the audit required under subsection 
     (b) along with recommendations for corrective actions that 
     need to be taken to achieve fuller compliance with the 
     requirements described in subsection (a), and recommendations 
     on how to ensure public access to the Board's deliberations.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Rivers

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Rivers:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 11. SCHOLARSHIP ELIGIBILITY.

       The Director shall not exclude part-time students from 
     eligibility for scholarships under the Computer Science, 
     Engineering, and Mathematics Scholarship (CSEMS) program.

  Ms. RIVERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment that will 
offer relief in some very complicated lives. The NSF currently 
administers the Computer Science, Engineering and Mathematics 
Scholarships program, which was established by the American 
Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998.
  This program assists students training to enter the high-tech 
workforce in computer science, computer technology, engineering, 
engineering technology or mathematics. Unfortunately, NSF requires that 
students be enrolled full time as students, precluding working 
students, especially older students who have full time jobs and 
families, from qualifying for these scholarships. As someone who 
attended college and law school while juggling work and family 
obligations, I know firsthand how much good a change like this would do 
for folks who are working so hard.
  The data clearly shows that traditional full-time students are no 
longer the overwhelming majority of those attending undergraduate 
institutions. The U.S. Department of Education's National Center for 
Education Statistics found in 1999, the most recent data available, 
that of the 15 million students here in the United States, nearly 6 
million, or 41 percent, were attending on a part-time basis. According 
to the current population survey conducted by the Census Bureau, the 
greatest percentage rise in college attendance was by women 30 and 
over, 2.3 million new students. Approximately 23 percent of all male 
college and graduate students were age 30 or older.
  The National Center for Education Statistics has estimated that in 
2000, students 25 or older outnumbered those younger than 25. And 
according to the American Association of Community Colleges, community 
colleges in this country enroll over 10 million students, that is 44 
percent of all United States undergrads, and 63 percent of those 
attending community college are part-time students.
  The average age of a student at a community college is now 29 years 
old. Furthermore, more than 80 percent of community college students 
balance studies with full-time or part-time work.
  My amendment simply states that NSF's CSEMS program would be open to 
students enrolled in appropriate programs less than full time. The 
expansion of the CSEMS program will open the doors of opportunity to 
those who want to acquire or finish degrees in the very fields we need 
the most workers,

[[Page H3197]]

high technology. Add flexibility to the program and allow university 
administrators the discretion to help those who need the help most, 
regardless of whether they are an 8-, 10-, 12-, or 16-credit student 
per quarter. It would also enable NSF to administer all of the 
scholarship funds it currently has available under this program.
  I understand that much of this money sits unused due to lack of 
advertising, which is compounded due to the exclusion of part-time 
students. This amendment would fix the problem.
  In my home State of Michigan, several schools have received CSEMS 
program grants, including the University of Michigan that I represent, 
Grand Valley State University, Western State University, Central 
Michigan University, Kettering University, Lake Superior State 
University, and the University of Detroit. All of these institutions 
enroll part-time students, but none of those students are eligible for 
this program.
  We should extend the same assistance to them as their full-time 
colleagues receive. Having access to the CSEMS scholarship can make a 
significant difference when it comes to making a choice about pursuing 
a degree or not. The availability of Federal help in financing my 
education allowed me to go from being a teen mom working in low-wage 
jobs to being a Member of this august body. Education made the 
difference.
  Let us open the door to success just a little bit wider so more 
Americans can walk through it.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. RIVERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct. More 
and more of our students are adult and are part-time. It is a good 
amendment, and we accept the amendment.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support 
of my colleague from Michigan's amendment. This amendment seeks to 
expand educational opportunities for working Americans in the sciences, 
mathematics, and engineering.
  NSF's Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Scholarship 
(CSEMS) Program was established to support financially needy post-
secondary students pursuing careers in the high-tech sector. The acute 
shortage of trained scientists and engineers in our country is well 
documented, and critical sectors of our economy find it necessary to 
import high-tech labor from other countries under the H-1 B visa 
program.
  NSF is doing a great deal to address the shortage of home-grown 
scientists and engineers, but currently, the CSEMS program is only 
eligible to full-time students. The expansion of the eligibility of the 
CSEMS program to include part-time students will have two important 
results. The first is that it addresses our nation's need for more 
scientists and engineers in key sectors of our economy. The second is 
that it provides talented, motivated, and economically needy students 
with the resources they need to improve their quality of life and 
fulfill their dreams.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Woolsey

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Woolsey:
       At the end of section 3, add the following new subsection:
       (d) Biosafety Research.--Of the amount authorized under 
     subsection (a)(2)(A), $15,000,000, and of the amount 
     authorized under subsection (b)(2)(A), $20,000,000, shall be 
     available for support of fundamental research in areas 
     related to assessing biosafety. For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``biosafety'' means safety with respect 
     to the effects of biological research on organisms and the 
     environment.

  Ms. WOOLSEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would create a research 
program within the National Science Foundation to address a significant 
gap of knowledge on biosafety, a gap of knowledge that must be filled. 
The amendment establishes the Biosafety Research Program, so we can 
understand in scientific terms the effects of altering biological 
systems. It funds the basic science needed to understand the effects of 
introducing new plant and animal varieties through both traditional 
breeding techniques and through new methods of biotechnology in our 
agriculture, horticulture and aquaculture systems.
  For thousands of years we have experimented with plants, animals, 
microbes, and ecological systems in an effort to survive and prosper 
through the development of food and fiber sources, medicines and other 
materials essential to our well-being.
  Essentially, we have been moving our biological system around, 
sometimes intentionally, sometimes not intentionally.
  Here I use the term ``biological systems'' in the broadest sense. A 
biological system could be a set of genes, a whole organism, an 
ecosystem, or a group of ecosystems that co-exist in the landscape. It 
is no secret, Mr. Chairman, that a contentious debate has surrounded 
the introduction of biotechnology products. The debate has been 
characterized more by statements of hope by the advocates and fear from 
opponents than by science-based information. It is time we replace the 
rhetoric, the rhetoric on both sides, with a firm understanding of how 
these varieties are likely to operate in the real world.
  With the adoption of my amendment, the Biosafety Research Program 
will provide an identifiable pool of research funds for scientists to 
ask the basic research questions that could prevent unintended 
scenarios. I want my colleagues to know that this program will not fund 
risk assessment. It will not fund monitoring or the development or 
evaluation of risk-management strategies. Those activities in the area 
of applied research are not within the NSF mission. They are and should 
be supported by programs at USDA, EPA, and FDA, the entities charged 
with reviewing and regulating products being introduced into the 
market.
  The program my amendment creates in NSF is not a substitute for 
increased funding in these other agencies; however, I do believe that 
the applied research programs of these agencies need to be increased 
also to address the questions the public is asking about these new 
products.
  Before I close, Mr. Chairman, I want to call attention to several 
recent reports from the National Academy of Sciences on invasive 
species and agriculture biotechnology that have called for more 
research in this areas, including one released earlier this year. My 
amendment closely follows the recommendations contained in these 
academy reports. I also have a series of excerpts from these recent 
reports that I will insert into the Record at this time.

                      Quotations From NAS Reports

       ``The committee realizes that there remain some 
     uncertainties regarding the use of pest-protected plants, 
     including transgenic pest-protected plants. These 
     uncertainties can lead to ambiguities in regulation and often 
     force agencies to base their decisions on minimal data sets. 
     Additional research should continue to refine and improve 
     risk assessment methods and procedures and continue to 
     develop additional data on both conventional and transgenic 
     pest-protected plant products.'' (p. 139, NAS 2000)
       ``Research to increase our understanding of the population 
     biology, genetics, and community ecology of the target pests 
     should be conducted, so that more ecologically and 
     evolutionary sustainable approaches to pest management with 
     pest-protected plants can be developed. Knowledge of pests' 
     roles in the larger biological community (for example, their 
     role as food sources for non-target organisms or their roles 
     as predators of other agriculturally relevant pests) will 
     allow us to anticipate better the indirect effects of 
     declines in the pests due to both conventional and transgenic 
     pest-protected plants. Knowledge of the pest population 
     biology will enable prediction of the types of pest-
     protection mechanisms that would most efficiently reduce a 
     target organism's pest status and would help us to design 
     more accurate resistance management plans.
       Research to assess gene flow and its potential consequences 
     should be conducted . . . more ecological and agricultural 
     research is needed on the following: weed distribution and 
     abundance (past and present), key factors that regulate weed 
     population dynamics in managed and unmanaged areas, the 
     likely impact of specific, novel resistance traits on weed 
     abundance in managed and unmanaged areas, and rates at which 
     resistance genes from the crop would be likely to spread 
     among weed populations.'' (p. 140-141 NAS 2000)


                            Recommendations

       ``In cases when crucial scientific data are lacking about 
     the potential impacts of gene

[[Page H3198]]

     flow on wild or weedy relatives, the committee recommends 
     delaying approval of deregulation pending sufficient data, 
     establishing a scientifically rigorous monitoring program in 
     key areas to check for undesirable effects of resistance 
     transgenes after the transgenic pest-protected plant is 
     commercialized, or restricting the initial areas where the 
     plants can be grown.'' (p. 141-142 NAS 2000)
       ``APHIS jurisdiction has been restricted to the U.S. 
     borders. However, in an era of globalization, environmental 
     effects of transgenic crops on the ecosystems of developing 
     countries will be an important component of risk analysis. As 
     exemplified by the effects of the Green Revolution varieties 
     of wheat and rice, novel crop genes often have indirect 
     effects on the environment. These indirect effects can 
     occur because the new crop traits enable changes in other 
     agricultural practices and technologies that impact the 
     environment. They also can indirectly affect vertical 
     integration of agriculture and equality of access to food. 
     Society cannot ignore the fact that people who lack food 
     security often cause major effects on both agricultural 
     and nonagricultural environments, so in a broad context 
     the positive or negative effects of transgenes on human 
     well-being can be seen as an environmental effect.
       Environmental concerns raised by some of the first 
     transgenic crops (e.g. gene flow, disruption of the genome, 
     non-target effects) could be ameliorated by expanding our 
     knowledge base in specific areas of molecular biology, 
     ecology, and socioeconomic. Furthermore, such an expanded 
     knowledge base could lead to the production of transgenic 
     plants that would improve the environment. To increase 
     knowledge in relevant areas the committee recommends 
     substantial increases in public-sector investment in the 
     following research areas: (1) improvement in 
     precommercialization testing methods; (2) improvement in 
     transgenic methods that will minimize risks; (3) research to 
     identify transgenic plants traits that would provide 
     environmental benefits; (4) research to develop transgenic 
     plants with such traits; (5) research to improve the 
     environmental risk characterization processes; and (6) 
     research on the social, economic, and value-based issues 
     affecting environmental impacts of transgenic crops.'' (p. 16 
     NAS 2002)
       ``The committee cannot presently judge whether extensive 
     commercialization of transgenic--and other crops bearing 
     novel traits--will significantly perturb agro- 
     ecosystems or neighboring ecosystems because of major gaps in 
     our knowledge of these systems.'' (p. 23 NAS 2002)
       ``The committee finds, . . . that specific types of 
     transgenic and conventional crops can pose unique 
     environmental hazards. Also, the committee finds that there 
     are good arguments for regulating all transgenic crops. To be 
     effective such a regulatory system must have an efficient and 
     accurate method for rapidly evaluating all transgenic plants 
     to separate those that require additional regulatory 
     oversight from those that do not.'' (p. 52 NAS 2002)
       ``Perhaps more than anything else, the 
     experience with commercialization of transgenic crops has 
     revealed gaps in the knowledge base for understanding and 
     measuring the environmental risks of crop production, 
     irrespective of whether recombinant DNA technologies have 
     been applied.'' p. 254 NAS 2002
       ``Formal research support in the United States for the 
     study of environmental impacts of transgenic plants has been 
     sparse.'' p. 255 NAS 2002
       In reference to USDA's Biotechnology Risk Assessment 
     Research Grants program:
       ``. . . The program has allocated no more than a few 
     million dollars for research each year. Recently, the USDA's 
     Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) 
     program has included a competition for funding research, 
     education, and extension on the management of environmental 
     risks of agricultural biotechnology. Both funding programs 
     have substantial limitations--BRARGP because its focus is 
     only on assessment and because the total amount of funding is 
     so low; IFAFS because the focus is only for risk management 
     and the funding program itself is anticipated to have a short 
     life. Neither program funds monitoring or research related to 
     monitoring.
       Reserch on the environmental impacts of transgenic plants 
     can be accomplished through other funding sources if the 
     research questions asked have general significance. For 
     example, issues directly associated with the impacts of 
     transgenic plants may often be associated with critical, but 
     largely unanswered, questions in other fields. For example, 
     whether or not the introgression of pest resistance 
     transgenes into wild populations will result in the evolution 
     of weediness or invasiveness is directly associated with 
     important questions in population biology regarding the 
     genetic and ecological causes and correlates of invasiveness 
     (Traynor and Westwood 1999).'' (p. 255 NAS 2002)
       ``Recommendation 7.3: Significant public-sector investment 
     is called for in the following research areas: improvement in 
     risk analysis methodologies and protocols; improvement in 
     transgenic methods that will reduce risks and improve 
     benefits to the environment; research to develop and improve 
     monitoring for effects in the environment; and research on 
     the social, economic, and value-based issues affecting 
     environmental impacts of transgenic crops.'' (p. 259 NAS 
     2002)
       National Research Council. 2002. ``Environmental Effects of 
     Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation'' 
     National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
       National Research Council 2000. ``Genetically Modified 
     Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation. Washington, DC 
     National Academy Press.

  Mr. Chairman, we all live in a world in which we move things around 
with increasing frequency and speed. So we must make at least a modest 
investment in understanding how those movements are likely to affect 
our world. That is why I am asking my chairman and my colleagues to 
support this amendment, because it is the right thing to do.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we must reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment 
from my very good friend from California. I certainly agree with the 
gentlewoman that the National Science Foundation should conduct basic 
research that will enable us to understand better the impacts of 
biotechnology and other biological research on organisms and on the 
environment. In fact, NSF already conducts such research. Indeed, this 
House passed a bill just a few weeks ago that charged NSF, again, with 
conducting such research. That bill introduced by myself and the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), had been approved 
by the Committee on Science. So I wholeheartedly endorse the idea that 
NSF should fund this kind of research and they will.
  My problems with the amendment are narrower, but still significant. 
First the numbers in the amendment are entirely arbitrary. They may be 
too large; they may be too small. We have no idea. We have never looked 
into it. In an area this important, I do not think we should be pulling 
numbers out of thin air.
  Second, NSF funds a lot of different scientific disciplines and 
subdisciplines. We chose not to pick out many of these specific areas 
in this bill for congressionally or politically targeted spending 
levels because once we go down that road, there is no end to it. We 
want to give the foundation, the scientific community the maximum 
flexibility that has served us so well.
  So generally we have limited ourselves to initiatives proposed by the 
President in areas on which the House has previously acted. The kind of 
research that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is 
highlighting is important, but not necessarily more important than 
areas of research we are not citing by name in this bill. We need to 
limit the number of areas of science that we single out for set-asides 
in this bill.
  Let me say in conclusion, and maybe thirdly, I have a process problem 
with this amendment.

                              {time}  1500

  We have worked on this bill in a bipartisan manner for almost 2 
years. The bill passed unanimously in committee because of lengthy 
bipartisan discussions. I am not eager to add new issues on the House 
floor. We are poised now to pass a bill that can move swiftly through 
both the House and the other body, and I think many of us do not want 
to add anything that has even the potential to slow our progress.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is unnecessary 
and could slow passage of an important measure, and I will work with 
the gentlewoman to ensure that the area of science she is seeking to 
protect continues to receive its due from the National Science 
Foundation.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, two things. First, this would have been 
part of the debate in the committee had I not been asked not to bring 
it up in committee but to bring it as an amendment to the floor, and I 
was asked by the majority party to do that. So please be clear, this is 
not something I did not want to bring to the committee.
  Second of all, when my colleague talks about the funding being 
arbitrary, our decision on this funding came from the same place that 
our whole committee's decision to double the funding for NSF came from. 
We do not know how much money we need. We know we need more, and I know 
with my amendment we need something. So I want to get started and the

[[Page H3199]]

public wants to get started so that we can scientifically decide what 
is good and what is not good.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, to make it 
clear, it is somewhat of a different amendment than the gentlewoman 
submitted in the Committee on Science, but even more and above that, it 
seems to me like we should agree that if we can leave NSF and the 
scientific community and the peer review process to do and decide on 
these initiatives and how much is reasonable, the legislation that we 
passed recently by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson) and myself does not say we are going in one area or the other. 
It says do more research. Let us leave that up to the scientific 
community in deciding how much money should be spent in any particular 
area of this biological research.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in support of this particular amendment, but I would like to 
ask a specific question relative to an area of research that might be 
related to this program, and so I offer to the sponsor this question. 
Is it the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Woolsey) anticipation that 
this particular biosafety research program would provide research that 
would better understand why plants and animals become invasive pests 
when they are introduced in new habitats?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. RIVERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly my intention.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her response.
  I note that the National Academy of Sciences recently released a 
report called Predicting Invasions of Nonindigenous Plants and Plant 
Pests. In that document they state, ``In spite of a long history of 
interest in biological invasion, scientific inquiry in invasion is 
still nascent. Progress in understanding and predicting invasions will 
depend on how well the insights of investigators with diverse training 
can be coalesced and directed to decipher the myriad combinations of 
immigrant species, new ranges, and novel circumstances that can produce 
a biological invasion. The last 10 years has seen the emergence of a 
broad consensus that the prediction of biological invasion is a field 
presenting national need. It will take some time, however, to generate 
the predictive principles on which policy-makers, regulators, the 
scientific community, and the public can have confidence.''
  They go on to say that, ``The challenge of constructing a scientific 
basis for predicting the risk associated with nonindigenous species 
needs to be met by a significant national effort, including other 
agencies within the USDA, other branches of the Federal Government 
responsible for research and land management, agricultural and natural 
resource agencies of State governments and the scientific community at 
large.''
  I am very pleased to support this bill, with emphasis on invasive 
species, because in Michigan we have a terrible problem. When the zebra 
mussels hitched a ride in ship ballast water and were introduced to the 
Great Lakes and other bodies of water, their populations exploded. 
These animals are continuing to cause serious ecological and economic 
damage in my region, and I believe we need much more research to 
understand the basic biology and ecology of this organism if we are 
ever to hope to control it.
  I also believe that we need much more information to help us identify 
potentially invasive species before they are introduced to new 
ecosystems. We could avoid a great deal of harm and expense if we were 
able to devise means to evaluate the potential invasiveness of new 
plants and animals.
  I believe that the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Woolsey) 
proposal is a sound one that will bring us forward in the debate around 
invasive species and understanding our ecology in general. I urge 
Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Gutknecht) might also be relating to this, but in the bioterrorism 
bill that we passed a couple of weeks ago, we did include over $190 
million to USDA, additional funding to the Department of Energy, 
specifically for this purpose. So that bioterrorism bill included a lot 
of the goals that I hear some of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle suggest we need.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise in opposition 
to the amendment, and I know that the author and the supporters of this 
amendment are very sincere. They feel very strongly about the issues, 
but I want to clarify something here for the rest of the Members.
  We are really not talking about zebra mussels in this amendment, and 
we are not talking about purple loosestrife. What we are really talking 
about is whether or not we are going to take actions on the floor of 
the House of Representatives to limit the amount of research that can 
be done on biology and new plant species and things that are happening 
in biotechnology.
  What that says is we are not spending enough on that area now, and 
the truth of the matter is there is nothing in this authorization today 
that would limit the amount that the National Science Foundation could 
spend on these kinds of programs, but it is, in fact, a way of 
tinkering. So this is redundant. It is unneeded and, worse than that, 
it is politicizing what I think has been a very nonpolitical markup and 
as we have worked through this process.
  Historically, we in Congress, I think, have done a very good job of 
not trying to politicize or get our fingers into these kinds of 
decisions. We have had an awful lot of research about biology and new 
biotechnology, and all of it has come to this same conclusion, and that 
is, that the work that is being done in both the government-funded 
labs, as well as in private labs, is both safe and has no detrimental 
impact on the environment.
  We have had all kinds of scares. What the authors are trying to do 
really is they are once again introducing the idea that we can somehow 
disprove the negative. They know that that cannot happen, and this is a 
toe in the door for some of these researchers to say, well, the answer, 
of course, is we have to have more money, but understand that when 
those particular researchers, attempting to disprove a negative which 
cannot be disproved, when they take more money, it comes at the expense 
of other important research.
  I believe this research has to go forward. I think the USDA, the 
National Science Foundation, other groups that are doing this kind of 
research, they are doing it with very good scientists who understand 
that there are consequences, but more importantly, if we try to limit 
the work that is done in biotechnology, what we are working on today is 
developing plant species that can actually cure diseases.
  That is amazing. It is wonderful. We should not try to stymie that 
kind of research. We are developing new plant species which are much 
more resistant to pests and other problems they might encounter so we 
can use less in terms of pesticides on those plants. That again is a 
wonderful discovery.
  And also understand, most of the food that we eat today is a result 
of biotechnology. The Native Americans did a wonderful job in creating 
what we now know is corn. They actually developed that from what was 
formerly known as maize. The potato was something that was actually 
crossbred and developed by the American Indian. All that we enjoy, much 
of what we enjoy today in terms of things that we take for granted, 
were developed with biotechnology.
  This is a thinly veiled attempt to politicize what has been a very 
nonpolitical markup, and the way that the Congress has dealt with it, I 
think it is a bad idea. It sets a very bad precedent because if this 
amendment is adopted, I promise my colleagues we will see more and more 
amendments by Members attempting to advance a political cause they 
believe in. I think it is a very big mistake, and I hope the Members 
will join me in opposing this amendment.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the requisite number of words.

[[Page H3200]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for 
yielding to me. I have two responses to the gentleman from Michigan's 
(Mr. Smith) objections to my amendment.
  First, in talking about the changes that differed from what my 
amendment was in committee and to what we have brought to the floor, my 
changes were based on the committee's objections. So I came here 
prepared to improve upon what we had talked about earlier.
  In the amendment in committee, we had the funding come from a small 
account in the plant genome program, and now my amendment would allow 
the NSF director to decide where within an $11 billion research account 
my $35 million program could be funded. That is not a lot of money 
within a large account, and so I wanted to make sure my colleague knew 
why that had changed.
  It is $15 million in the first year of the bill, $20 million in the 
second year of the bill, and nothing specified in the third year 
because we have required a report from the NSF with their recommended 
levels for future years. So we are not assuming beyond the first 2 
years.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) has said that his bill 
already covers this, his bill that I voted for, H.R. 2051, to establish 
plant genome research centers which also authorizes research on basic 
research and dissemination of information on the ecological and other 
consequences of genetically engineered plants. His does that. My 
amendment expands upon the gentleman's bill, and my program covers 
plants and animals that would not be restricted to research on 
genetically engineered plants and animals. So it expands his good ideas 
but makes it larger.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, a couple of reactions, one 
supporting this concept. I am informed that the language of the 
gentlewoman's amendment limits the amount that can be spent on this 
effort, and who is to say it should be more, and I just suggest rather 
than let politicians deciding, let us let the scientific community make 
that decision, not limit it or pre-guess what is the right amount.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond that I think I am 
sitting on the wrong side of the aisle when it is this side of the 
aisle who would limit a budget, and it is the gentleman's side of the 
aisle challenging that.
  So this is the beginning of something that the public wants us to do, 
and I think we are making a great mistake if we do not vote for this 
because it is the right thing to do, and it is the environmentally 
friendly thing to do, and it would help our public know what is safe 
and what is not safe by having scientific studies, not emotional 
rhetoric, about what is going on with these programs.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I rise to enthusiastically support the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California's (Ms. Woolsey) amendment, and let me say to the proponents, 
this is a good bill, and I appreciate the leadership of the Committee 
on Science for the collaborative way in which this bill, the 
authorization of the National Science Foundation, has been done.
  Let me comment that the importance of science in America could not be 
more important now. When we begin to talk about homeland security and 
the new challenges that we will face in the 21st century to ensure 
safety in our community, science is important. Training of girls and 
boys and the training of minorities in science, preparing them for the 
21st century, funding those kinds of institutions, providing such 
programs is important.
  That is why I connect the value of the gentlewoman from California's 
(Ms. Woolsey) amendment because it is a simple, common sense amendment. 
If we could sort of move away from issues of politicizing and 
depoliticizing, let me say what this amendment does.
  It simply provides a steady stream of funding to study the impact of 
biotechnology on plants and ecosystems where there is not.

                              {time}  1515

  I would say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) that we all 
supported his legislation that was recently passed: 2051. In that 
legislation, the gentleman did in fact earmark, and that is simply what 
is going on here. What we are responding to, however, is our 
instructor, our instructor is the National Academy of Sciences, which 
has called for implicit and significant increased funding for the 
particular aspect of the Woolsey amendment.
  So, in fact, what is occurring is that the Woolsey amendment supports 
the National Academy of Sciences to provide monies for this kind of 
research. In fact, it has recommended this kind of research to study 
the ecological impact of plants bred conventionally and through 
biotechnology.
  I would also simply say to my good friend from Minnesota that 
depoliticizing the issue is what we are doing. We are not politicizing 
it. What we are simply trying to do is to give the funding stream to 
get good science in order to be able to regulate properly. And that 
means if we get the research, the basic research, we know how to do the 
job.
  I believe the American public is more than prepared now to understand 
that this is not a question of limiting the funds. The Woolsey 
amendment does not limit it; it gives it a funding stream. If we need 
more monies, I am sure that with an intelligent response by the 
Congress we can add more money. So this is not a limit. This is 
providing a continuous funding stream in order to be able to do the 
kind of research.
  Might I just restate the utilization of H.R. 2051, the bill of the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), was to establish plant genome 
research centers and which authorize research on basic research and 
dissemination of information on the ecological and other consequences 
of genetically engineered plants. This program would cover plants and 
animals and would not be restricted to research on genetically 
engineered plants and animals. This, however, has to be expanded; and 
the Woolsey amendment, I am very glad to say, goes a step further and 
begins to do the research that is necessary, the impact of 
biotechnology on plants and the ecosystems.
  I close this by simply saying this, Mr. Chairman. It is interesting 
how as we mature and learn we find out that what we used to ridicule we 
find is truth. It is interesting that the present administration and 
others who support their policies ridiculed global warming, but just 
the other day those representatives of this administration put forward 
a report that said, you know what, global warming exists. Good science 
tells us that global warming exists and we have a problem. 
Interestingly enough, the present administration had to concede. And, 
of course, we understand that it was refuted and that individuals who 
put forward the report were called a bunch of bureaucrats. But truth 
will find a way.
  This is what the Woolsey amendment offers to do, gives us the truth 
and the information that allows us to go forward and make an effective 
determination on how we can regulate this particular issue. And I would 
believe that our instructor, the National Academy of Sciences, could 
not be wrong in insisting that we need a significant increase in 
funding. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. I do not 
even rise reluctantly to oppose it, because I think it is ill advised.
  It is ill advised for several reasons. The type of research that is 
being outlined here is already being conducted, not just in the NSF but 
in various other agencies that are interested in it, the Department of 
Agriculture, the EPA; and I am sure NIH is looking at some aspects of 
it as well.
  But my main reason for objection has to do with the history of the 
National Science Foundation. The National

[[Page H3201]]

Science Foundation arose out of a report written by Vannevar Bush at 
the request of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1945. That report set out 
the basic structure of the National Science Foundation, and the basic 
idea of that report was that this would be an agency that would do 
scientific research, the priorities would be set by the scientists 
based on the scientific evidence, and that the research to be conducted 
would be peer reviewed by other scientists so that we would have good 
science done in this country.
  It has an outstanding record. We have heard already that we have had 
over 100 Nobel prizes awarded to people who have received National 
Science Foundation grants. The basic idea is that the Congress would 
keep its hands off of specific appropriations for specific projects. It 
is very disappointing that this bill, which received unanimous support 
in committee and appears to have received unanimous support in debate 
on the floor, has this introduced where we are trying to earmark money 
for a specific pet project.

  I can tell my colleagues that I can quickly list 20 pet projects that 
I think the NSF should be conducting research on and that they should 
be spending more money on. But the idea behind the NSF is that we do 
not allocate that money here, particularly in authorization bills; 
that, in fact, the work done there is based on the scientific judgments 
collectively gathered from the scientific community in this Nation.
  It is entirely inappropriate for us to sit here on the House floor in 
an authorizing bill and try to designate funding for a particular 
project which a few Members of this body believe are important above 
and beyond all the other scientific research that we are considering in 
this Nation.
  I object to this amendment. I hope that it is defeated, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I would like to point out, in responding to the statement that we 
are doing this already, that I have a quote on page 255 of the National 
Academy of Sciences Report of 2002, and I quote ``Formal research 
support in the United States for the study of environmental impacts on 
transgenic plants has been sparse.'' In other words, we are not doing 
enough.
  And in responding to the statement of my good friend, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), that we do not identify how we spend NSF 
funds, we just give them a big pot of money, we do have other programs 
that are identified. We spend money on advanced technological 
education, on Noyce scholarships, math and science scholarship 
programs, minority-serving institutions and undergraduate programs, and 
the Presidential Science Teacher awards, for example. That is just a 
list of the few things that we do.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, the items the gentlewoman has mentioned are 
all, if I heard them correctly, are all in the educational area, and 
are not directing research within the agency.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield once again to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would respond that they are still in 
NSF, and that is what we are saying. The gentleman is saying we do not 
identify programs that we invest money in other than just general 
funds. We do decide what is important under NSF when we choose to.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, and let me just say 
that I have a great deal of fear that the money that is going into 
science is quite often politicized, and there is evidence of that 
around. I think the amendment that the gentlewoman is suggesting would 
lead in that direction and we should be very wary of these types of 
earmarks.
  What I think the gentlewoman would actually do is create a situation 
where money was earmarked for this particular biotechnology type of 
research and the word would go out that if anyone wants to create 
scares about biotechnology they should come and get their grant because 
this is what this money is for.
  We have seen the same sort of thing happen before. We saw it happen 
with global warming. My fellow colleague and friend, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), suggested there has been a ``change'' in 
administration policy on global warming. Well, I am not sure what that 
change in policy is, but it is very clear that that issue has been so 
politicized by the introduction of tax dollars through the various 
National Science Foundation, NASA, et cetera, that the public has not 
been getting pure science, but it has been getting politicized science.
  In the early 1980s, there was a consensus, and in fact there were 
hearings in this Congress, in our committee, reaffirming the great 
threat that the global climate change posed to humankind. In fact, we 
had hearings in which the Democratic leaders of the committees at that 
time, because the Democrats controlled the House, they controlled the 
committees, made statements about the horrible threat of this global 
climate change. The only trouble was the climate change they were 
talking about and the scientists they brought in to verify it were 
warning us of global cooling.
  Some of those scientists, I might add, are now on the payroll 
advocating that we have to fear global warming. Now, all of that in a 
20-year time period. They reversed themselves on this important issue 
in a 20-year period. Now, supposedly the global warming trend and the 
global cooling trend, whatever it is, has been going on for thousands 
and thousands of years, yet they reversed themselves in a 20-year 
period as to what the government had to emphasize in order to save 
humankind.
  If we had taken their prescriptions, obviously we would have been 
going in exactly the wrong direction. And I would predict in about 5 
years from now there will be some other major revelation to the 
scientific community, as government grants are given in this way or 
that way; and we might find that it is neither global warming nor 
global cooling, but something to do with the Earth on its axis or 
something going towards the Moon or the sun, or something else we 
deserve to spend billions of dollars and direct it towards the 
scientists who will be able to warn us about it.

  Let me just note that we have seen the glaciers in our country and 
other countries receding for about 100,000 years now. There has been 
climate change in the world, and it has been getting warmer for 
hundreds of thousands of years. Yet in order to prove that humankind in 
the last 5,000, or actually the last 500 years is causing this global 
climate change, we are spending billions and billions of science 
dollars.
  We have got to quit politicizing science. This amendment, I believe, 
goes in exactly the wrong direction. But let me note this. Politicized 
science is probably the worst threat that we have right now to 
understanding the actual perils that might face us in the future.
  I still remember the ``Global 2000 Report,'' and I would recommend 
that my colleagues read the ``Global 2000 Report'' that was put out in 
1980, financed of course by tax dollars. The ``Global 2000 Report,'' I 
believe, warned us against global cooling, but my colleagues can check 
into that. I do not remember that precisely, but I do remember they 
said we would be totally out of oil by the year 2000 and that gasoline 
would cost about $150 a gallon, or something like that, and all of our 
natural resources would be depleted. In other words, there was this 
great threat, this great scare that was put out in the ``Global 2000 
Report,'' and every one of their conclusions were wrong, now that we 
have passed the year 2000. Do my colleagues know why it was wrong? It 
is because it was politicized science.
  I think that we have to, and we are dealing with this committee and 
we are dealing with our expenditures, we have to go out of our way, 
bend over backwards to ensure that we are not politicizing science; 
that we are not taking up a trendy issue and asking the scientific 
community to verify it in order

[[Page H3202]]

to get government grants. That is why I would oppose the Woolsey 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I would like to respond to the gentleman from California when he 
talks about biotechnology research and global climate reports that our 
President and his administration put forth a report this weekend to the 
U.N. acknowledging global climate change, and telling the world to 
adapt, just get used to it.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. Chairman, what are we going to tell the monarch butterflies when 
they are having to adapt to genetically modified corn? They cannot 
adapt. They are dying. We have to look into what we can do about that, 
and that is what this amendment is about. It is about good science, not 
about emotions.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I generally agree with 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), but I do have to correct 
one thing the gentlewoman said, the President and the administration 
put out a report. Actually, the administration put out a report. The 
President seemed to be quite surprised by it, not to the point of 
actually reading it, because I think it would take more than that to 
get him to read it; but I was struck by the President's bemusement by 
the report.
  So just because the EPA and a group of scientists have said something 
does not mean that the President chooses to associate himself with it. 
That does not detract from the validity of the report, but it did seem 
to me to be a rather interesting precedent being set of a President 
expressing his surprise that a report issued in his administration's 
name ought to be noted.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will count for a quorum.
  Does the gentlewoman withdraw the point of order?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Is an insufficient 
number standing, in your opinion, for a recorded vote?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman withdraws her point of 
order.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165, 
noes 259, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 211]

                               AYES--165

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--259

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Blagojevich
     Gilchrest
     Hilliard
     LaFalce
     Meeks (NY)
     Morella
     Peterson (PA)
     Riley
     Slaughter
     Traficant

                              {time}  1557

  Messrs. SAXTON, HALL of Ohio, SIMMONS, SHOWS, CRAMER, Mrs. THURMAN 
and Messrs. RYUN of Kansas, CRENSHAW and COX changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. DAVIS of Florida and Mr. 
ORTIZ changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair,

[[Page H3203]]

Mr. Bonilla, Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had 
under consideration the bill (H.R. 4664) to authorize appropriations 
for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 for the National Science 
Foundation, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 432, 
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 the 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 committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 397, 
noes 25, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 212]

                               AYES--397

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--25

     Collins
     Deal
     Flake
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Jones (NC)
     Kerns
     Kingston
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Norwood
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Stearns
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Weldon (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Blagojevich
     Callahan
     Gilchrest
     Hilliard
     LaFalce
     Meeks (NY)
     Morella
     Ortiz
     Peterson (PA)
     Riley
     Slaughter
     Traficant

                              {time}  1615

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, on final passage of H.R. 4664, Investing in 
America's Future Act, I was on the House Floor and cast an ``aye'' vote 
for H.R. 4664.
  I later learned my vote was not recorded. I wanted to advise the 
House that had my vote been recorded, I would have voted ``aye'' on 
final passage for H.R. 4664.

                          ____________________