[House Report 104-231]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-231
_______________________________________________________________________


 
         NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1995

_______________________________________________________________________


 August 4, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


   Mr. Walker, from the Committee on Science, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                                  and

  THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE LEGISLATIVE MARKUPS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
              BASIC RESEARCH AND THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                        [To accompany H.R. 1852]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
    The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 1852) to authorize appropriations for the National 
Science Foundation, and for other purposes, having considered 
the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Amendment........................................................2
 II. Summary..........................................................7
III. Committee Actions................................................8
 IV. Sectional Analysis...............................................9
  V. Committee Views.................................................12
         1. The Future of the National Science Foundation........    12
         2. Academic Research Facilities.........................    13
         3. National Research Facilities.........................    14
         4. Undergraduate Education..............................    15
         5. Competition with Private Laboratories................    15
         6. Computer Security....................................    16
         7. U.S. Antarctic Program...............................    16
         8. Financial Disclosure.................................    17
         9. Educational Leave of Absence for Active Duty.........    17
        10. Grant Review Process.................................    18
        11. Prohibition of Lobbying Activities...................    18
        12. Duplication of Federal Research Resources............    18
        13. The Science Studies Institute........................    19
        14. Affirmative Action...................................    19
        15. Reorganization of NSF................................    20
        16. Two Year and Community College Programs..............    20
        17. Indirect Cost........................................    20
        18. Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 
            Research.............................................    21
        19. Anti-Earmarking......................................    22
 VI. Committee Cost Estimate.........................................22
VII. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.......................23
VIII.Effects of Legislation on Inflation.............................24

 IX. Oversight Findings and Recommendations..........................24
  X. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on 
     Government Reform and Oversight.................................24
 XI. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported...........25
XII. Additional Views................................................31
XIII.Proceedings from the Subcommittee Markup of the Subcommittee Pri34

XIV. Proceedings from the Committee Markup of H.R. 1852.............100
                              I. Amendment

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    For purposes of this Act--
            (1) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the 
        Foundation;
            (2) the term ``Foundation'' means the National Science 
        Foundation;
            (3) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the 
        meaning given such term in section 1201(a) of the Higher 
        Education Act of 1965;
            (4) the term ``national research facility'' means a 
        research facility funded by the Foundation which is available, 
        subject to appropriate policies allocating access, for use by 
        all scientists and engineers affiliated with research 
        institutions located in the United States; and
            (5) the term ``United States'' means the several States, 
        the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
        Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 
        Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or possession 
        of the United States.

           TITLE I--NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION

SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
          (1) the programs of the Foundation are important for the 
        Nation to strengthen basic research and develop human resources 
        in science and engineering, and that those programs should be 
        funded at an adequate level;
          (2) the primary mission of the Foundation continues to be the 
        support of basic scientific research and science education and 
        the support of research fundamental to the engineering process 
        and engineering education; and
          (3) the Foundation's efforts to contribute to the economic 
        competitiveness of the United States should be in accord with 
        that primary mission.
    (b) Fiscal Year 1996.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Foundation $3,126,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, which shall be 
available for the following categories:
            (1) Research and Related Activities, $2,226,300,000, which 
        shall be available for the following subcategories:
                    (A) Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 
                $632,200,000.
                    (B) Engineering, $311,600,000.
                    (C) Biological Sciences, $293,300,000.
                    (D) Geosciences, $408,800,000.
                    (E) Computer and Information Science and 
                Engineering, $249,500,000.
                    (F) Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, 
                $111,300,000.
                    (G) United States Polar Research Programs, 
                $156,000,000.
                    (H) United States Antarctic Logistical Support 
                Activities, $62,600,000.
                    (I) Critical Technologies Institute, $1,000,000.
            (2) Education and Human Resources Activities, $600,000,000.
            (3) Major Research Equipment, $70,000,000.
            (4) Academic Research Facilities Modernization, 
        $100,000,000.
            (5) Salaries and Expenses, $120,000,000.
            (6) Office of Inspector General, $4,500,000.
            (7) Headquarters Relocation, $5,200,000.
    (c) Fiscal Year 1997.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Foundation $3,171,400,000 for fiscal year 1997, which shall be 
available for the following categories:
            (1) Research and Related Activities, $2,286,200,000.
            (2) Education and Human Resources Activities, $600,000,000.
            (3) Major Research Equipment, $55,000,000.
            (4) Academic Research Facilities Modernization, 
        $100,000,000.
            (5) Salaries and Expenses, $120,000,000.
            (6) Office of Inspector General, $5,000,000.
            (7) Headquarters Relocation, $5,200,000.

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

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

SEC. 103. CONSULTATION AND REPRESENTATION EXPENSES.

  From appropriations made under authorizations provided in this Act, 
not more than $10,000 may be used in each fiscal year for official 
consultation, representation, or other extraordinary expenses at the 
discretion of the Director. The determination of the Director shall be 
final and conclusive upon the accounting officers of the Government.
SEC. 104. REPROGRAMMING.

  (a) $500,000 or Less.--In any given fiscal year, the Director may 
transfer appropriated funds among the subcategories of Research and 
Related Activities, so long as the net funds transferred to or from any 
subcategory do not exceed $500,000.
  (b) Greater Than $500,000.--In addition, the Director may propose 
transfers to or from any subcategory exceeding $500,000. An explanation 
of any proposed transfer under this subsection must be transmitted in 
writing to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives, 
and the Committees on Labor and Human Resources and Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation of the Senate. The proposed transfer may be made 
only when 30 calendar days have passed after transmission of such 
written explanation.

SEC. 105. FURTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.

  Nothing in this Act shall preclude further authorization of 
appropriations for the National Science Foundation for fiscal year 
1996: Provided, That authorization allocations adopted by the 
Conference Committee on House Concurrent Resolution 67, and approved by 
Congress, allow for such further authorizations.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. ANNUAL REPORT.

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

SEC. 202. NATIONAL RESEARCH FACILITIES.

  (a) Facilities Plan.--The Director shall provide to Congress 
annually, as a part of the report required under section 3(f) of the 
National Science Foundation Act of 1950, a plan for the proposed 
construction of, and repair and upgrades to, national research 
facilities. The plan shall include estimates of the cost for such 
construction, repairs, and upgrades, and estimates of the cost for the 
operation and maintenance of existing and proposed new facilities. For 
proposed new construction and for major upgrades to existing 
facilities, the plan shall include funding profiles by fiscal year and 
milestones for major phases of the construction. The plan shall include 
cost estimates in the categories of construction, repair, and upgrades 
for the year in which the plan is submitted to Congress and for not 
fewer than the succeeding 4 years.
  (b) Limitation on Obligation of Unauthorized Appropriations.--No 
funds appropriated for any project which involves construction of new 
national research facilities or construction necessary for upgrading 
the capabilities of existing national research facilities shall be 
obligated unless the funds are specifically authorized for such purpose 
by this Act or any other Act which is not an appropriations Act, or 
unless the total estimated cost to the Foundation of the construction 
project is less than $50,000,000. This subsection shall not apply to 
construction projects approved by the National Science Board prior to 
June 30, 1994.

SEC. 203. ELIGIBILITY FOR RESEARCH FACILITY AWARDS.

  Section 203(b) of the Academic Research Facilities Modernization Act 
of 1988 is amended by striking the final sentence of paragraph (3) and 
inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``The Director shall give 
priority to institutions or consortia that have not received such funds 
in the preceding 5 years, except that this sentence shall not apply to 
previous funding received for the same multiyear project.''.

SEC. 204. ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS.

  (a) National Science Foundation Act of 1950 Amendments.--The National 
Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended--
          (1) by redesignating the subsection (k) of section 4 (42 
        U.S.C. 1863(k)) that was added by section 108 of the National 
        Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988 as subsection (l);
          (2) in section 5(e) (42 U.S.C. 1864(e)) by amending paragraph 
        (2) to read as follows:
  ``(2) Any delegation of authority or imposition of conditions under 
paragraph (1) shall be promptly published in the Federal Register and 
reported to the Committees on Labor and Human Resources and Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science 
of the House of Representatives.'';
          (3) by inserting ``be entitled to'' between ``shall'' and 
        ``receive'', and by inserting ``, including traveltime,'' after 
        ``Foundation'' in section 14(c) (42 U.S.C. 1873(c));
          (4) by striking section 14(j) (42 U.S.C. 1873(j)); and
          (5) by striking ``Atomic Energy Commission'' in section 15(a) 
        (42 U.S.C. 1874(a)) and inserting in lieu thereof ``Secretary 
        of Energy''.
  (b) National Science Foundation Authorization Act, 1976 Amendments.--
Section 6(a) of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act, 1976 
(42 U.S.C. 1881a(a)) is amended by striking ``social,'' the first place 
it appears.
  (c) National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988 
Amendments.--(1) Section 117(a)(1)(B)(v) of the National Science 
Foundation Authorization Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 1881b(1)(B)(v)) is 
amended to read as follows:
          ``(v) from schools established outside the several States and 
        the District of Columbia by any agency of the Federal 
        Government for dependents of its employees.''.
  (2) Section 117(a)(3)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1881b(3)(A)) is 
amended by striking ``Science and Engineering Education'' and inserting 
in lieu thereof ``Education and Human Resources''.
  (d) Education for Economic Security Act Amendments.--Section 107 of 
Education for Economic Security Act (20 U.S.C. 3917) is repealed.
  (e) Technical Amendment.--The second subsection (g) of section 3 of 
the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 is repealed.

SEC. 205. INDIRECT COSTS.

  (a) Matching Funds.--Matching funds required pursuant to section 
204(a)(2)(C) of the Academic Research Facilities Modernization Act of 
1988 (42 U.S.C. 1862c(a)(2)(C)) shall not be considered facilities 
costs for purposes of determining indirect cost rates.
  (b) Report.--The Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy, in consultation with other relevant agencies, shall prepare a 
report analyzing what steps would be needed to--
          (1) reduce by 10 percent the proportion of Federal assistance 
        to institutions of higher education that are allocated for 
        indirect costs; and
          (2) reduce the variance among indirect cost rates of 
        different institutions of higher education,
including an evaluation of the relative benefits and burdens of each 
option on institutions of higher education. Such report shall be 
transmitted to the Congress no later than December 31, 1995.
SEC. 206. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION AND FACILITIES.

  The Foundation shall incorporate the guidelines set forth in 
Important Notice No. 91, dated March 11, 1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 15754, 
April 12, 1983), relating to the use and operation of Foundation-
supported research instrumentation and facilities, in its notice of 
Grant General Conditions, and shall examine more closely the adherence 
of grantee organizations to such guidelines.
SEC. 207. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.

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

SEC. 208. EDUCATIONAL LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR ACTIVE DUTY.

  In order to be eligible to receive funds from the Foundation after 
September 30, 1995, an institution of higher education must provide 
that whenever any student of the institution who is a member of the 
National Guard, or other reserve component of the Armed Forces of the 
United States, is called or ordered to active duty, other than active 
duty for training, the institution shall grant the member a military 
leave of absence from their education. Persons on military leave of 
absence from their institution shall be entitled, upon release from 
military duty, to be restored to the educational status they had 
attained prior to their being ordered to military duty without loss of 
academic credits earned, scholarships or grants awarded, or tuition and 
other fees paid prior to the commencement of the military duty. It 
shall be the duty of the institution to refund tuition or fees paid or 
to credit the tuition and fees to the next semester or term after the 
termination of the educational military leave of absence at the option 
of the student.
SEC. 209. PROHIBITION OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES.

  None of the funds authorized by this Act shall be available for any 
activity whose purpose is to influence legislation pending before the 
Congress, provided that this shall not prevent officers or employees of 
the United States or of its departments or agencies from communicating 
to Members of Congress on the request of any Member or to Congress, 
through the proper channels, requests for legislation or appropriations 
which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public 
business.
SEC. 210. SCIENCE STUDIES INSTITUTE.

  (a) Amendment.--Section 822 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal 1991 (42 U.S.C. 6686) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``Critical Technologies Institute'' in the 
        section heading and in subsection (a), and inserting in lieu 
        thereof ``Science Studies Institute'';
          (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``As determined by the 
        chairman of the committee referred to in subsection (c), the'' 
        and inserting in lieu thereof ``The'';
          (3) by striking subsection (c), and redesignating subsections 
        (d), (e), (f), and (g) as subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), 
        respectively;
          (4) in subsection (c), as so redesignated by paragraph (3) of 
        this subsection--
                  (A) by inserting ``science and'' after ``developments 
                and trends in'' in paragraph (1);
                  (B) by striking ``with particular emphasis'' in 
                paragraph (1) and all that follows through the end of 
                such paragraph and inserting in lieu thereof ``and 
                developing and maintaining relevant informational and 
                analytical tools.'';
                  (C) by striking ``to determine'' and all that follows 
                through ``technology policies'' in paragraph (2) and 
                inserting in lieu thereof ``with particular attention 
                to the scope and content of the Federal science and 
                technology research and develop portfolio as it affects 
                interagency and national issues'';
                  (D) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
          ``(3) Initiation of studies and analysis of alternatives 
        available for ensuring the long-term strength of the United 
        States in the development and application of science and 
        technology, including appropriate roles for the Federal 
        Government, State governments, private industry, and 
        institutions of higher education in the development and 
        application of science and technology.'';
                  (E) by inserting ``science and'' after ``Executive 
                branch on'' in paragraph (4)(A); and
                  (F) by amending paragraph (4)(B) to read as follows:
                  ``(B) to the interagency committees and panels of the 
                Federal Government concerned with science and 
                technology.'';
          (5) in subsection (d), as so redesignated by paragraph (3) of 
        this subsection, by striking ``subsection (d)'' and inserting 
        in lieu thereof ``subsection (c)''; and
          (6) by amending subsection (f), as so redesignated by 
        paragraph (3) of this subsection, to read as follows:
  ``(f) Sponsorship.--The Director of the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy shall be the sponsor of the Institute.''.
  (b) Conforming Usage.--All references in Federal law or regulations 
to the Critical Technologies Institute shall be considered to be 
references to the Science Studies Institute.
SEC. 211. EDUCATIONAL IMPACT.

  (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
          (1) Federal research funds made available to institutions of 
        higher education often create incentives for such institutions 
        to emphasize research over undergraduate teaching and to narrow 
        the focus of their graduate programs; and
          (2) National Science Foundation funds for Research and 
        Related Activities should be spent in the manner most likely to 
        improve the quality of undergraduate and graduate education in 
        institutions of higher education.
  (b) Educational Impact.--(1) The impact that a grant or cooperative 
agreement by the National Science Foundation would have on 
undergraduate and graduate education at an institution of higher 
education shall be a factor in any decision whether to award such grant 
or agreement to that institution.
  (2) Paragraph (1) shall be effective with respect to any grant or 
cooperative agreement awarded after September 30, 1996.
  (c) Report.--The Director shall provide a plan for the implementation 
of subsection (b) of this section, no later than December 31, 1995, to 
the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on 
Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.
SEC. 212. DIVISIONS OF THE FOUNDATION.

  (a) Amendment.--Section 8 of the National Science Foundation Act of 
1950 (42 U.S.C. 1866) is amended by inserting ``The Director may 
appoint, in consultation with the Board, not more than 6 Assistant 
Directors to assist in managing the Divisions.'' after ``time to time 
determine.''.
  (b) Report.--By November 15, 1995, the Director shall transmit to the 
Congress a report on the reorganization of the National Science 
Foundation required as a result of the amendment made by subsection 
(a).
SEC. 213. LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) Exclusive Authorization for Fiscal Year 1996.--Notwithstanding 
any other provision of law, no sums are authorized to be appropriated 
for fiscal year 1996 for the activities of the National Science 
Foundation unless such sums are specifically authorized to be 
appropriated by this Act.
  (b) Subsequent Fiscal Years.--No sums are authorized to be 
appropriated for any fiscal year after fiscal year 1996 for the 
activities of the National Science Foundation unless such sums are 
specifically authorized to be appropriated by Act of Congress with 
respect to such fiscal year.

SEC. 214. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

  (a) In General.--The Director shall exclude from consideration for 
awards of financial assistance made by the National Science Foundation 
after fiscal year 1995 any person who received funds, other than those 
described in subsection (b), appropriated for a fiscal year after 
fiscal year 1995, from any Federal funding source for a project that 
was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award process. Any 
exclusion from consideration pursuant to this section shall be 
effective for a period of 5 years after the person receives such 
Federal funds.
  (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to awards to persons 
who are members of a class specified by law for which assistance is 
awarded to members of the class according to a formula provided by law.
                              II. Summary

                            purpose of bill

    The bill authorizes appropriations for the major activities 
and budget categories of the National Science Foundation (NSF) 
for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. In addition, the bill 
establishes new requirements for NSF preparation of a strategic 
plan; eliminates one or more of NSF's directorates; places a 
funding ban on institutions which receive appropriations 
earmarks; requires options for a 10% reduction in the 
proportion of Federal indirect costs; prohibits expenditure of 
unauthorized funds for construction of major national research 
facilities; subjects temporary NSF employees to the same 
financial disclosure requirements as permanent employees; 
directs NSF to consider the impact of research grants on 
undergraduate science education; and redesignates the Critical 
Technologies institute as the Science Studies Institute, with a 
refined mission, and places limits on NSF funding.

                           budget explanation

    H.R. 1852, as amended, authorizes appropriations to NSP for 
fiscal year 1996 in the amount of $3,126,000,000 and for fiscal 
year 1997 in the amount of $3,171,400,000 as follows:
           Budget Activities--Authorizations fiscal year 1996

Research and related activities:
    Biological sciences.................................    $293,300,000
    Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering...     249,500,000
    Engineering.........................................     311,600,000
    Geosciences.........................................     408,800,000
    Mathematical and Physical Sciences..................     632,200,000
    Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences...........     111,300,000
    U.S. Polar Research Programs........................     156,000,000
    U.S. Antarctic Logistical Support Activities........      62,600,000
    Critical Technologies Institute.....................       1,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................   2,226,300,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Education and Human Resources...........................     600,000,000
Major Research Equipment................................      70,000,000
Academic Research Facilities Modernization Program......     100,000,000
Salaries and Expenses...................................     120,000,000
Office of the Inspector General.........................       4,500,000
NSF Headquarters Relocation.............................       5,200,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................   3,126,000,000

           Budget Activities--Authorizations fiscal year 1997

Research and Related Activities.........................   2,286,200,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................   2,286,200,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Education and Human Resources...........................     600,000,000
Major Research Equipment................................      55,000,000
Academic Research Facilities Modernization Program......     100,000,000
Salaries and Expenses...................................     120,000,000
Office of the Inspector General.........................       5,000,000
NSF headquarters relocation.............................       5,200,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
  Total.................................................   3,171,400,000
                            other provisions

    H.R. 1852, as amended, imposes new requirements on the NSF 
for long-range program planning and organization. The NSF Act 
of 1950 is amended by transforming the existing NSF annual 
report to Congress into a 3-year strategic plan to be updated 
annually. In addition, NSF is required to prepare and submit 
annually to Congress a 5-year plan for new construction, 
repair, and upgrades to National Research Facilities (major 
research facilities and equipment, such as telescopes, which 
are available for use by researchers throughout the world). The 
bill prohibits obligation of funds appropriated for national 
facilities costing in excess of $50 million, unless the project 
for which the funds are to be expended has been explicitly 
authorized.
    H.R. 1852, as amended, establishes eligibility criteria for 
certain NSF program activities. With certain exceptions, the 
Director shall exclude from consideration for awards made by 
NSF after fiscal year 1995 any person who receives Federal 
funds for a project that was not subjected to a competitive, 
merit-based award process. Relative to awards from NSF, H.R. 
1852 requires that grant documents include a statement of the 
current NSF policy that NSF-supported research facilities 
should not be used in fee-for-service competition with private 
companies that provide equivalent services.

                         III. Committee Actions

    Prior to introduction of H.R. 1852, the Subcommittee on 
Basic Research held authorization hearings for NSF on February 
22 and March 2, 1995. In addition to the Director of NSF, 
testimony was received from witnesses representing institutions 
of higher education and several major scientific societies. The 
NSF research and education programs were reviewed, with 
emphasis on their overall contributions to the nation. 
Recommendations were received on several aspects of the NSF's 
activities, including requests to bolster involvement in 
undergraduate and K thru 12 education, to support academic 
facilities renewal, and to review and revise outdated rules and 
regulations of the Foundation. In addition, long-term goals for 
the NSF were discussed.
    Following the hearings, a draft authorization bill was 
prepared, and the Subcommittee met on June 8, 1995 for 
consideration of Subcommittee Chairman Schiff's mark. The major 
provisions of the bill, as reported by the Subcommittee are as 
follows: provides authorizations for 2 years (fiscal years 
1996, 1997); specifies that $3,126,000,000 million is 
authorized to be appropriated for the NSF program in fiscal 
year 1996, and $3,171,400,000 million for the program in fiscal 
year 1997; establishes ineligibility for NSF awards to persons 
who have received funds that were not based on a competitive, 
merit-based award process; transforms the existing NSF annual 
report to Congress into a 3-year strategic plan to be updated 
annually; requires an annually updated 5-year plan for new 
construction, repair, and upgrades to NSF-funded national 
research facilities; and prohibits obligation of unauthorized 
funds appropriated for national facilities costing in excess of 
$50 million.
    The full Committee then met, on June 28, 1995, to mark up 
H.R. 1852. Chairman Walker offered an en bloc amendment to the 
Subcommittee mark. The en bloc amendment makes the following 
changes: requires the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 
in consultation with other relevant agencies such as OMB, NIH 
and ONR, to prepare a report on reducing, the proportion, by 10 
percent, of Federal assistance to institutions of higher 
education that are allocated to indirect costs and reduce the 
variance among indirect costs rates among institutions which 
receive Federal research assistance; requires the Director to 
reduce NSF from 7 Directorates to not more than 6 and present a 
report to the Congress on the new organization by November 15, 
1995; places limits on appropriated funds for NSF; requires the 
Director to exclude from consideration, for a period of 5 
years, persons who received awards that were not subject to a 
merit review process, unless those persons meet exceptions 
stipulated in H.R. 1852.
    Mr. Brown offered an amendment to the en bloc amendment, 
which was accepted, clarifying the lobbying prohibition section 
of H.R. 1852, as it relates to Government employees.
    Mr. Boehlert offered an amendment to the en bloc amendment 
requiring the OSTP to include the relative benefits and burdens 
of the recommendations put forth in OSTP's indirect costs 
report. The amendment was accepted.
    The Committee approved Mr. Walker's amendment as amended. 
After further consideration, the bill was ordered reported as 
amended by voice vote.
       IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 1852, as Reported

    The en bloc amendment for H.R. 1852 adopted by the 
Committee is incorporated in the beginning of this report.
    A bill to authorize appropriations for the National Science 
Foundation, and for other purposes.
    Section 1 is the short title of the bill, the ``National 
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1995.''
    Section 2 contains definitions of terms in the bill.

          Title I--National Science Foundation Authorizations

                    authorizations of appropriations

    Section 101 contains the authorization of appropriations 
for the NSF's principal activities for fiscal years 1996 and 
1997. Section 101(b) authorizes an appropriation of 
$3,126,000,000 to the NSF for fiscal year 1996 in the following 
subcategories:
    1. Research and Related Activities within the following 
areas:
          Biological Sciences
          Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering
          Engineering
          Geosciences
          Mathematical and Physical Sciences
          Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
          U.S. Polar Research Programs
          U.S. Antarctic Logistical Support Activities
          Critical Technologies Institute
    2. Education and Human Resources
    3. Major Research Equipment
    4. Academic Research Facilities Modernization Program
    5. Salaries and Expenses
    6. Office of the Inspector General
    7. NSF Headquarters Relocation
    Section 101(c) authorizes an appropriation of 
$3,171,400,000 to NSF for fiscal year 1997 in the following 
categories:
    1. Research and Related Activities
    2. Education and Human Resources
    3. Academic Research Facilities Modernization Program
    4. Major Research Equipment
    5. Salaries and Expenses
    6. Office of the Inspector General
    7. NSF Headquarters Relocation
    Section 102 specifies if the amount appropriated pursuant 
to the authorization is less than the amount authorized, the 
amount authorized for each subcategory under that subparagraph 
shall be reduced by the same proportion.
    Section 103 allows the Director to pay for consultation and 
representation expenses from appropriations made under 
authorizations provided in this Act. Not more than $10,000 may 
be used in each fiscal year for official consultation, 
representation, or other extraordinary expenses at the 
discretion of the Director. The determination of the Director 
shall be final and conclusive upon the accounting officers of 
the Government.
    Section 104 gives Director authority to transfer funds 
within the NSF budget. For any given fiscal year the Director 
may transfer to or from any subcategory described in section 
101(b) up to a maximum of $500,000. In addition, the Director 
may propose transfers to or from any subcategory in Section 
101(b) exceeding $500,000 provided the Committee receives 
proper notification and after a 30 day period.
    Section 105 provides that additional authorizations to the 
Foundation may be made, if called for in the Conference Report 
to the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 
1996.

                      Title II--General Provisions

    Section 201 amends Section 3(f) of the National Science 
Foundation Act of 1950 to read as follows:

          The Director shall submit an annual report to the 
        President at the time of the Administration's annual 
        budget submission. The report shall include a strategic 
        three year plan outlining overall goals specific to 
        each major activity of the Foundation, how the 
        Foundation will meet and exploit such goals, a review 
        of the past year's activities, summary of upcoming 
        three year activities, recommendations for the 
        Foundation, and information on the disposition on 
        patents and patent rights.

    Section 202 stipulates that the Director shall provide to 
Congress, annually, a plan covering a five year period for 
construction of, repair and upgrades to, and operations and 
maintenance costs for, national research facilities. Only funds 
which are specifically authorized to be appropriated shall be 
obligated for any project of new national research facilities, 
unless the total estimated cost is less than $50,000,000.
    Section 203 requires that for the Academic Research 
Facilities Modernization Program, the Director give priority to 
institutions or consortia that have not received such funds in 
the preceding 5 years, except for previous funding received for 
the same multi-year project.
    Section 204 amends sections of the National Science 
Foundation Act of 1950, the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 1976, and the National Science Foundation 
Act of 1988 for administrative and technical purposes.
    Section 205 stipulates that matching funds required of the 
Academic Research Facilities Modernization Act of 1988 shall 
not be considered facilities costs for purposes of determining 
indirect cost rates. Also, the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy, and other relevant agencies such as OMB, NIH and ONR, 
shall report to the Congress on how to reduce by 10 percent the 
Proportion of Federal research funds used for indirect costs by 
institutions of higher education.
    Section 206 requires the Foundation to incorporate the 
guidelines relating to the use and operation of Foundation-
supported research instrumentation and facilities in its notice 
of Grant General Conditions.
    Section 207 requires persons temporarily employed by or at 
the Foundation to be subject to the same financial disclosure 
requirements under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 as are 
permanent employees of the Foundation.
    Section 208 stipulates that, in order to be eligible to 
receive a grant, an institution of higher education must 
provide a member of the National Guard or other reserve 
component of the Armed Forces called or ordered to active duty 
to be restored to the educational status they had attained 
prior to their being ordered to military duty without loss of 
academic credit, scholarships, or tuition and other fees.
    Section 209 prohibits funds authorized by this Act to be 
used in any way to promote public support or opposition to any 
legislative proposal on which congressional action is not 
complete.
    Section 210 redesignates the Critical Technologies 
Institute as the Science Studies Instituted, disestablishes the 
CTI operating committee; and modifies the duties of the new 
Institute.
    Section 211 requires the NSF to consider the impact of any 
grant on the undergraduate and graduate education at an 
institution, when considering a grant request. This will apply 
to all awards after September 30, 1996. The Director shall 
provide a plan to the Congress for the implementation of this 
section by December 31, 1995.
    Section 212 requires the Director to maintain not more than 
6 Assistant Directors and transmit to Congress a report by 
November 15, 1995 on the reorganization of NSF resulting from 
this provision.
    Section 213 disallows authorization of funds which are not 
specifically authorized to be appropriated by this Act for FY 
96 or by an Act of Congress in succeeding fiscal years.
    Section 214 requires the Director to exclude, for a period 
of 5 years, any person who received funds for a project not 
subject to a competitive, merit-based review process after 
fiscal year 1995. This is not applicable to awards to persons 
who are members of a class specified by law for which 
assistance is awarded according to formula provided by law.
                           V. Committee Views

            1. the future of the national science foundation

Background

    The NSF budget is only four percent of the total Federal 
R&D budget, but makes an important contribution to the nation's 
science and technology enterprise. The NSF is the premiere 
Federal agency for support of research in the physical and 
mathematical sciences at universities. The Foundation is often 
credited with having made a major contribution over the past 40 
years to establishing the internationally recognized research 
excellence of U.S. universities and to the training of 
scientists and engineers of the highest caliber.
    The NSF Act of 1950 authorizes and directs NSF to initiate 
and support basic research and programs to strengthen research 
potential and education at all levels in the sciences and 
engineering. The Act reinforces that basic research and 
education have traditionally constituted the heart of the NSF's 
mission.

Committee view

    The Committee strongly asserts that the mission statement 
for the NSF as contained in section 3 of the NSF Act of 1950 
requires that the NSF continue its focus on support of basic 
research and education in science and engineering. The 
Committee further asserts that the NSF mission may be altered 
only by amendment of the NSF Act of 1950, and consequently, the 
Committee expects the NSF's programs and activities to conform 
to the functions authorized by the 1950 Act, as amended.
    The Committee's purpose in section 201 of the bill, which 
establishes the requirement for an annually updated strategic 
plan, is to (1) clarify the connections between NSF programs 
and national needs, and (2) identify the criteria and 
procedures that the Foundation will use to assess the progress 
and achievements of its research and education programs. The 
Committee intends that the evaluation criteria identified be 
consistent with the assessment of research programs which have 
multi-year lifetimes associated with fundamental research. The 
Committee understands that methodology for assessment of basic 
research is not well established but, strongly believes that 
the NSF must make every effort to develop methodology that will 
provide a sound basis for justifying current and future Federal 
support for the NSF, as required by the Government Performance 
and Results Act (PL 103-62).

                    2. academic research facilities

Background

    In the United States, universities are the major performers 
of basic research in the sciences and engineering. The research 
capabilities of U.S. universities, which includes an extensive 
physical infrastructure, has been built up with large public 
expenditures over the past 40 years and represents a key 
component of the nation's science and technology enterprise. 
The condition of academic research facilities is an important 
determinant of the kinds of research that may be done and how 
productive will be the research pursued.
    A 1986 White House Science Council report, ``A Renewed 
Partnership,'' called attention to a serious deterioration in 
academic research facilities, which if not addressed, could 
significantly reduce the ability of universities to conduct 
leading edge research. An NSF survey from the same year 
revealed that more than 80 percent of research administrators 
at doctorate-granting universities reported that outmoded 
research facilities limited the scope of research that could be 
carried out. The White House Science Council report recommended 
the establishment of a Federal program to provide $5 billion 
over 10 years for merit-reviewed academic research facilities 
on the basis of a 50/50 match with non-federal funds.

Committee view

    The Committee notes that the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 1996 provides only $100 million for academic 
infrastructure improvement, compared with the Congress' 
appropriation of $250 million in fiscal year 1995, which was 
consistent with the amount required to fulfill the White House 
Science Council recommendation. President Clinton's decision 
not to follow this recommendation by creating an interagency 
modernization program and the resulting automatic $132 million 
rescission, signaled to Congress that support of this program 
is not a high priority. Nevertheless, the Committee feels 
support of this program has merit. The bill authorizes $100 
million for the NSF Academic Research Facilities Modernization 
Program for fiscal year 1996, and $100 million for fiscal year 
1997. This program is consistent with the Foundation's major 
role in support of research at institutions of higher education 
and justified in light of the academic facilities problem. The 
Committee continues to support the creation of an interagency 
program.
    The Committee notes that of the total amount requested for 
NSF's Academic Research Infrastructure activity, only one half 
is designated for the Academic Research Facilities 
Modernization Program, with the remainder allocated for major 
research instrumentation. The Committee supports the rational 
for the instrumentation program but does not accept that funds 
allotted for the instrumentation program contribute to meeting 
the goals of the facilities program. The authorizations in the 
bill for improvement of academic facilities are explicitly for 
the Academic Research Facilities Modernization Program 
established by Public Law 100-570.
    The Committee is also concerned that NSF's biennial survey 
of academic research facilities needs, mandated by Public Law 
99-159, has not focused adequately on the needs of 
undergraduate institutions. The Committee reminds NSF that 
undergraduate institutions are included among the categories of 
institutions eligible for awards under the Academic Research 
Facilities Modernization Program. The Committee expects future 
biennial surveys to provide data on the needs of all categories 
of institutions eligible to participate in the Academic 
Research Facilities Modernization Program.
    The Committee recognizes that NSF alone should not have to 
provide the Federal share of academic research infrastructure 
improvement. Many Federal agencies support academic research 
and all must contribute to facilities improvement. The 
Committee strongly urges the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy to take the lead in organizing and initiating a 
coordinated Federal response to the facilities problem. 
Modification of the R&D and other tax credits should also be 
explored as a way to encourage private sector investment in 
academic infrastructure.

                    3. national research facilities

Background

    NSF supports the construction and operation of major 
research facilities which are available for use by U.S. 
researchers on a competitive basis. Included among these 
facilities are optical and radio telescopes, the academic 
research fleet, the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, 
and high energy particle accelerators.
    The Committee has questioned in the past the priorities the 
Foundation has established among new facilities construction, 
facilities maintenance and operation, and research project 
support.

Committee view

    The Committee has included the requirement in section 202 
of the bill for an annual national facilities report in order 
to track the full costs of facilities construction, operations 
and maintenance, and to have a multi-year plan for projected 
capital costs and construction milestones. The Committee 
believes that the process implied by NSF's establishment of the 
Major Research Equipment (MRE) activity will contribute to the 
preparation of the formal facilities plan requested by the 
bill. As the current MRE account decreases with the phase-down 
funding for the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave 
Observatory (LIGO), funding for any new approved major 
construction projects should be made available out of other NSF 
resources but through the MRE account.
                       4. undergraduate education

Committee view

    The Committee continues to be concerned that Federal 
research grants to colleges and universities have shifted the 
focus of faculty away from one of their primary obligations--
undergraduate teaching. Federally funded research should 
enhance, not detract from, the educational experience of 
undergraduate and graduate students. The Committee believes 
that the NSF and other federal agencies must do more to ensure 
that Federal grants are indeed improving the quality of science 
and engineering education at our nation's colleges and 
universities.
    The bill requires the NSF to submit a report to the 
Committee by December 31, 1995 describing what actions the 
agency will take to ensure that educational impact is a factor 
in awarding grants. The report should describe in detail the 
actions the agency will take, and how and when they will be 
implemented. Educational impact must be a factor in award-
making by no later than the beginning of fiscal year 1997. 
Additional requirements placed on NSF applicants should be 
enforceable and should be significant enough to produce a 
noticeable improvement in the commitment to education at 
colleges and universities.

                5. competition with private laboratories

Background

    On March 11, 1983, NSF published Important Notice 91 (48 
Fed. Reg. 15754), ``Principles Related to the Use and Operation 
of National Science Foundation-Supported Research 
Instrumentation and Facilities.'' The Notice was issued to make 
clear that NSF-supported instruments and facilities are not to 
be used ``to provide services for a fee in direct competition 
with private companies that provide equivalent services.'' NSF, 
however, has continued to receive complaints from private 
companies concerning this issue.

Committee view

    The Office of the Inspector General's second Semi-Annual 
Report to Congress (Oct. 31, 1989--March 31, 1990) included 
recommendations to improve the implementation of Important 
Notice 91. Among the Inspector General's recommendations was 
``examining more closely grantee institutions' regulations on 
Important Notice 91 and their handling of alleged violations.'' 
The Committee expects NSF to broaden notification to 
universities and researchers to closely adhere to Important 
Notice 91.

                          6. computer security

Committee view

    The Committee notes that the use of the Internet and other 
computer networks is growing at an unprecedented rate, with 500 
million users expected to be on-line by the year 2000. As these 
networked systems become larger and more complex, however, the 
frequency and severity of unauthorized intrusions into 
computers connected to these networks has become an 
increasingly serious problem. Unless the associated risk and 
vulnerabilities are properly addressed, the full potential of 
networking will not be realized.
    The National Science Foundation is turning over the 
principle responsibility for providing network information 
services for the academic and research communities to the 
private sector. The Committee strongly supports this 
development. Nevertheless, traditional security measures will 
not be sufficient to assure that valuable or sensitive 
information stored or processed on computer networks will not 
be lost, stolen, corrupted or misused. The Committee is 
therefore pleased that the NSF is collaborating with the 
Software Engineering Institute's Computer Emergency Response 
Team (CERT) Coordination Center to raise the awareness of 
security issues among service providers so that security 
becomes a standard business practice. By implementing enhanced 
security practices at the network access point and service 
provider levels, CERT and the NST will reach a wide set of end 
users and will also make the Internet a more viable medium for 
the security conscious end user community.

                       7. u.s. antarctic program

Committee view

    The Committee recognizes the unique value of the research 
activities supported under the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) 
managed by NSF and understands that these activities are 
possible only because of the critical logistical support 
provided, on a reimbursable basis, by the Department of Defense 
(DOD) through the Navy. The Committee is aware that the DOD is 
considering terminating some of the logistical support it has 
historically provided and has recommended that the NSF seek 
alternative means of support, possibly from the private sector.
    The Committee supports changes in the current arrangements 
for logistical support for the USAP is they result in improved 
efficiency, cost savings or other tangible benefits to the 
USAP. The Committee would object to any change which would 
degrade the safety of Antarctic operations or significantly 
reduce the level of support service available for research 
activities. In particular, the Committee would view the 
withdrawal of the DOD from aircraft operations and support as 
an extremely serious step that should not be undertaken unless 
it can be satisfactorily documented that alternative 
organizations exist which can provide this nation with the 
capability to maintain an active and influential presence as 
well as meet the high standards for training, aircrew 
proficiency, and aircraft maintenance which have characterized 
the Navy's flight activities in Antarctica. The Committee 
expects the DOD to continue to provide, on a reimbursable 
basis, air operations support for the USAP until such as time 
the Committee has received assurance that the DOD's withdrawal 
is in the best interests of the USAP.
    The Committee has been and remains a strong supporter of 
the U.S. Antarctic Program. The Committee recognizes the need 
for this nation to retain an active and influential presence on 
the continent. This presumes that Presidential Memorandum 6642 
still represents the Administration's policy with respect to 
the funding, operation and management of the U.S. Antarctic 
Program. In that light, the Committee applauds the Foundation's 
long standing support and management of this important national 
program.
    A number of important issues continue to face this program 
and are likely to increase in significance over the next few 
years. Therefore, the Committee requests the Foundation to 
prepare a status report on the program and submit this report 
by October 1, 1996. In this report, the Committee expects the 
Foundation to discuss its privatization plans and progress with 
respect to the U.S. Antarctic program. For example, the 
Committee regrets an update on what activities are being, or 
have been transferred from DOD to the private sector, along 
with a schedule for the balance of activities to be privatized. 
For those activities which are not scheduled to be privatized, 
the NSF should explain the rationale behind that position. The 
Committee expects this report to address the plans and progress 
to date of the Foundation's environmental clean up activities 
and how they relate to implementation of the Antarctic 
environmental protocol. Finally, the Committee recognizes the 
need to consider the future for the South Pole Station. As 
such, the Committee expects this report to address the need, 
options, plans, cost estimates, and time line for the 
redevelopment of the South Pole Station.

                        8. financial disclosure

Background

    In reviewing the most recent Inspector General report, the 
Committee notes reports of possible conflict of interest with 
persons employed through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act 
(IPA) serving in the Foundation. Currently, IPA employees are 
not subject to the same financial disclosure requirements as 
permanent Federal employees.

Committee view

    To avoid any appearance of conflict of interest, the 
Committee expects all personnel, temporary and permanent, to 
fully comply with the Ethics in Government Act and Financial 
Disclosure requirements.

            9. educational leave of absence for active duty

Background

    The Committee has received reports of universities not 
willing to reimburse Reservists called to active duty. The 
current downsizing of active duty forces is placing greater 
responsibility on the Reserve and the National Guard Forces.

Committee view

    The Committee feels service to the Nation's armed forces is 
commendable. Furthermore, the Committee believes a member of 
the armed services should not be punished financially because 
that member is ordered to active duty.

                        10. grant review process

Committee view

    The Committee demands that taxpayers' resources be 
maximized to the greatest extent. Should a grant be awarded 
which duplicates or competes with work done by the private 
sector, and this is brought to the attention of the Director in 
a timely manner, the Director is responsible for taking 
appropriate action to end this conflict.
    The Committee is aware that the Foundation has extensive 
merit review and appeal procedures to guide the Foundation, 
potential principal investigators, and their institutions 
through the proposal and grant process. However, the Committee 
is concerned that NSF lacks a formal mechanism to review and 
act accordingly on substantive concerns which may be raised 
after an award is made. In the Committee's view, substantive 
concerns might include clear duplication of research already 
performed, or support for an activity that results in unfair 
competition with a service or activity provided by the private 
sector. The Committee, therefore, directs NSF to review and 
develop an appropriate set of procedures to be employed to 
handle and remedy such claims. The Committee requests NSF to 
submit a report to the Committee outlining its procedures by 
December 31, 1995.

                 11. prohibition of lobbying activities

Committee view

    The Committee is committed to ensuring that awards for 
research and education are used solely for those purposes. 
Funds should not be used for any purpose other than that 
specified in that award. However, the Committee clarifies that 
the provisions of Section 209 prohibiting the use of funds for 
influencing legislation do not exclude appropriate 
communication between the Administration and the Congress. Such 
communication ``through proper channels'' means formal 
documentation and support of legislation and appropriations 
requested by the President.
                  12. duplication of federal resources

Committee view

    The Committee notes that the Department of Energy programs 
dealing with generic precollege education, teacher and 
university faculty training, science literacy, scientific and 
technical manpower development, university instrumentation 
support and fellowship programs (such as the Albert Einstein 
Distinguished Educator Fellowship) are overlapping with and 
duplicative of efforts of the National Science Foundation. In 
H.R. 1816, the Department of Energy Civilian Research and 
Development Act of 1995, the Committee recommended the 
termination of these programs. The Committee directs NSF to 
review these phase-out DOE programs and to consider adopting 
those programs or aspects of those programs, if any, that are 
worthwhile. The Director, therefore, is encouraged to work with 
the Secretary of Energy to reach an agreement that will make 
available the Department's facilities for Foundation support of 
any of these generic activities, on a reimbursable basis, that 
are consistent with the Foundation's mission.

                   13. the science studies institute

Committee view

    The Committee believes that reconstituting and renaming the 
Critical Technologies Institute as the Science Studies 
Institute (SSI) reflects a more proper and appropriate role at 
the direction of the White House Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP).
    Further, the Committee intends for the budget support of 
SSI to be multi-agency. The FY 96 Authorization limits NSF 
support of SSI to one million dollars, but the Committee would 
not object if SSI received appropriations from other agencies 
to supplement this amount, consistent with its mission. For FY 
97, the Committee believes OSTP should further reduce NSF's 
share as other agencies provide support for SSI. Beginning with 
the President's Budget for FY 97, funding requests for SSI 
should be included as part of OSTP's request.

                         14. affirmative action

Committee view

    The Committee is aware that the NSF has recently come under 
strong criticism and litigation for its conduct, or the conduct 
of its contractors/grantees, of one program designed to 
increase the number of minorities in science. While the 
Committee continues to support the overall goal of such 
programs, it does not condone discrimination in any form. In 
particular, the Committee does not support the use of race, 
sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as the sole criterion 
for granting preferential treatment for admission to NSF-
sponsored research or education programs.
    The NSF currently spends approximately $80 million annually 
to support encouraging participation of women and minorities in 
science, engineering, and math. In keeping with the tradition 
of the Foundation, where merit is the standard for evaluating 
proposals, the Committee expects the Foundation to critically 
review these programs to ensure merit is also of overriding 
importance in their administration.
    The Committee will closely monitor the NSF's response to 
the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, the ongoing 
Administration review of affirmative action programs, and the 
NSF's response to ongoing litigation in these matters to 
determine if the NSF is fully complying with the law and the 
Committee's guidance prohibiting discrimination.

                       15. reorganization of nsf

Committee view

    The Committee is aware that NSF has been evaluating its 
management organization as part of the National Performance 
Review, and should now incorporate the new probable funding 
profile in its further analysis. With the Salaries and Expenses 
account at NSF reduced by $4 million from FY95, and projected 
to be constant (and therefore decreased due to inflation) 
annually thereafter, it is timely that the NSF examine its 
management structure. The management organization necessary to 
accomplish NSF's mission to support basic scientific and 
engineering research and education should be re-evaluated not 
only in light of this probable out year funding profile, but 
also the changing requirements of NSF's ``customer''--the basic 
research and education community.
    The Committee urges NSF to focus more of its future 
management resources at the levels closest to the customer and, 
therefore, is limiting the number of Assistant Directors to not 
more than six (a decrease of one from the current number). The 
Committee directs the Director, in consultation with the 
National Science Board, to deliver a report, including 
reprogramming requests, to the Committee by November 15, 1995, 
on how it intends to reorganize its management structure to 
accomplish its mission in the 21st Century.
    In evaluating the NSF organization, it is the view of the 
Committee that the current Social, Behavioral and Economics 
(SBE) Directorate should be examined to determine if its 
current program level reflects sound priorities for overall 
science funding. The Committee is concerned that, while the 
activities and proposals of SBE are merit reviewed, as are 
other programs of the NSF, they appear to reflect trends toward 
support of more applied research and research in areas that in 
tight budget times are of a lower scientific priority. As the 
newest and smallest Directorate, and one whose research areas 
are crosscutting, SBE is the prime candidate for integration 
into other research Directorates. SBE programs should directly 
compete for research funds with other disciplines to assure 
that scarce research dollars are allocated in the national 
interest.

              16. two year and community college programs

Committee view

    The Committee commends the Foundation for improving the 
education of science and engineering technicians at two-year 
and community colleges under the authority of P.L. 102-476. The 
Committee supports the efforts of associate degree-granting 
institutions working in partnership with secondary schools, 
colleges and universities and with business and industry to 
develop more support for these programs and to put in place 
appropriate mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of the 
programs.

                           17. indirect cost

Committee view

    The Committee continues to be concerned that too great a 
share of academic research funds are allocated to indirect 
costs. According to the President's budget, fully one-quarter 
of the $12 billion the government spends on research at 
universities and colleges are used to cover indirect costs. 
While the government has a responsibility to reimburse that 
portion of the overhead directly associated with carrying out 
Federally sponsored research, the Committee is concerned that 
the current system of indirect cost payments is consuming too 
large a share of a limited research budget and may not be 
justified.
    The bill directs the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy (OSTP) to develop a menu of options to reduce by at 
least 10 percent the proportion of Federal assistance to 
universities that is allocated for indirect costs, and to 
reduce the variation among indirect cost rates at different 
institutions. The report must also evaluate the benefits and 
other impacts that each option would have on colleges and 
universities. OSTP should work with other relevant agencies, 
particularly the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of 
Naval Research, the Department of Health and Human Services, 
and the National Institutes of Health in preparing the report. 
The report is due by December 31, 1995.
    The Committee understands that negotiations are underway 
between the Administration and representatives of universities 
to limit indirect cost payments. The Committee encourages the 
negotiators to move as quickly as possible to develop an 
indirect cost system that would achieve the goals referenced in 
this report. The Committee believes that any resultant savings 
in indirect cost payments should be used to increase overall 
Federal research support.
  18. experimental program to stimulate competitive research (espcor)

Background

    The Experiment Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 
(EPSCoR) is a merit-based program designed to expand the 
scientific and technological capacities of states with 
developing research infrastructures. EPSCoR, which was 
initiated by this Committee in 1978, currently funds research 
in 18 states (Arkansas, Maine, Montana, South Carolina, West 
Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 
Vermont, Wyoming, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Dakota, 
Kansas and Nebraska) and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
    In addition to NSF, EPSCoR or similar programs are now 
being implemented in the Department of Energy, the Department 
of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and the National Institutes of Health. Many 
of these efforts are in their infancy, and it will be several 
years before they are full-fledged programs.

Committee view

    Since its inception, EPSCoR has made great strides toward 
developing the research infrastructure of the participating 
states. The Committee supports the program because future 
private-sector economic development depends upon scientific and 
technical infrastructure.
    EPSCoR contributes to increasing regional and institutional 
research capacity by ensuring that money is available for 
merit-based awards for proposals from states with a developing 
research base. EPSCoR offers the mechanism to help institutions 
in these states improve their competitive positions in selected 
research specialities and fields, including the development of 
the infrastructure necessary to sustain these new capabilities. 
Progress in building new research capability does not occur 
overnight, but results from long-term investments in people and 
facilities. Consequently, the Committee expects continued NSF 
participation in EPSCoR and continued leadership from NSF to 
encourage both cooperation among the departments and agencies 
supporting EPSCoR programs and adherence to the important 
infrastructure components of the original efforts.

                          19. anti-earmarking

Committee view

    The Committee strongly believes in awards based on a 
competitive, merit-based process. Merit review allows 
taxpayers' dollars to be spent in the most cost effective 
manner. Although Federal agencies may have concerns on specific 
awards programs, the Committee feels that proper prior 
planning, clearly stated missions, and structuring the programs 
to meet the intent of the Committee is possible.
    The Committee does provide an exception for awards to 
persons who are members of a class specified by law for which 
assistance is awarded to members of the class according to a 
formula provided by law.

                      VI. Committee Cost Estimate

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee report that accompanies 
a measure providing new budget authority, new spending 
authority, or new credit authority or changing revenue or tax 
expenditure to contain a cost estimate, as required by section 
308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, 
and, when practicable with respect to estimates of new budget 
authority, a comparison of the total estimated funding relevant 
program (or programs) to the appropriate levels under current 
law.
    Clause 7(a) of rule XIII requires each committee report 
accompanying each bill or joint resolution of public character 
to contain the Committee's cost estimates, which include, where 
practicable, a comparison of the total estimated funding level 
for the relevant program (or programs) with the appropriate 
levels under current law.
    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
             VII. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 11, 1995.
Hon. Robert S. Walker,
Chairman, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Washington, 
        DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1852, the National 
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1995, as ordered 
reported by the House Committee on Science on June 8, 1995.
    Enactment of H.R. 1852 would not affect direct spending or 
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply 
to the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kathleen 
Gramp.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                             (For June E. O'Neill).
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

    1. Bill number: H.R. 1852.
    2. Bill title: National Science Foundation Authorization 
Act of 1995.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee 
on Science on June 28, 1995.
    4. Bill purpose: H.R. 1852 would authorize appropriations 
for the National Science Foundation (NSF) for fiscal years 1996 
and 1997 and revise certain policies regarding NSF's grants and 
administration. One provision would modify the eligibility 
criteria for receiving NSF funds by requiring institutions of 
higher education to allow students who are members of the 
National Guard or reserves of the Armed Forces to recover 
tuition or fees if called to active duty. The bill also would 
direct the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy 
(OSTP) to report to Congress on ways to reduce the level and 
variance of funding allocated to indirect costs in grants to 
academic institutions. Another provision would transfer 
sponsorship of the Critical Technologies Institute (CTI) from 
NSF to OSTP.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: This bill 
would authorize a total of $3.1 billion for fiscal year 1996 
and $3.2 billion for 1997 for NSF's activities, as shown in the 
following table. According to officials at OSTP, the cost of 
conducting the study on indirect costs is not expected to be 
significant.

                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1995       1996       1997       1998       1999       2000  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending Under Current Law:                                                                                     
    Budget authority \1\......................      3,360          0          0          0          0          0
    Estimated outlays.........................      2,877      1,836        753        364        143         65
Proposed Changes:                                                                                               
    Authorization level.......................          0      3,126      3,171          0          0          0
    Estimated outlays.........................          0      2,383      2,223        896        373        287
Spending Under H.R. 1852:                                                                                       
    Authorization level \1\...................      3,360      3,126      3,171          0          0          0
    Estimated outlays.........................      2,877      4,219      2,976      1,260        516        353
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1995 amount represents funds appropriated for that year.                                                

    The costs of this bill fall within budget functions 050 and 
250.
    6. Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    7. Estimated cost to state and local governments: The 
provision that would make eligibility for NSF funding 
contingent upon policies regarding students called to active 
duty could reduce income to some state institutions of higher 
education, but the loss of income is not expected to be 
significant. According to information provided by the 
Department of Defense, about 16 percent of the nation's roughly 
1.1 million selected reservists are enrolled in classes at 
four-year colleges or graduate schools. Contingency operations 
like the recent operation in Haiti involved roughly 4,500 
reservists, suggesting that about 700 students nationwide could 
have their education disrupted by involuntary duty for such 
contingencies. The potential loss of income to NSF-funded 
schools would depend on a variety of factors, including whether 
the affected reservists request compensation, the extent and 
cost of their coursework, and existing institutional policies.
    8. Estimate comparison: None.
    9. Previous CBO estimate: None.
    10. Estimate prepared by: Kathleen Gramp.
    11. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

               VIII. Effects of Legislation on Inflation

    Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI requires each committee report on 
a bill or joint resolution of a public character to include an 
analytical statement describing what impact enactment of the 
measure would have on prices and costs in the operation of the 
national economy. The Committee has determined that H.R. 1852 
has no inflationary impact on the national economy.

               IX. Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain oversight findings and recommendations required 
pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee has no 
oversight findings.

     X. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on 
                    Government Reform and Oversight

    Clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain a summary of the oversight findings and 
recommendations made by the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such 
findings have been timely submitted. The Committee on Science 
has received no such findings or recommendations from the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
       XI. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the 
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed 
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is 
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed 
is shown in roman):

                NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ACT OF 1950

          * * * * * * *

                      functions of the foundation

  Sec. 3. (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  [(f) The Foundation shall render an annual report to the 
President for submission on or before the 15th day of April of 
each year to the Congress, summarizing the activities of the 
Foundation and making such recommendations as it may deem 
appropriate. Such report shall include information as to the 
acquisition and disposition by the Foundation of any patents 
and patent rights.]
  (f) The Foundation shall provide an annual report to the 
President which shall be submitted by the Director to the 
Congress at the time of the President's annual budget 
submission. The report shall--
          (1) contain a strategic plan, or an update to a 
        previous strategic plan, which--
                  (A) defines for a three-year period the 
                overall goals for the Foundation and specific 
                goals for each major activity of the 
                Foundation, including each scientific 
                directorate, the education directorate, and the 
                polar programs office; and
                  (B) describe how the identified goals relate 
                to national needs and will exploit new 
                opportunities in science and technology;
          (2) identify the criteria and describe the procedures 
        which the Foundation will use to assess progress toward 
        achieving the goals identified in accordance with 
        paragraph (1);
          (3) review the activities of the Foundation during 
        the preceding year which have contributed toward 
        achievement of goals identified in accordance with 
        paragraph (1) and summarize planned activities for the 
        coming three years in the context of the identified 
        goals, with particular emphasis on the Foundation's 
        planned contributions to major multi-agency research 
        and education initiatives;
          (4) contain such recommendations as the Foundation 
        considers appropriate; and
          (5) include information on the acquisition and 
        disposition by the Foundation of any patents and patent 
        rights.
          * * * * * * *
  [(g) In carrying out subsection (a)(4), the Foundation is 
authorized to foster and support access by the research and 
education communities to computer networks which may be used 
substantially for purposes in addition to research and 
education in the sciences and engineering, if the additional 
uses will tend to increase the overall capabilities of the 
networks to support such research and education activities.]

                         national science board

  Sec. 4. (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  [(k)] (l) Members of the Board shall be required to file a 
financial disclosure report under title II of the Ethics in 
Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 92 Stat. 1836), except 
that such reports shall be held confidential and exempt from 
any law otherwise requiring their public disclosure.

                       director of the foundation

  Sec. 5. (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (e)(1)  * * *
  [(2) Any delegation of authority or imposition of conditions 
under the preceding sentence shall be effective only for such 
period of time, not exceeding two years, as the Board may 
specify, and shall be promptly published in the Federal 
Register and reported to the Committees on Labor and Human 
Resources and Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
Senate and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of 
the House of Representatives. On October 1 of each odd-numbered 
year the Board shall submit to the Congress a concise report 
which explains and justifies any actions taken by the Board 
under this subsection to delegate its authority or impose 
conditions within the preceding two years. The provisions of 
this subsection shall cease to be effective at the end of 
fiscal year 1989.]
  (2) Any delegation of authority or imposition of conditions 
under paragraph (1) shall be promptly published in the Federal 
Register and reported to the Committees on Labor and Human 
Resources and Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
Senate and the Committee on Science of the House of 
Representatives.
          * * * * * * *

                    divisions within the foundation

  Sec. 8. There shall be within the Foundation such Divisions 
as the Director, in consultation with the Board, may from time 
to time determine. The Director may appoint, in consultation 
with the Board, not more than 6 Assistant Directors to assist 
in managing the Divisions.
          * * * * * * *

                        miscellaneous provisions

  Sec. 14. (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (c) The members of the Board and the members of each special 
commission shall be entitled to receive compensation for each 
day engaged in the business of the Foundation, including 
traveltime, at a rate fixed by the Chairman but not exceeding 
the rate specified for the daily rate for GS-18 of the General 
Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, and 
shall be allowed travel expenses as authorized by section 5703 
of title 5, United States Code.
          * * * * * * *
  [(j) Starting with fiscal year 1990, the Foundation shall 
submit to the Congress in each fiscal year, at the time of the 
release of the President's budget, a three-year budget estimate 
for the Foundation. The three-year budget shall include funding 
estimates for each major activity, including each scientific 
directorate, the United States Antarctic Program, the Science 
and Engineering Education Directorate, and the Program 
Development and Management activity.]

                          security provisions

  Sec. 15. (a) The Foundation shall not support any research or 
development activity in the field of nuclear energy, nor shall 
it exercise any authoriity pursuant to section 11(e) in respect 
to that field, without first having obtained the concurrence of 
the [Atomic Energy Commission] Secretary of Energy that such 
activity will not adversely affect the common defense and 
security. To the extent that such activity involves restricted 
data as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 the provisions 
of that Act regarding the control of the dissemination of 
restricted data and the security clearance of those individuals 
to be given access to restricted data shall be applicable. 
Nothing in this Act shall supersede or modify any provision of 
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              

 SECTION 203 OF THE ACADEMIC RESEARCH FACILITIES MODERNIZATION ACT OF 
                                  1988

                        establishment of program

  Sec. 203. (a)  * * *
  (b)(1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (3) The Director shall, in making awards under the Program, 
consider the extent to which that institution or consortium has 
received funds for the repair, renovation, construction, or 
replacement of academic facilities from any other Federal 
funding source within the 5-year period immediately preceding 
the application. [The Director shall give priority to 
institutions or consortia that have not received such funds in 
the preceding 5 years.] The Director shall give priority to 
institutions or consortia that have not received such funds in 
the preceding 5 years, except that this sentence shall not 
apply to previous funding received for the same multiyear 
project.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              

  SECTION 6 OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1976

  Sec. 6. (a) The National Science Foundation is authorized to 
establish the Alan T. Waterman Award for research or advanced 
study in the mathematical, physical, medical, biological, 
engineering, behavioral, [social,] social, or other sciences. 
The award authorized by this section shall consist of a 
suitable medal and a grant to support further research or study 
by the recipient. The National Science Board will periodically 
establish the amounts and terms of such grants under this 
section.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              

  SECTION 117 OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 
                                  1988

              presidential awards for teaching excellence

  Sec. 117. (a)(1)(A)  * * *
  (B) Each year the President is authorized to make no fewer 
than 108 awards under subparagraph (A). In selecting teachers 
for an award authorized by this subsection, the President shall 
select at least two teachers--
          (i)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          [(v) from the United States Department of Defense 
        Dependents' School.]
          (v) from schools established outside the several 
        States and the District of Columbia by any agency of 
        the Federal Government for dependents of its employees.
          * * * * * * *
  (3)(A) Funds to carry out this subsection for any fiscal year 
shall be made available from amounts appropriated pursuant to 
annual authorization of appropriations for the Foundation for 
[Science and Engineering Education] Education and Human 
Resources.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              

           SECTION 107 OF EDUCATION FOR ECONOMIC SECURITY ACT

           [science and engineering education strategic plan

  [Sec. 107. The Foundation shall develop a five-year strategic 
plan for science and engineering education, to be up-dated on 
an annual basis, and submitted to the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources of the Senate, and the Committee on Science and 
Technology of the House of Representatives by November 30 of 
each year.]
                              ----------                              

 SECTION 822 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL 1991

SEC. 822. [CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES INSTITUTE] SCIENCE STUDIES INSTITUTE

  (a) Establishment.--There shall be established a federally 
funded research and development center to be known as the 
``[Critical Technologies Institute] Science Studies Institute'' 
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Institute'').
  (b) Incorporation.--[As determined by the chairman of the 
committee referred to in subsection (c), the] The Institute 
shall be--
          (1) administered as a separate entity by an 
        organization currently managing another federally 
        funded research and development center; or
          (2) incorporated as a nonprofit membership 
        corporation.
  [(c) Operating Committee.--(1) The Institute shall have an 
Operating Committee composed of six members as follows:
          [(A) The Director of the Office of Science and 
        Technology Policy, who shall chair the committee.
          [(B) The Director of the National Institutes of 
        Health.
          [(C) The Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology.
          [(D) The Director of the Advanced Research Projects 
        Agency.
          [(E) The Director of the National Science Foundation.
          [(F) The Under Secretary of Energy having 
        responsibility for science and technology matters.
  [(2) The Operating Committee shall meet not less than four 
times each year.
  [(d)] (c) Duties.--The duties of the Institute shall include 
the following:
          (1) The assembly of timely and authoritative 
        information regarding significant developments and 
        trends in science and technology research and 
        development in the United States and abroad, [with 
        particular emphasis on information relating to the 
        technologies identified in the most recent biennial 
        report submitted to Congress by the President pursuant 
        to section 603(d) of the National Science and 
        Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 
        1976 (42 U.S.C. 6683(d)).] and developing and 
        maintaining relevant informational and analytical 
        tools.
          (2) Analysis and interpretation of the information 
        referred to in paragraph (1) [to determine whether such 
        developments and trends are likely to affect United 
        States technology policies] with particular attention 
        to the scope and content of the Federal science and 
        technology research and develop portfolio as it affects 
        interagency and national issues.
          [(3) Initiation of studies and analyses (including 
        systems analyses and technology assessments) of 
        alternatives available for ensuring long-term 
        leadership by the United States in the development and 
        application of the technologies referred to in 
        paragraph (1), including appropriate roles for the 
        Federal Government, State governments, private 
        industry, and institutions of higher education in the 
        development and application of such technologies.]
          (3) Initiation of studies and analysis of 
        alternatives available for ensuring the long-term 
        strength of the United States in the development and 
        application of science and technology, including 
        appropriate roles for the Federal Government, State 
        governments, private industry, and institutions of 
        higher education in the development and application of 
        science and technology.
          (4) Provision, upon the request of the Director of 
        the Office of Science and Technology Policy, of 
        technical support and assistance--
                  (A) to the committees and panels of the 
                President's Council of Advisers on Science and 
                Technology that provide advice to the Executive 
                branch on science and technology policy; and
                  [(B) to the committees and panels of the 
                Federal Coordinating Council for Science, 
                Engineering, and Technology that are 
                responsible for planning and coordinating 
                activities of the Federal Government to advance 
                the development of critical technologies and 
                sustain and strengthen the technology base of 
                the United States.]
                  (B) to the interagency committees and panels 
                of the Federal Government concerned with 
                science and technology.
  [(e)] (d) Consultation on Institute Activities.--In carrying 
out the duties referred to in [subsection (d)] subsection (c), 
personnel of the Institute shall--
          (1) consult widely with representatives from private 
        industry, institutions of higher education, and 
        nonprofit institutions; and
          (2) to the maximum extent practicable, incorporate 
        information and perspectives derived from such 
        consultations in carrying out such duties.
  [(f)] (e) Annual Reports.--The committee shall submit to the 
President an annual report on the activities of the committee 
under this section. Each report shall be in accordance with 
requirements prescribed by the President.
  [(g) Sponsorship.--(1) The Director of the National Science 
Foundation shall be the sponsor of the Institute.
  [(2) The Director of the National Science Foundation, in 
consultation with the chairman of the committee, shall enter 
into a sponsoring agreement with respect to the Institute. The 
sponsoring agreement shall require that the Institute carry out 
such functions as the chairman of the committee may specify 
consistent with the duties referred to in subsection (d). The 
sponsoring agreement shall be consistent with the general 
requirements prescribed for such a sponsoring agreement by the 
Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy.]
  (f) Sponsorship.--The Director of the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy shall be the sponsor of the Institute.
                         XII. ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    The Committee's evident intent to eliminate NSF's Social, 
Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) Directorate is a 
particularly ill-advised step, taken without the benefit of 
hearings or opportunities for comment. For the reasons noted 
below, we cannot support this aspect of the Committee's action.
    As amended by the Committee, the bill itself directs NSF to 
limit to six the number of assistant directors authorized for 
the National Science Foundation (NSF), presumably by 
eliminating one directorate. While the legislative report 
states that this provision is necessary so that NSF can 
accommodate the reduction in funding authorized for the 
agency's Salaries and Expenses account, it also goes on to 
suggest that research supported by the Social, Behavioral and 
Economics Sciences (SBE) Directorate is of a low priority and 
too applied in nature, and that the programs of the SBE 
Directorate should be integrated into the other scientific 
directorates.
    NSF should explore ways to streamline its organization and 
reduce its administrative expenses. But the Committee has held 
no hearings or conducted other oversight investigations to 
determine whether the single method mandated in H.R. 1852--
eliminating one assistant director, and by implication 
eliminating one NSF directorate--will provide the necessary 
cost savings without damaging NSF's ability to function 
effectively. Pruning blindly may damage an agency that is far 
from being a bloated bureaucracy. Between fiscal years 1983 and 
1993, NSF's full time staff positions remained constant, while 
its budget nearly tripled and its workload, measured by numbers 
of proposals processed, more than doubled. In the current 
fiscal year, the cost of operating NSF is 3.8 percent of the 
total budget, which is a modest amount of administrative 
overhead.
    We proposed an alternative in which NSF would carry out a 
study and then report back to the Committee on the best ways to 
achieve the required savings before instructing the agency how 
to reorganize. This proposal was rejected. However, section 212 
of the bill still requires NSF to report to Congress on its 
reorganization resulting from the requirement to eliminate an 
assistant director. In developing this report, NSF should 
provide information to assist Congress in evaluating the 
impacts of the mandated reorganization. In particular, the 
report should consider a wide range of administrative changes 
that could contribute to cost reductions and document the 
projected cost savings, benefits, and potential shortcomings of 
the reorganization option which is selected. If the Director 
determines that elimination of one directorate will cause a 
reduction in the effectiveness of NSF's operations, he should 
document in the report the basis for this conclusion and 
provide suggestions for alternative administrative changes that 
will result in cost savings equivalent to savings anticipated 
from elimination of a directorate.
    We object to the unfavorable characterization in the 
Committee View of the value and content of the research 
sponsored by the SBE Directorate because the Committee has no 
hearing record or other oversight investigation to support 
these statements. In fact, the most recent testimony received 
by the Committee concerning the social sciences, which was 
obtained in hearings before the Basic Research Subcommittee on 
March 2, 1995, the Science Subcommittee on May 20, 1993 and the 
Science, Research and Technology Subcommittee on March 14, 
1989, all document the important contributions of research in 
the social, behavioral and economic sciences. None of these 
hearings provides a basis for questioning the priority or basic 
nature of the research sponsored by NSF in these fields.
    For example, one accomplishment of basic research in the 
social sciences described in the March 2, 1995 hearing was the 
development of game theory, which deals with the study of 
rational behavior in situations involving interdependence. 
Recently, this body of knowledge provided the basis for the 
design of the ground rules for the auction by the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) of the radio spectrum for 
personal communications services. Special rules were needed 
because, unlike traditional auctions in which goods are sold 
one at a time in sequence, the licenses had to be sold all at 
once in a series of rounds since the value of a particular 
license was dependent on what other licenses a particular 
bidder could obtain. The benefit to the government of the 
auction is apparent from the Explanation of the Conference 
Agreement on the Budget (H. Con. Res. 67), which in the 
discussion of Function 950, Undistributed Offsetting Receipts, 
states that, ``The conference agreement assumes the FCC is 
provided sufficient authority to recover value from the 
spectrum amounting to $14 billion over seven years''.
    Moreover, the importance of the social and behavioral 
sciences have been affirmed broadly by the scientific 
community. The NSF Director in a May 22, 1995 letter to the 
Committee stated:

          I am, however, concerned that we have not been more 
        effective in informing the Congress about the important 
        role played by the social, behavioral, and economic 
        sciences in the Nation's basic research enterprise. 
        These areas of science have been an integral part of 
        the portfolio of research that we have funded since the 
        1950s, and are important to our mission to maintain the 
        health of the Nation's science and engineering 
        enterprise. These disciplines have contributed 
        significant advances in research.

    Dr. Bruce Alberts, the President of the National Academy of 
Sciences, recently stated that:

          The National Academy of Sciences strongly affirms 
        that the social and behavioral sciences are important 
        disciplines in which independent scholarship and basic 
        research have made significant contributions to 
        mankind's store of knowledge and to the ability to meet 
        critical societal challenges . . . The National 
        Institutes of Health and the National Science 
        Foundation, through competitively awarded research 
        grants, provide financial support for the generation of 
        the basic scientific knowledge needed to devise 
        solutions to . . . pressing [social] problems. These 
        programs are particularly valuable for the quality of 
        the science they produce.

    And finally, in a June 1, 1995 letter to the Committee, 
Rita Colwell, President of the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science, stated:

          These [social science] disciplines are an integral 
        part of the U.S. research and development enterprise, 
        as important to the Nation's future as physics, 
        chemistry, engineering, and biology. They have been 
        part of NSF's research portfolio for over four decades 
        and have contributed in important ways to our growing 
        understanding of the natural and human environment, to 
        the improvement of our health and standard of living, 
        and to the structure of our economy and government.

    We believe that there is no basis for singling out the SBE 
Directorate as a target for elimination in meeting the 
requirement to reduce the number of assistant directors. We 
urge NSF to give equal scrutiny to all of its programs and 
activities in determining the best reorganization plan for 
reducing administrative expenses, while maintaining operational 
effectiveness.

                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   James A. Traficant.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   Alcee L. Hastings.
                                   David Minge.
                                   Eddie Bernice Johnson.
                                   George E. Brown, Jr.
                                   John W. Olver.
                                   Lynn N. Rivers.
                                   Miche F. Doyle.
                                   Karen McCarthy.
                                   Mike Ward.
                                   Tim Roemer.
                                   Lloyd Doggett.
             XIII. Proceedings From the Subcommittee Markup

                              ----------                              




    SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP--H.R. 1852, THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 
                   AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1996 AND 1997

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 1995

                  House of Representatives,
                              Committee on Science,
                            Subcommittee on Basic Research,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:40 a.m. in 
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable 
Steven H. Schiff, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
    Mr. Schiff. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to call the 
Subcommittee to order. I would like to welcome everyone to the 
first markup in this new Subcommittee on Basic Research.
    I have some brief opening remarks and then I will recognize 
my Ranking Member for opening remarks, and the Chairman and 
Ranking Member of the Full Committee, if they are here for this 
markup, for their opening remarks.
    I would invite any other Member and ask unanimous consent 
that any other Member can provide opening remarks in writing 
into the record.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Schiff. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    Today we are marking up two bills:
    The National Science Foundation Authorization Act and the 
United States Fire Administration Authorization Act, both for 
fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
    I wish to take up first the National Science Foundation 
bill.
    In this new Congress we changed the name of this 
Subcommittee from the Subcommittee on Science to the 
Subcommittee on Basic Research. I believe this name change is 
significant because it exemplifies that the leadership of this 
Committee believes that the focus of Federal research and 
development should be at the basic level.
    The National Science Foundation is the principal supporter 
of fundamental research conducted at colleges and universities 
in the fields of mathematics, science, and engineering.
    The National Science Foundation accomplishes this through 
grants and contracts to more than 2000 colleges, universities, 
and other research institutions in all parts of the United 
States.
    The Foundation accounts for approximately 25 percent of 
Federal support to academic institutions for basic research. 
Let me state that I believe that the National Science 
Foundation is a well-run agency with a well-defined mission. 
Any large organization may have issues and questions raised 
about it, including the National Science Foundation.
    The Subcommittee should examine these concerns and work 
with the individuals who raise them, and with the National 
Science Foundation.
    But recognizing overall that the National Science 
Foundation has a fine reputation, I will conduct oversight of 
its operations. I do not propose substantial changes in its 
authorization at this time.
    I am aware from the large volume of letters I have been 
receiving that particular attention has been focused on the 
activities of the social, behavioral, and economic programs. At 
this time I am recommending that the social, behavioral, and 
economic programs continue to receive support. However, I do 
intend to ensure that research in these areas is truly 
fundamental and warrants Federal support.
    Before I briefly outline the different sections of this NSF 
bill, I would like to point out that in these difficult fiscal 
times the National Science Foundation was cut very little by 
the Budget Committee in comparison with other departments and 
activities.
    Moreover, the House Budget Committee's assumptions provided 
for the growth in research and related accounts at the 
Foundation, 3 percent per year after 1996 to the year 2002.
    While many programs that were reduced were frozen, the 
research and related activities were provided with real growth 
after 1996. This is due in large measure to the efforts of the 
Chairman of the Science Committee, Congressman Bob Walker.
    The research community and this Subcommittee should both be 
thankful to the support given by the Budget Committee for basic 
research. It was unique in this year's Resolution to see any 
growth in a discretionary program.
    I am proposing that our Subcommittee endorse that growth 
today.
    With that said, I want to get into the specifics of the 
bill I am presenting to the Subcommittee today:
    The National Science Foundation bill is a two-year 
authorization. It provides for approximately a 3 percent growth 
in the Research and Related Activities Account in the second 
year.
    With respect to allocating monies within the Research 
Account, this bill treats all directorates equally and with the 
priorities contained in the Administration's request.
    This bill provides slightly more money for education and 
human resources than the Administration's request, and follows 
the President's request in several other accounts, including 
Major Research and Equipment, Instruments and Facilities, and 
the Office of Inspector General.
    I realize the National Science Foundation runs a lean 
organization compared to many other government agencies; 
however, the American public have made their voices heard. They 
want less government and smaller bureaucracies. Therefore, we 
expect the Salaries and Expense Account of the National Science 
Foundation to decrease from the Fiscal Year 1995 level of $124 
million to $120 million in both Fiscal Year 1996 and 1997.
    I believe this is a reasonable expectation of these 
difficult fiscal times, and it may necessitate some 
reorganization at the National Science Foundation.
    The different sections of this bill support this 
Committee's views on responsibilities of government. We ask the 
NSF to provide the Subcommittee with a strategic plan so the 
Subcommittee can better formulate out-year projections for the 
directorates and research facilities.
    The Committee expects universities to be responsible in 
accounting for their indirect costs and not in competition with 
the private sector with regard to use of research 
instrumentation and facilities.
    We expect universities to be understanding of the 
commitment of Reserve and National Guard personnel ordered to 
Active Duty.
    Finally, we expect the funds authorized by these programs 
to go into research and not to be used in funding lobbying 
activities. That concept may sound strange to people inside the 
Beltway, but I know taxpayers outside the Beltway expect their 
research dollars to go into research.
    Before I recognize the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Geren, 
for his opening statements, I would like to personally express 
my thanks to Mr. Geren and to his staff, who worked with us on 
a regular basis in presenting this bill today.
    I would like now to recognize the Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee from Texas, Mr. Geren.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Schiff follows:]
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Mr. Geren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The National Science Foundation plays a key role in 
developing and sustaining the academic research enterprise of 
our Nation. Its programs support research in science and 
engineering; operation of national research facilities in such 
fields as astronomy and oceanography; the acquisition of 
scientific instruments and the modernization of research 
facilities; and science education at all levels.
    These wide-ranging activities underpin the technological 
strength of the Nation through both the generation of new 
knowledge and the education of scientists and engineers.
    The Chairman has made the best of a difficult situation. 
Although the bill before us represents a decrease in funding 
for NSF, it is a fair allocation that provides relatively 
gentle treatment for NSF in a year in which many Federal 
science and technology programs authorized by the Committee 
have experienced, or are facing, the prospect of severe cuts.
    I am pleased that some funding increases are provided by 
the bill in the second year that will bring the NSF Research 
Directorates back to the Fiscal Year 1995 levels.
    I share the commitment of my colleague from New Mexico to 
achieve a balanced budget over the next seven years, and 
realize that even the most valuable Federal programs must bear 
some of the pain of achieving this goal.
    I commend the Chairman on his efforts, and I support his 
bill. I also want to acknowledge his efforts in working with 
the Minority in developing the legislation, and I look forward 
to continued cooperation as the bill moves forward in Committee 
and on the Floor.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Geren follows:]
    
    
    
    
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Geren.
    Before recognizing our Committee Chairman, I just want to 
say that my first chair in Congress in a Subcommittee was 
Marilyn Lloyd, who served this institution for 20 years on the 
Democratic side of the aisle. Mrs. Lloyd made it clear in the 
Subcommittee she chaired that partisan politics have no place 
in the Science Committee. And, to the best of my human ability, 
I want to follow that philosophy here in this Subcommittee.
    I now recognize the Chairman of the Science Committee, 
Congressman Walker.
    Chairman Walker. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I do not have a prepared statement, but I do want to 
congratulate you for the work that has gone into the markup you 
bring before the Subcommittee today.
    I believe it does represent precisely the kinds of 
priorities that we have been attempting to achieve--namely, 
emphasis on basic science, and largely on basic science done 
through the university sector.
    I believe that this set of priorities is in fact what the 
Nation is asking us to do as we make a judgment about our 
science programs, and I look forward to helping you bring this 
bill before the Full Committee, and ultimately, to the House.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Chairman Walker. I want to express 
my appreciation for your leadership now as Chairman, and 
previously as our Ranking Member on the Full Committee.
    I would now like to recognize the Ranking Member of the 
Full Committee, Congressman Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I anticipate that this Committee will continue with the 
record that it has had for bipartisan cooperation on important 
basic research issues.
    I want to commend you for the start that you are making as 
Chairman of the Subcommittee; I have a great deal of confidence 
that you, working with the Ranking Minority Member, will be 
able to maintain a smooth course on the issues before this 
Subcommittee and I am looking forward to working with you 
closely.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you very much, Congressman Brown.
    Unanimous consent has already been given for all Members to 
give an opening statement in writing. However, I would like to 
ask. Does any Member of the Subcommittee have a pressing desire 
to make an oral opening statement at this time?
    Seeing no requests, I ask unanimous consent to call up the 
Committee Print of the National Science Foundation Authorizing 
Act to be used in lieu of a bill for markup purposes.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Schiff. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that the Chair have the 
authority to recess the Subcommittee.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Schiff. Without objection, it is also so ordered.
    The Clerk will read the bill.
    Mr. Cadena. ``A BILL To authorize appropriations for the 
National Science Foundation, and for other purposes.''
    Mr. Schiff. The Chair--excuse me--the Chair asks unanimous 
consent that the bill be considered as read and open to 
amendments at any point.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Schiff. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    The bill is now open for amendment and discussion. It is 
the intention of the Chair to begin the amendment process by 
following the roster which is printed in the amendment package 
which should be with each Member.
    [The documents follow:]
    
    
    Mr. Schiff. I want to say that the Chair has a technical 
amendment, which is the first listed in the roster, which the 
Chair would like to call up at this time, and I ask the Clerk 
to--the amendment is in the packets already?
    Mr. Cadena. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Schiff. I believe the amendment is already in your 
packets. It is designated ``number 1''.
    I would like the Clerk to read the amendment.
    Mr. Cadena. ``Amendment to the Subcommittee Print Offered 
by Mr. Schiff''.
    Mr. Schiff. I would ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be considered as read.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Schiff. Without objection, so ordered.
    This amendment is an intent to clarify the anti-lobbying 
provision that is found in the bill which is intended to direct 
that recipients of Federal money in grants not use that money 
for the purpose of lobbying Congress for more grant money, or 
for any other purpose.
    We worked with our Minority Party colleagues on this, and 
they and the National Science Foundation both felt that the 
wording in the Committee Print was overly broad. They proposed 
narrowing it and clarifying that. We have introduced this 
amendment which is intended to do so, and I believe this 
amendment is acceptable to the Minority.
    I recognize Mr. Geren to respond on this amendment.
    Mr. Geren. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity 
to work with you and our staffs on this amendment and I have no 
objections to it, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
    Mr. Schiff. Is there any further discussion of this 
amendment?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Schiff. Seeing no further discussion, I now call for a 
vote on the amendment which the Chair has offered.
    All in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying 
aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Schiff. Opposed, please say no.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Schiff. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it 
and the amendment is agreed to.
    The second amendment on the roster is prepared by Mr. 
Boehlert and is in your package.
    The Clerk will read the amendment.
    Mr. Cadena. ``Amendment to''
    Mr. Boehlert. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the revised 
amendment be distributed at this time. There is just a very 
modest technical correction over the one in the package, and 
that the amendment be considered as read.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    
    
    Mr. Schiff. All right. Without objection, the revised 
amendment will be considered as read, and I ask the Clerk to 
please distribute the revised amendment.
    [The amendment is distributed.]
    Mr. Boehlert. And may I proceed, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Schiff. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes on 
his amendment.
    Mr. Boehlert. The amendment I am offering grows out of a 
concern for our scientific future--indeed, a concern for the 
fundamental basis of that future, our Nation's students. I will 
be brief in my discussion of this amendment because it is just 
the latest in a long line of efforts by this Committee to 
strengthen the link between research and education. That link 
continues to need strengthening.
    We routinely say that NSF support is important in part 
because it benefits the Nation's students, but we don't do 
nearly enough to ensure that that is more than just a ritual 
utterance.
    At the undergraduate level, the focus on Federal grants 
continues to create inadvertent disincentives for faculty to 
spend time on education. As the National Academy of Sciences 
recently noted. At the graduate level the growth of research 
assistantships often means that the needs of graduate students 
take a back seat to the needs of faculty research.
    There is no reason that research and teaching have to be at 
odds. But they only will be complementary if the Federal 
funding agencies make it clear that they must be. This 
amendment is designed to do just that.
    This amendment is quite open-ended--far less demanding than 
previous versions that have been approved by this Committee. It 
allows NSF and the academic community to work out the means to 
accomplish this goal which everyone claims to share. Quite 
frankly, what we want to do is have teachers teach and not 
focus exclusively on research. They can do both.
    I want to note that the National Science Foundation has 
been taking some steps in this direction already. But I do want 
to be very clear. NSF must come back to this Committee with 
more than a defense of the status quo. If we are still looking 
at the same system and the same problems two years from now, 
you will see me come back with far more prescriptive language.
    In this budget climate, every program and every institution 
is under close scrutiny. I urge my friends in the research 
community to act now to prove that our educational institutions 
can indeed be the world's research leaders without giving short 
shrift to their primary mission. preparing the next generation 
of students.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Boehlert.
    The Chair notes your concern, your long-standing concern, 
over the quality of undergraduate education. The Chair also 
notes that I saw a national television program which raised the 
issue that research at universities was detracting from 
undergraduate education.
    Now the universities with whom I've conferred deny that 
that is the case, but I think a sufficient concern has been 
raised on the issue that I urge the adoption of Mr. Boehlert's 
amendment and will now recognize any other Member who desires 
to speak on Mr. Boehlert's amendment.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. I rise in support of Mr. Boehlert's amendment. I 
would caution that there must be a good-faith effort to 
implement this kind of requirement in the most effective and 
flexible way. I am sure the gentleman recognizes that need.
    There has been a good deal of media attention. There was 
one ``60 Minutes'' segment focused on teaching and research at 
the University of Arizona, for example, which caused some 
consternation at the University of Arizona for implying that 
teaching was getting short shrift, and there was a little sense 
of guilt about it, too, because I think they recognized the 
truth in some of the segment.
    But the point that I would like to make is. An outstanding 
researcher need not neglect teaching under the proper 
interpretation of ``teaching.'' He may not spend say the same 
equivalent number of hours in a classroom, although there is no 
reason why he shouldn't, but the actual process of research 
itself is a major teaching and learning experience if it is 
properly designed to do that.
    What this amendment will do, I think, is to focus the 
attention of researchers on the need to design their projects 
so that it conveys the maximum amount of teaching value within 
the structure of the university, and I hope it will accomplish 
that goal.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
    Is there any further discussion of Mr. Boehlert's 
amendment?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Schiff. Seeing no requests for discussion, the motion 
is now on the amendment.
    All in favor of the amendment will signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Schiff. All opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Schiff. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. 
The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted.
    The next amendment on the list is submitted by Mr. Geren.
    Mr. Geren is recognized for five minutes on the amendment.
    Mr. Geren. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is printed behind the 
summary of the amendments. It is amendment number 3.
    This amendment would increase the authorization of 
appropriations for the NSF above the level in the Committee 
mark in the event that the tax cut provided in the Final Budget 
Resolution is less than that provided by the House-passed 
Budget Resolution.
    The increase in funding authorized for Fiscal Year 1996 is 
calculated as follows:
    First the fraction is determined by which the House-passed 
tax cut is reduced by the Concurrent Budget Resolution. Then 
the fraction is multiplied by the difference between the NSF 
Budget Request for Fiscal Year 1996 and the authorization level 
provided in the Committee Mark.
    For Fiscal Year 1996 the amendment freezes the 
authorization levels at the new 1996 level.
    The rationale for Chairman Walker's budget allocations to 
the Subcommittees of the Science Committee is that we must keep 
authorizations for the science agencies within the envelope for 
balancing the budget--something that I strongly support.
    However, the House-passed Budget Resolution may provide 
less generous spending targets in the final conference report 
on the budget since the Senate-passed Budget Resolution assumes 
a smaller tax cut.
    This amendment will provide a higher authorization level 
for NSF, and a portion of the amount of the reduction in the 
House-passed tax cut.
    I think it is important that we do this at this time. I 
think there is a consensus in this Committee that we are not 
doing enough for science, but also a commitment to balancing 
the budget.
    This provides us a vehicle for in the event we do have a 
budget that looks a little different than what passed on the 
House Floor; that we do ensure that we can put additional 
funding into NSF; that we can make a stronger commitment to 
science, which is so important for this country and this 
country's future, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Geren.
    I neglected to ask that the amendment be read.
    Mr. Geren. would you like to offer a unanimous consent 
suggestion that it be considered as read?
    Mr. Geren. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
considered as read.
    Mr. Schiff. All right. Thank you, Mr. Geren.
    The Chair has a substitute amendment at the desk. I do not 
believe it is in your packet, so I will ask the clerks to 
distribute it.
    I will recognize myself for five minutes on my substitute.
    I want to say first that with respect to Mr. Geren's 
proposed amendment, I am in a great deal of sympathy with what 
he is trying to do here.
    I want to point out that I personally voted against the tax 
cut. I didn't vote against it because I agreed with some of the 
arguments that were made against it; I voted against it because 
I think that balancing the budget is the first priority, and I 
would have preferred to see some actual history accomplished of 
heading towards deficit reduction before we implement a major 
tax cut.
    Nevertheless, I think that the gentleman's amendment is not 
the best way to achieve additional authorization. It is too 
speculative, and it locks us in maybe worse than we could 
possibly come out.
    For example, if there is less of a tax cut and more money 
is available for programs, I think that we in the science 
community--which I include the Members of this Committee--
should strive for more than a proportional share of that fund 
based upon the importance of scientific research to the Nation 
as a whole.
    Second, the amendment is limited to the concept of money 
freed up because of no tax cut. Money could be freed up in the 
budget conference between the elimination of other programs.
    So in other words, the amendment by Mr. Geren does not 
address the possibility that there could be money available for 
the different committees to apply for, if you will, based upon 
other circumstances. This is why I offer my substitute.
    My substitute merely says that nothing we are doing today 
precludes our seeking additional authorization if the figures 
for science are made larger in the Budget Resolution, and 
doesn't specify exactly how those figures might be made higher.
    I think that that is more in keeping with all of the 
possibilities, and it really shares the gentleman from Texas' 
intent here.
    I would be glad to recognize again the gentleman from Texas 
to respond to my substitute.
    Mr. Geren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I appreciate and respect your commitment to do everything 
we can to dedicate more resources to science. I think we all 
recognize that we are not doing as much as we would like to see 
done.
    My concern about your substitute is it assumes that we 
would have the opportunity to come back and do an additional 
authorization bill, and I don't think that is realistic. I 
believe that once we get into the press of the budget process 
and we get into the Fall, the chances of coming back here and 
actually reauthorizing and going through all the challenges 
that face us in trying to put together a Committee markup, I 
just don't think it is going to happen.
    So the amendment that I'll offer avoids the necessity for 
another authorization bill. It sets us up to receive additional 
monies, and if in fact there are monies in excess of that 
available, well, nothing precludes us coming back and doing 
another authorization bill just as your amendment proposes.
    So I see the amendment that I offer giving us a receptacle 
to receive any additional funds that might be available through 
the budget process, and it does not preclude what your 
amendment offers, and that is an option to do another 
authorization bill.
    There is nothing in the bill that would keep us from doing 
another authorization bill. So I don't think that your 
substitute really adds anything to the process, other than an 
option that is present even after my amendment passes.
    So I urge my colleagues to support it. This is an 
opportunity to be ready to receive. And, absent that, I am 
afraid we would not have the opportunity to take advantage of 
additional funds that might be made available.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentleman for his response. And 
again, our difference is in approach and not in intent here, 
which we share.
    Before recognizing other Members, I have a unanimous 
consent request. I am just informed that the language that I 
submitted on my amendment was proposed by the Department of 
Energy for a broader purpose, broader than we are doing here 
with respect to reauthorizing the National Science Foundation.
    Therefore I ask unanimous consent to strike the words 
``civilian research, development, demonstration, and commercial 
application activities of''.
    With those words stricken, the substitute I am offering 
will read:
    ``Nothing in this Act shall preclude further authorization 
of appropriations for the National Science Foundation'' and go 
on from there just exactly as written.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Schiff. Without objection, the substitute will be 
considered amended.
    Does any other Member desire recognition on either the 
amendment or the substitute?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Again I rise in support of Mr. Geren's 
amendment, but I think the larger importance here is that we 
all on this Subcommittee and Committee come to a realistic 
understanding of shall we say the volatility of the situation 
that we are in, and I think we all recognize that.
    We have as guidelines for our activities in this 
authorization bill a House-passed Budget Resolution, a Senate-
passed Budget Resolution, a Presidential budget, which the 
President just last night modified somewhat to have a different 
set of projections, and any action that we take is contingent 
upon subsequent action that will be taken by the budget 
committees in their conference. So this is a volatile 
situation.
    I might say that there is nothing in the Budget Resolution 
that the House passed or that the Senate passed that would 
preclude a larger authorization than we have here. I personally 
would support such a larger authorization, but I don't think it 
is politically prudent to do so.
    If there is a--as a result of the budget conference and 
other circumstances--a substantial change in the environment, I 
think we all recognize that not only could we introduce another 
authorization, but again as Mr. Geren has indicated, that is 
somewhat impractical just from the standpoint of gaining time 
scheduled on the Floor to act on an additional authorization, 
if nothing else.
    But there is of course going to be further action on the 
Floor. There will be similar action in the Senate. There will 
be a conference between the two Houses, assuming we both pass 
an authorization and a final conference report, which probably 
will not come up until quite late in the session anyway, as 
much as I would like to see it progress much more smoothly.
    I am making these comments just to indicate to those who 
may not have been through this process quite as often as others 
that we could make some changes even at the stage of the 
conference report between the House and Senate on this bill if 
the circumstances warrant it at that time.
    I believe that that would be feasible. Despite having said 
that, I still feel that Mr. Geren's amendment faithfully 
portrays the potential for further changes and the need to 
readjust this authorization, and I therefore feel that it would 
be prudent to adopt that language as part of this bill.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Walker?
    Chairman Walker. Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate you for 
your amendment and rise in support of that as opposed to the 
Geren amendment because it does give us some flexibility as we 
move through this process to assure that if funds are freed up 
we could in fact use them for additional authorizations for the 
National Science Foundation.
    However, under the approach taken by Mr. Geren's amendment, 
the fact is that we would have the kind of inflexibility that 
it seems to me does not reflect what we want to do as a 
Committee.
    Under the language as I understand it in the Geren 
amendment, the money that would be freed up as a result of any 
kind of reduction in the tax cut package would come back into 
Function 250 but could be used only for the National Science 
Foundation.
    Now the National Science Foundation is one area of our 
budget that, despite stringent problems, we treated reasonably 
well. There are areas in NASA, and in the Energy Department 
where we made far more severe cuts.
    It seems to me that, if we have money freed up in Function 
250, we want to be able to use some of that money to help with 
some of the problems in NASA and in the Energy Department.
    Under the Geren amendment, we would not be able to do that. 
All the money would have to come back and be used only for the 
National Science Foundation.
    It seems to me that we want the flexibility to make 
additional authorizations in this arena, but that we ought not 
end up with a situation where this is the only arena where we 
could make additional authorizations.
    Your amendment allows us the flexibility to do a much 
broader, better job of determining priorities, so therefore I 
would urge its adoption.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Walker.
    Does any other Member seek recognition on either the 
amendment or the substitute?
    Mr. Geren. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Geren.
    Mr. Geren. I would like to respond to comments made by 
Chairman Walker.
    One, my amendment if adopted would be no more inflexible 
than the bill as written. It provides a mechanism for the money 
to flow in according to a prearranged formula with the same 
percentage going to the NSF as the Committee has--of that 
budget function going to NSF as already set out in the 
authorization bill.
    What your substitute does, Mr. Chairman, is really restate 
where we are with or without my amendment. It says we can come 
back and do another authorization bill. We know we can do that.
    My amendment is no less flexible than the Committee markup. 
It sets a mechanism in place to receive any additional funds. I 
think it would make sure that we continue to be a decision 
maker in how those funds are used.
    As Chairman--or as Mr. Brown pointed out, we have got a 
long way to go in this budget process. We have seen in the past 
occasions where money, additional money was freed up and the 
appropriators get to make all the decisions on how that money 
is spent; they cut the authorizers out of it.
    My amendment makes sure that we do have some say in how 
that money is spent, if indeed it does become available, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it and to reject your substitute.
    Mr. Schiff. Any further requests for discussion of this, of 
either the amendment or the substitute?
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Schiff. Ms. Jackson-Lee.
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    As I listened to the debate and Congressman Geren's recent 
remarks, I am convinced to support his amendment primarily 
because in reading some of the news copy over the last couple 
of days there has been an issue raised about the potential 
increase, if you will, on Space Station costs as compared with 
maybe some numbers presented before, which gives me the sense 
that we need to be poised to fight overall for the particular 
programs that come under the overall Science Committee's 
jurisdiction.
    And to be poised with particular numbers as offered by the 
Geren amendment for the National Science Foundation, I think it 
puts us in better stead, one, for our commitment to the task of 
the National Science Foundation, but overall for what we will 
have to be prepared to do for the overall science programs of 
this Nation in general, which will include many aspects of what 
NASA does.
    I think this allows us to, one, make a statement; but as 
well, clarify the tracking of the dollars; and I hope we will 
follow that process as we look at NASA's entire budget which 
includes the Space Station.
    For if we don't stake out our claim, there are a variety of 
other issues that will certainly rise. I do realize that 
flexibility is important, but I also recognize in our past 
hearings how we have made a very firm statement on our 
commitment to science, and research, and the tasks that the 
National Science Foundation allows our institutions of higher 
education to perform, as well as our research scientists, and 
the benefit of the responsibilities of this particular 
Foundation.
    So I would support it, for it claims a position on the 
dollars that may come back, and they are vital dollars for I 
think very important research that should be done.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Ms. Jackson-Lee.
    The Chair would just briefly summarize and hope to go for a 
vote with the idea that our intent is the same. The Chair's 
view though is that the floor is also a ceiling, and that the 
Chair's substitute provides the flexibility in approach which 
will enable us to argue without limitation on how we should try 
to increase the authorization for the departments and agencies 
under the Science Committee which we all want to do.
    Does any other Member seek recognition?
    Mr. Geren. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Geren, what is your parliamentary inquiry, 
please.
    Mr. Geren. In order to vote on my amendment--the way it is 
set up, we will vote on yours. If yours passes, then my 
amendment won't be considered. So for mine to be considered, a 
``no'' vote--I mean, yours will have to be rejected? Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Geren, that is correct.
    I offered my amendment as a substitute for yours, and 
therefore if Members desire a straight vote on your amendment 
they would be advised to vote ``no'' on my amendment, or my 
substitute.
    Mr. Brown, did you desire recognition?
    Mr. Geren. Thank you.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I was going to just ask for a 
clarification on that parliamentary point that Mr. Geren has 
just made, but let me just say in addition that I really 
appreciate the expression of desire on the part of so many 
Members here to increase the authorization for NSF. I think 
that bodes well for NSF.
    Mr. Schiff. Seeing no further requests for recognition, the 
Chair moves the vote on the substitute as presented.
    All in favor of the substitute offered by the chair to the 
amendment offered by Mr. Geren will please signify by saying 
aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Schiff. All opposed will please say nay.
    [Chorus of noes.]
    Mr. Schiff. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it; 
the ayes have it----
    Mr. Brown. Roll call vote.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Brown requests a roll call vote. A roll 
call is ordered. The Clerk will call the roll, please.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Schiff votes yes. Mr. Boehlert.
    Mr. Boehlert. Aye.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Boehlert votes yes. Mr. Barton.
    Mr. Barton. Present.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Barton votes present. Mr. Baker.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Aye.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Ehlers votes yes. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Aye.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Gutknecht votes yes. Mrs. Morella.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Weldon [Pa]. Aye.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Weldon votes yes. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. Aye.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Bartlett votes yes. Mr. Wamp.
    Mr. Wamp. Yes.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Wamp votes yes. Mr. Weldon of Florida.
    Mr. Weldon [Fl]. Yes.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Weldon votes yes. Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. Yes.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Graham votes yes. Mr. Hilleary.
    Mr. Hilleary. Yes.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Hilleary votes yes. Mrs. Myrick.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Walker.
    Chairman Walker. Yes.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Walker votes yes.
    Mrs. Morella. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Geren.
    Mrs. Morella. Sorry.
    Mr. Geren. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Geren votes no. Mr. Hastings.
    Mr. Hastings. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Hastings votes no. Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Ms. Rivers votes no. Mr. Doggett.
    Mr. Doggett. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Doggett votes no. Mr. Luther.
    Mr. Luther. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Luther votes no. Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Olver votes no. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Doyle votes no. Ms. Jackson-Lee.
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Ms. Jackson-Lee votes no. Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Brown votes no.
    Mrs. Morella. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Schiff. Mrs. Morella.
    Mrs. Morella. May I ask how I am recorded?
    Mr. Schiff. How is Mrs. Morella recorded, please?
    Mr. Cadena. Mrs. Morella is not recorded, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Schiff. Mrs. Morella?
    Mrs. Morella. Mrs. Morella votes yes.
    Mr. Cadena. Mrs. Morella votes yes.
    Mr. Schiff. Is there any other Member in the room who has 
not been recorded?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Schiff. The Clerk will report.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Chairman, the yes votes are 12; the no 
votes are 9; 1 present.
    Mr. Schiff. By a vote of 12 to 9 with 1 present, the 
substitute is adopted. The vote now occurs on the Geren 
amendment as amended by the substitute.
    All in favor of the amendment as amended, please signify by 
saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Schiff. All opposed, please say no.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Schiff. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. 
The ayes have it, and the Geren amendment as amended by the 
Chair's substitute is adopted.
    Mr. Doggett is now recognized for an amendment. The Clerk 
will designate the amendment.
    Mr. Cadena. ``Amendment offered by Mr. Doggett''
    Mr. Doggett. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would ask unanimous 
consent to consider the amendment as read.
    Mr. Schiff. Without objection, the amendment is considered 
as read. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes on his 
amendment.
    Mr. Doggett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment represents an attempt to continue the long 
bipartisan commitment on the Science Committee to invest in 
basic research and support the National Science Foundation as a 
true benefit for future American generations.
    Our Committee has worked long and hard in the past to 
further the objectives of the National Science Foundation; to 
recognize that basic science rewards us with new jobs as basic 
scientific benefits are converted into practical products and 
services.
    This is one of the areas where the Federal Government 
clearly has a vital national interest in making investments 
that the private sector often cannot afford to make because it 
cannot afford to fully recover the cost of that investment.
    Already this country trails both Japan and Germany and most 
of our international competitors in our investment with 
reference to civilian research and development. We invest about 
2 percent of the gross domestic product. They typically invest 
about 3 percent.
    This budget as it has been approved in the Budget 
Resolution will cause even our present inadequate investment in 
research and development to plummet further.
    We have been told that the National Science Foundation is 
actually being favored in this budget since it is only being 
maimed at this time rather than, like so many other research 
programs that have been sentenced to immediate capital 
punishment.
    I know there are those who take great pride in proclaiming 
that the wound that is being inflicted on basic research is not 
a mortal wound, but I am not among them.
    Some claim that the National Science Foundation should join 
in the current corporate fad of downsizing. While I recognize 
that further efficiencies should always be sought in every 
program, I wonder exactly what it is that the National Science 
Foundation is supposed to downsize, since already less than 5 
percent of its funding goes to administration, with the rest 
mostly going to university grants for research and science 
education.
    I think it is, rather, as The New York Times recently 
editorialized regarding the science budget in general as 
approved in the House Budget Resolution; that it represents an 
irresponsible gamble.
    The Times warned that private companies will invest in 
research that is likely to raise their profit, but they are 
unwilling to invest in research whose benefits leak out to 
competitors. And of course that is only natural. By abandoning 
the government's historical role, the Times continued, the 
House Budget would undermine America's technological base.
    A report that occurred about the same time in The Wall 
Street Journal documented huge reductions in the research 
budgets of American companies that traditionally have funded 
more research.
    Now more than ever the private sector needs a Federal 
partner in doing basic research.
    The amendment that I offer specifically would restore a 
portion of the very severe cuts imposed on the National Science 
Foundation. The original Clinton Administration budget held the 
National Science Foundation at the inflation rate--what some 
have called a ``soft freeze.''
    That approach of the Clinton Administration, I must say, is 
substantially less than the increases that have been 
recommended in prior years for the National Science Foundation 
by Presidents Reagan and Bush.
    The House Budget Resolution, on the other hand, mandates 
that investments like those in the National Science Foundation 
be cut sharply in Fiscal Year 1996, almost $270 million below 
fiscal year 1995, a cut of 7.9 percent below 1995 in current 
dollars, perhaps a little over 10 percent when you consider 
likely inflation.
    The amendment that I am proposing seeks to strike a balance 
between the two. It would provide $3.245 billion in both Fiscal 
Years 1996 and 1997. In Fiscal Year 1996 it would provide $119 
million more than the bill before us, but $115 million less 
than what the Administration proposed. It seeks to achieve a 
balance pretty close to the middle between the House Budget 
Resolution and the original Administration approach.
    Admittedly, this is an amendment that itself cuts the 
National Science Foundation about $150 million below what it 
will get in Fiscal Year 1995; but it constitutes an attempt to 
achieve some moderation that could be supported by Republicans 
and Democrats alike, recognizing the great importance that 
prior Republican Administrations have placed on science, and 
that both Republicans and Democrats on this Committee have 
placed on science.
    I believe that adoption of the amendment would send a clear 
signal that the National Science Foundation and basic research 
continue to be a very high priority of this whole Science 
Committee and I move its adoption.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentleman for his presentation. The 
Chair will recognize itself for five minutes.
    The figures that are offered in the Committee Print for 
authorization for the National Science Foundation are figures 
derived from the Budget Resolution adopted by the House of 
Representatives.
    We have tried to conform to the Budget Resolution because 
in the past, to be very frank about it, authorizers were not 
really players in the real game of appropriations because 
authorizations tended to be so wide of the appropriation marks, 
whatever they were, that the Appropriations Committee simply 
did all the work itself, and the authorizers could feel better 
by authorizing higher figures, but they were really meaningless 
because it was not ``real money.''
    I want to note that I feel very strongly that the House 
Budget Resolution as adopted was too low, in my judgment, in 
the area of scientific research. I am very hopeful, and 
therefore entirely sympathetic with the gentleman offering the 
amendment, that the budget figures in conference will be raised 
and will allow us to return to the higher authorizations for 
this and other science bills.
    But having said that, I want to emphasize that the figures 
in the Committee Print are based upon another document, the 
House Budget Resolution.
    I would ask the gentleman who offers the amendment, with 
respect--and offer to yield to him--where the figures are 
coming from that he is offering in this amendment that raises 
the authorization.
    I yield to the gentleman to respond. In other words, I am 
asking the gentleman how he came up with these figures.
    Mr. Doggett. Mr. Chairman, they are an attempt to achieve 
some balance, as I indicated, between what the House proposed 
in the Budget Resolution and what the Administration proposed 
with consideration to the past growth in appropriations for the 
National Science Foundation and, as I mentioned, the 
commitments of past Administrations to continue that growth 
looking toward, from the time of the Reagan years, to a 
doubling of the appropriations available for the National 
Science Foundation.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentleman for responding, and 
reclaiming my time, I want to ask--and I am not seeking to 
raise other debates--but when the gentleman refers to figures 
between the Committee Print and the President's budget, I 
assume the gentleman is referring to the President's budget as 
submitted earlier this year?
    Mr. Doggett. I understand that the figures are essentially 
the same in the latest rendition to which the Chairman may be 
referring.
    Mr. Schiff. Well, if the gentleman knows that, he knows 
more than I do because the President referred to a 20 percent 
cut in discretionary spending last night.
    So I am assuming that the figures may be entirely 
different. I don't know that for a fact. I have only to go on 
what the President said last night.
    Has the gentleman seen a new set of figures with respect to 
science from the Administration?
    Mr. Doggett. I have made some inquiry about it. But let me 
assure you that I will be the last Member of the Committee to 
defend either of those budgets. I am only seeking to achieve 
some point of moderation between the historic growth that we 
have provided for basic research, which I think continues to be 
justified, and the approach taken which I do think, 
respectfully, has the effect of decimating our commitment to 
basic research.
    Mr. Schiff. Let me conclude my time by saying I appreciate 
very much the gentleman's intent and his feelings, and I would 
like him to know that I share that view; I think we all do on 
this Subcommittee.
    However, the Chair must recommend the rejection of the 
amendment on the grounds that the Chair believes that our 
staying with the Budget Resolution figures as they have been 
adopted as of now is the best approach for authorization if we 
are to have a meaningful and realistic and effective role in 
the actual appropriations process.
    With that, the Chair will recognize any other Member 
seeking recognition on the gentleman's amendment.
    Mr. Geren?
    Mr. Geren. Mr. Chairman, having voted for the budget, I 
personally feel bound to pass an authorization bill that is 
consistent with the Budget Resolution, but I understand very 
well the sentiments of my colleague, Mr. Doggett, and I believe 
that his feelings are shared across the Committee, Republican 
and Democrat, that we aren't doing enough for science.
    It certainly would not be any major break with precedent 
for us to pass an authorization bill in excess of the budget 
amount. As you pointed out, that is something that has happened 
many times over the years and it is a way for an authorization 
committee to make a statement about priorities within our 
government.
    And while I endorse the concept of Mr. Doggett's amendment, 
I personally don't feel I can support it because of my position 
on the budget vote. But I don't think that it should be 
rejected out of hand just based on the fact that it is an 
authorization bill that does not line up perfectly with where 
the budget agreement is; it is something that happens quite 
often in the authorization process.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Schiff. Does any other Member seek recognition on Mr. 
Doggett's amendment?
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Schiff. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Very briefly, I will support Mr. Doggett's 
amendment, but I did want to say that I would prefer an even 
greater augmentation to what is before us.
    In April I spent most of the recess meeting with CEOs of 
high tech companies in Silicon Valley. One of the titans of 
industry, a founder of a company that would be a name known to 
everyone, in a candid moment said that they would rather do in 
the research and development tax credit, if that was necessary, 
to fully fund the National Science Foundation; that that was 
``the'' most important thing to do for science in America and 
for the future of the country.
    So I did want to say I will support it, but I--and I 
understand Mr. Doggett is searching for something that can be 
successful, so this is not a criticism of him--but I think we 
should actually go farther than the amendment provides.
    Mr. Schiff. Okay. I have to tell you that the Chair, I 
hope, contributes many assets to the Congress, but vision is 
not necessarily one of them.
    The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I suffer from the same thing. Although my glasses don't 
look like tri-focals, they are, and sometimes it is very 
difficult to tell what I am looking at.
    Mr. Chairman, it appeared that the premise for authorizing 
at the level that is here within the Budget Resolution is that 
such a low authorization will provide some sort of guarantee 
that the appropriation level will be at the authorization 
level.
    I doubt very much, from my experience on the Appropriations 
Committee, I doubt very much that the Appropriations Committee 
will recognize any such obligation at all to--and it seems to 
me that our obligation here as members of the Science Committee 
and the Basic Research Subcommittee should be to authorize what 
we believe is in the best interests of the scientific 
development of this Nation.
    It seems to me that basic research and the support for that 
by the Federal Government has been one of the critical ways--
one of the critical edges that we have had over other nations. 
The amount of government research and support by the government 
for research that has gone into the universities has helped us 
to provide that critical edge.
    So I am going to support the Doggett amendment. Again, I 
would say that I would be, as with Ms. Lofgren, more inclined 
to support a considerably higher amount. But any idea that 
providing a low authorization guarantees us an appropriation 
level that is going to be closer to that authorization I think 
is illusory, completely illusory.
    Chairman Walker. Would the gentleman yield to me?
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Walker.
    Chairman Walker. I had not planned to speak, but I think 
that it is something that we have got to point out; that the 
times have changed since the gentleman served on the 
Appropriations Committee.
    We do have new people operating there and new cardinals in 
place, and they have been very cooperative and forthcoming in 
working with this Committee and trying to match up our 
priorities and spending with what they are going to do.
    I think that is a positive sign, and it is one that we 
ought to try to work with.
    The fact is that when the Energy and Water numbers became 
public yesterday they are very, very close to what we adopted 
in this Committee. We have had a considerable influence on the 
work of that Subcommittee, and we are working in concert with 
them in terms of setting priorities.
    I think that helps us as an authorizing committee to have 
some impact, and I think that it was fairly well recognized 
even by the media that covered it, that was indeed the 
situation that began to arise.
    So we now have a clear path.
    We have been in consultation with the people who will be 
marking up the bills in the area of the National Science 
Foundation at the Appropriations Committee. We have every 
reason to believe that they are being very, very sympathetic to 
some of the policy options that we have.
    I would also remind the House that the authorizing chairmen 
now do have some power to go to the Floor and act against 
appropriations that do not properly follow authorizing 
committee intent.
    So there are mechanisms by which we can enforce our will, 
if in fact we play in the same kind of ballpark that the 
appropriators do. But if we go wild and simply have figures 
that are totally beyond anything that is likely to happen in 
the appropriations process, then they have no reason to listen 
to us in terms of setting priorities; and they certainly have 
no reason to believe that anything we say relative to their 
numbers has any meaning when we try to enforce discipline on 
the Floor.
    So I would say that the track record at the moment is 
looking reasonably good in terms of the cooperative approach, 
and I would like to think that this Committee would not try to 
stop that cooperation from taking place by taking us out of the 
ballgame.
    [Simultaneous calls for recognition.]
    Mr. Schiff. The Chair sees several requests for 
recognition. I think I am going to go down the row because I 
saw all the hands at once.
    Congressman Hastings.
    Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I wanted to return to the question that you put to Mr. 
Doggett and try to sharpen it as best I can with reference to 
the budget of the President.
    The President's more recent of the budget proposals allows 
that the National Science Foundation's investment in basic 
research and education programs keep pace with inflation by 
adding $500 million a year by 2002. I think that was a figure 
you were searching for. I don't know whether it helps. My 
understanding is that the present proposal adds $240 million, 
but at least that is a figure that I think comports with my 
colleague, Mr. Doggett's recommendations and I rise in support 
of his amendment.
    Mr. Schiff. The Chair would like to say, as tactfully as 
possible, that all of the Members would be grateful to see a 
complete budget document based upon the President's 
presentation last night so we're not trying to guess as to what 
the President's proposal presently is.
    Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to speak to the comments made by the Committee 
Chairman because the reality is not necessarily squaring with 
what we would hope would be the ideal relationship between the 
authorizing and appropriating committees.
    For example, yesterday the appropriating committee dealt 
with, among other things, the lightwater reactor which our bill 
originally zeroed out. We added $14 million in funding on Mr. 
Bartlett's amendment, and yesterday the cardinals in the 
Appropriations Committee decided to spend $40 million on that 
particular endeavor and did not feel constrained by the message 
that we sent to them.
    So I would be careful in embracing the idea that our view 
is being held in high esteem in the next committee, and I think 
we should strive to do what we think is the best thing for the 
science that we are deliberating on.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to speak in favor of the Doggett Amendment. I 
think what Mr. Doggett is trying to do is similar to the 
substitute that we offered in the Energy and Environment 
Subcommittee. That is, to seek a middle ground.
    Our substitute mirrored the Stenholm Budget Resolution. 
While I am not certain whether or not Mr. Doggett's numbers 
mirror that Budget Resolution, I think we are trying to make a 
statement here that there is a general consensus that when the 
Conference meets, the final numbers are going to be somewhat 
higher than the House Budget Resolution.
    What we are trying to do is ensure that if and when that 
happens--and I think there is general agreement that is going 
to happen--that we get some money into the science budget.
    I would also like to comment on what the Chairman of the 
Full Committee said, too. I think that the notion that we are 
influencing the appropriators by the statements we make here, I 
think is just the opposite.
    These numbers--let's be clear about that--these House 
Budget Resolution numbers come down here, and we are backing 
into them. I mean, the notion that we are making a statement 
here, the only statement I see us making, is that we are 
submitted to the House Budget Resolution and chopping whatever 
needs to be chopped to hit those numbers.
    If we truly wanted to be a committee that made a statement, 
then we would say what we thought was necessary to maintain the 
science program in this country and have that something that 
the appropriators could then consider during the process.
    I think it is just backwards. I think we are having no 
effect on the appropriators; we are just acquiescing to 
whatever numbers we are being told to get to.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Olver?
    Mr. Olver. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to respond to the Chairman's comments in an 
equally low-key manner. If the amendment which has been offered 
by Mr. Doggett were indeed a wild or irresponsible increase in 
the number of dollars, there might be some validity to those 
comments.
    The proposed amendment adds back roughly half of the 
difference between the two previous budgets--the President's 
budget and the President's recommendations and the Budget 
Resolution. Roughly half of that, or roughly half of the $237-
some-million-dollar difference, which is really only about 2 or 
3 percent of the $3 billion budget that we are talking about, 
authorization that we are talking about. And, given the 
evidence which I think corroborates what I had originally said, 
as Ms. Rivers has pointed out on the action of the 
Appropriations Committee in regard to the lightwater reactor, 
it seems to me our obligation here is all the stronger; that we 
should be coming forward with what we think is important for 
basic research, for the NSF, for the support of science in this 
country, and if there is indeed some degree of cooperation 
involved, that in fact we may have done a great service by 
increasing by that half of $234 million, or roughly half of the 
$234 million, by providing that additional amount of 
authorization for the appropriators to chew on.
    Mr. Schiff. Does any other Member seek recognition on Mr. 
Doggett's amendment?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Schiff. Seeing no requests for recognition, the Chair 
just wants to state again that, although it agrees completely 
with the desire of all Members to increase authorizations, and 
while I hope we can do so, I believe that we should do so in 
conformance with an adopted budget resolution. And there is 
still yet to come the Conference Committee between the House 
and the Senate on a budget.
    There may be further negotiations with the Administration, 
which I personally would welcome; and if the budget figures 
change favorably, then our authorizations can change.
    But as the Budget Resolution stands now, the Chair must 
urge rejection of the amendment.
    The Chair will now call for a vote on the gentleman's 
amendment.
    All in favor of Mr. Doggett's amendment will please signify 
by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Schiff. All opposed, please say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    Mr. Doggett. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a record vote.
    Mr. Schiff. The Chair was in doubt, so the gentleman's 
request is very timely.
    The recorded vote is ordered. The Clerk will call the roll.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Schiff votes no. Mr. Boehlert.
    Mr. Boehlert. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Boehlert votes no. Mr. Barton.
    Mr. Barton. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Barton votes no. Mr. Baker.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Ehlers.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Gutknecht votes no.
    Mrs. Morella. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Ms. Morella votes no. Mr. Weldon of 
Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Weldon [Pa]. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Weldon votes no. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Wamp.
    Mr. Wamp. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Wamp votes no. Mr. Weldon of Florida.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Graham votes no. Mr. Hilleary.
    Mr. Hilleary. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Hilleary votes no. Ms. Myrick.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Walker.
    Chairman Walker. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Walker votes no. Mr. Geren.
    Mr. Geren. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Geren votes no. Mr. Hastings.
    Mr. Hastings. Aye.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Hastings votes yes. Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. Yes.
    Mr. Cadena. Ms. Rivers votes yes. Mr. Doggett.
    Mr. Doggett. Aye.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Doggett votes yes. Mr. Luther.
    Mr. Luther. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Luther votes no. Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. Yes.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Olver votes yes. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    Mr. Cadena. Ms. Lofgren votes yes. Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Doyle votes yes. Ms. Jackson-Lee.
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. Yes.
    Mr. Cadena. Ms. Jackson-Lee votes yes. Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Yes.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Brown votes yes.
    Mr. Baker. Mr. Chairman, could a Member inquire--
    Mr. Schiff. How was Mr. Baker recorded?
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Baker is not recorded.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Baker?
    Mr. Baker. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Baker votes no.
    Mr. Schiff. How was Mr. Weldon of Florida recorded?
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Weldon of Florida is not recorded.
    Mr. Weldon [Fl]. No.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Schiff. Does any other Member in the room desire to be 
counted in this vote?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Schiff. The Clerk will report.
    Mr. Cadena. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Clerk.
    Mr. Cadena. The yes votes are 8; the no votes are 15.
    Mr. Schiff. By a vote of 8 in the affirmative and 15 in the 
negative, the amendment was rejected.
    The last amendment on the prepared list is by Mr. Barton of 
Texas. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
    Mr. Cadena. ``An amendment offered by Mr. Barton''
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Barton were you willing to request 
unanimous consent on this?
    Mr. Barton. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be considered as read.
    Mr. Schiff. Without objection, so ordered.
    You are recognized for five minutes on your amendment.
    Mr. Barton. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 
for the consideration of this amendment. I want the Committee 
to know, right off the bat, that I am an engineer. I was 
trained as an engineer in undergraduate school, and I am a 
registered professional engineer registered by the State 
Society of Professional Engineers in the State of Texas.
    Back in 1985, the Mission Statement of the National Science 
Foundation was changed by statute. In those changes, Public Law 
99-159, the National Science Foundation was directed to 
initiate and support research fundamental to the engineering 
process, and programs to strengthen engineering research 
potential and engineering education programs at all levels in 
the fields of engineering.
    The statute also included explicit references to 
engineering being in the body of the statute, wherever science 
was referenced. The National Science Foundation is the 
principal grantor of small science and small engineering grants 
in the country.
    There are approximately $3 billion expended in basic 
engineering research at our engineering universities. About 
half of that is funded by the Federal Government. And of that 
half that's funded by the Federal Government, about half of 
that is funded by the National Science Foundation.
    For the last several years I have been approached by the 
National Society of Professional Engineers and asked for their 
support. They have asked me to support a name change.
    Until this year I didn't feel the timing was right. I think 
the timing is right as we move into a new era. Engineering is a 
separate discipline. Science makes the basic discoveries. 
Engineers and engineering research tries to commercialize and 
apply those discoveries so that they are very complementary, 
but they are separate.
    I think a name change would show great support for our 
engineering professions. I think it would show that we realize 
that not only do we have to do basic discovery, we also have to 
try to implement those discoveries.
    There have been some questions about the cost of such a 
name change. I am told that there is one building in Virginia 
where the National Science Foundation has its principal 
headquarters. There are several--a handful of suboffices around 
the country.
    If there is a concern about the cost of actually changing 
the names on the buildings, if it is ethical and legal I will 
raise the money to change the name. It won't cost the Federal 
taxpayer one dollar.
    In terms of the letterhead, we can stipulate in the 
implementing language to use existing letterhead until it is 
exhausted and then, and only then, produce new letterhead with 
new name changes.
    I think this is a good amendment. I hope it is 
noncontroversial. It would give us tremendous support amongst a 
group of people throughout the country that try to be the 
problem solvers, where we are looking at the Space Station or 
some of the other programs.
    It is engineers who try to make the country work. I think 
it is long overdue, and I would hope that we would unanimously 
agree to this amendment.
    Mr. Schiff. Would the gentleman yield to me for a minute?
    Mr. Barton. I would be happy to yield.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
    On a previous vote, Mr. Geren of Texas voted against a 
particular amendment because it was inconsistent with his vote 
on the Budget Resolution, and I am in the same position today.
    In a previous Congress, although I still feel bound by 
that, I co-sponsored the bill that would do exactly what the 
gentleman proposes to do today. I did so because, as the 
gentleman from Texas states, the word ``engineering'' appears a 
number of time in the Organic Act for the National Science 
Foundation.
    So if the gentleman pursues the vote in Subcommittee, I 
personally will vote ``yes.''
    However, I know that our Full Committee Chairman, who I 
will recognize in a moment, has felt on a broader argument that 
if you add the word ``engineering,'' then people will ask you 
to add the word ``technology'' and the words ``space'' and so 
on and so forth without end, and in fact, of course, has moved 
our Full Committee back to the name ``Science Committee,'' 
eliminating several terms.
    I think there is a strong argument there that I did not 
consider when I co-sponsored the bill in a previous Congress.
    With that, I would like to offer to recognize the Chairman, 
if he desires to be recognized.
    Chairman Walker. Well I thank the gentleman.
    I understand the arguments being made by the gentleman from 
Texas, and the engineering community has in fact sought this 
recognition, and I found that in a number of instances, you 
know, have brought to us the desirability of doing this in some 
other work that we are doing.
    But engineering is one of the directorates that exist under 
the National Science Foundation. To single out this directorate 
and have its name raised to this level, it seems to me then 
suggests that things like the biological sciences and the 
geosciences and the math and physical sciences and so on are 
not as important as this one other directorate within the 
agency.
    I am not so certain that that is the signal that we want to 
send, that in the title of the agency we are singling out one 
of the several directorates there for special recognition in 
the title.
    I also think that the National Science Foundation has 
existed as an agency with some tradition now for a period of 
time, and that this would break a linkage with that tradition 
and, in my view, is a somewhat unnecessary diversion in the 
work that we are trying to do toward making it into a premiere, 
basic science agency.
    Mr. Barton. Would the gentleman yield? Would the 
distinguished Chairman yield?
    Chairman Walker. Sure. I'd be happy to yield.
    Mr. Barton. The Chairman knows this, but just to point it 
out to the other Members of the Committee, there is no other 
organized national group that's seeking a name change or a name 
addition. It's quite possible in the future they could; I would 
stipulate that, but at present they're not.
    I'd again reiterate that engineering is a separate 
discipline. The other directorates in the National Science 
Foundation are subsets of general science.
    I understand the distinguished Chairman's concerns; I would 
hope, though, in the spirit of change which we're all a part of 
that this could be a change that we could agree upon.
    I yield back to the distinguished Chairman.
    Mr. Schiff. Would the gentleman from Texas consider 
withdrawing his amendment, obviously with the privilege of 
reintroducing it at Full Committee, so the gentleman and the 
Chairman of the Committee might discuss this further and see if 
they could reach an agreement?
    Mr. Barton. My intention, Mr. Chairman, would be not to 
call for a roll call vote, but simply to ask for a voice vote, 
and perhaps a show of hands; and at that point in time, either 
way it goes, if it is the wish of the Chairman and the Full 
Committee Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw.
    I'm not going to put this to a recorded vote today with the 
concerns of the distinguished Chairman, but I do think it is 
something that is worthy of consideration.
    I think engineering and engineers provide great benefits to 
our society, and I think they are worthy of having a name that 
is part of the National Science Foundation. But I don't want 
this to become a cat fight, so my intention would be a voice 
vote. If the voice vote sounds fairly even, a show of hands; 
and then, whichever way it goes, I would withdraw, or ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw after the show of hands.
    Mr. Boehlert. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Schiff. Who's seeking--Mr. Boehlert.
    Mr. Boehlert. I always look for ways to support Mr. Barton 
and I do so today. I think that we can use the National Bureau 
of Standards' example. When they changed the name and broadened 
it to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, great 
things happened, and maybe even greater things will happen for 
the National Science Foundation if we give the proper and 
appropriate recognition to engineering. So I am supportive of 
my colleague from Texas, as I usually am.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Schiff. If I can just reiterate what the gentleman from 
Texas said, you are suggesting that after the vote, regardless 
of the outcome in the Subcommittee, you would request unanimous 
consent to withdraw?
    Mr. Barton. Yes, because I am very responsive to our Full 
Committee Chairman. But I would hope that we could continue the 
discussion and perhaps reach an accommodation at Full 
Committee.
    Mr. Schiff. Well I thank the gentleman for your 
cooperation, and I think to gauge the situation I would call 
for--I am going to call for a show of hands----
    Mr. Barton. Okay.
    Mr. Schiff [continuing]. In that situation.
    I will ask the Clerk to count, once I do that.
    Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, might I say something before 
that?
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Bartlett. I beg your pardon, Mr. Bartlett, 
you are recognized.
    Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much.
    Congressman Barton is both a warm friend and an admired 
colleague, so I very reluctantly am going to say what I need to 
say.
    I am a scientist with about 100 papers in the literature.
    I also got over into the engineering world and have 20 
patents in that world. So I kind of have a foot in both of 
those camps.
    I have a lot of problems with changing this name. When one 
says ``science,'' particularly with regard to NSF, one 
ordinarily thinks of basic science; and already I think that we 
have adulterated the program of the National Science Foundation 
by even including engineering.
    The Congressman is exactly right. Engineering is a separate 
discipline. It has a happy home other places in Federal 
programs, and basic science is not engineering, and engineering 
is not basic science.
    It is true that engineering grows out of basic science, but 
I think that we have already adulterated the programs of the 
National Science Foundation by including engineering in there, 
and I have just strong objections from my many years in both 
science and engineering, of further adulterating the mission of 
the National Science Foundation by including the word 
engineering there.
    The engineers have a very happy home elsewhere, largely in 
NIES, and I think that we will do harm to our basic science 
program by changing this name.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Schiff. Does any other Member seek recognition on this 
amendment?
    Mr. Geren. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Geren.
    Mr. Geren. I would just want to suggest to my friend Mr. 
Barton that, while we've got Mr. Boehlert softened up, he might 
want to slip in something about the Super Glider into this 
amendment.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Barton. He's not that soft.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Schiff. The Chair is going to do something a little 
different, based on advice of the Parliamentarian.
    I am not going to call for a vote formally because there is 
a legal question whether you can by unanimous consent cancel a 
vote.
    The Chair will call for an informal show of hands and 
invite the gentleman from Texas and the Chairman to, as 
appropriate, do their own counting just to get an idea of where 
we all stand.
    All who are informally--
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Schiff [continuing]. In favor of Mr. Barton's 
amendment, please raise your hand.
    Mr. Barton. Raise them high so we can count them.
    [A show of hands.]
    Mr. Barton. I've got it.
    Mr. Schiff. All those opposed to the gentleman's amendment 
will please raise their hands--informally.
    [A show of hands.]
    Mr. Barton. Only raise one hand, please.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Schiff. Okay. All right, the gentleman is recognized 
for a unanimous consent request.
    Mr. Boehlert. Could we have the informal count?
    Mr. Barton. My informal count was 3 ayes and 11 nays.
    Mr. Schiff. I am not going to ask the Clerk to comment on 
that.
    Mr. Barton. No.
    Mr. Schiff. It might never get us out of here tonight.
    Mr. Boehlert. I can tell you're from Texas; there aren't 
that many people here.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Barton. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Schiff. The gentleman has asked unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Schiff. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    I have no other amendments on the prepared list. Does any 
other amendment--any other Member have an amendment to offer at 
this time?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Schiff. Seeing no amendments being offered, the 
question is now on the adoption of the Committee Print as 
amended.
    All those in favor will vote aye at this time.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Schiff. All those opposed will vote nay.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Schiff. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. 
The ayes have it, and the Committee Print is adopted.
    Mr. Geren.
    Mr. Geren. Mr. Chairman, I move that a clean bill be 
prepared by the Chairman for introduction in the House and 
further consideration by the Committee.
    Mr. Schiff. All in favor of Mr. Geren's motion will please 
signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Schiff. All opposed will say nay.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Schiff. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. 
The gentleman's motion is adopted.
    This concludes our markup on the Committee Print on the 
National Science Foundation.
    [Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m., the Subcommittee immediately 
proceeded to further business.]
               XIV. Proceedings From the Committee Markup

                              ----------                              




   FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP--H.R. 1852, THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 
                   AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1996 AND 1997

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1995

                  House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met at 12:10 p.m. in Room 2318 of the Rayburn 
House Office Building, the Honorable Robert S. Walker, Chairman 
of the Committee, presiding.
    The Chairman. Good afternoon. We will now consider measure 
H.R. 1852, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act. I 
ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and 
open to amendment at any point.
    I ask further for the members to proceed with amendments in 
the order of the roster that is before us.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from New Mexico.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief opening statement, 
but it's in writing. And in order to proceed, I would propose 
to ask unanimous consent that my opening statement be made part 
of the record.
    The Chairman. The gentleman may proceed.
    Mr. Schiff. I thought I just did, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Did the gentleman ask unanimous consent? I'm 
sorry. Without objection.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Schiff follows:]
    
    
    
    
    The Chairman. The Chair also recognizes Mr. Geren.
    Mr. Geren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Following the lead of my Chairman, I am going to submit the 
full text of my opening statement for the record.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Geren follows:]
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Mr. Geren. I do want to recognize Chairman Schiff for the 
way he handled this bill. He is very open to the participation 
of all members, and I want to thank him for the courtesies that 
he's shown us and the leadership he's shown dealing with this 
issue under very difficult budget circumstances. And I ask 
unanimous consent that my full statement be put in the record.
    Mr. Schiff. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Geren. I'll be glad to yield.
    Mr. Schiff. I meant to add a couple of very quick comments. 
The first is my appreciation to you. I think we and our staffs 
worked well together, as all the members of the Subcommittee 
did. And where we didn't agree, we had our differences of 
opinion and resolved it as a matter of policy, not as a matter 
of personalities, which I very much appreciate.
    And I just want to say, in a nutshell, the Subcommittee 
believes that the National Science Foundation is a very well-
run organization. That by no means suggests that they don't 
have problems, like any other large organization would have 
problems, and the Subcommittee intends through oversight 
hearings to look into certain matters.
    But by and large, we believe that we are bringing forward 
an authorization bill here for a very respected organization. 
We're pleased to be able to say that the figures that we're 
presenting, although representing a cut for next year, we can 
say that after next year--next fiscal year, I mean--we are 
under the budget resolution able to start increasing the budget 
back again. And that is unusual under the budget resolution of 
the House for a domestic discretionary program, and I think it 
shows the value that is placed in this program. With that, I 
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Geren. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, thank you for 
those kind words. I appreciate it very much. I also want to 
join you in commending the staff for their fine work in putting 
this bill together. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    The Chairman. Without objection, the gentleman's unanimous 
consent request is agreed to.
    The Chair also has an opening statement, which he will 
submit for the record.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Walker follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. I do want to thank Mr. Schiff and Mr. Geren 
for their work on this bill, and point out with them that this 
does demonstrate the commitment for the basic research agenda 
that we have made. You are to be congratulated that it's within 
the budget numbers and yet does allow the National Science 
Foundation to experience some level of growth in the years just 
ahead.
    The Chair would recognize Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, in an effort to continue the 
spirit of comity, I have an opening statement which I would 
like to request unanimous consent to insert in the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    The Chairman. We will move then to the roster.
    The Chair has an en bloc amendment which is before the 
members which adds some new sections to the bill. Under this 
amendment, I'm asking for the director of OSTP to prepare a 
report on how to reduce indirect costs by 10 percent. There's a 
prohibition on Federal funds being used to support lobbying 
activities. We clarify the name change and responsibilities of 
the Critical Technologies Institute in the Subcommittee bill. I 
believe the name Science Studies Institute is more appropriate 
to describe the mission of the office.
    In this time of fiscal responsibility, and with the 
Subcommittee recommending that the salary and expenses receive 
level funding, and with our increased emphasis on basic 
research, this amendment proposes that we should reduce the 
Foundation by one directorate. I'm allowing the director of NSF 
to decide how to best reorganize the Foundation, and expect a 
report on its implementation.
    This is something I talked reasonably extensively with the 
Director about. I believe the funding for the Foundation should 
only come from funds which are authorized by the Act. It 
contains anti-earmarking language. The National Science 
Foundation believes in merit-based, peer-reviewed proposals. I 
want to ensure that that process stays in place, and for 
amendment purposes I ask that the substitute be considered as 
original text. Are there--Mr. Brown, you have an amendment to 
the en bloc, I understand?
    Mr. Brown. Yes, I do. It's the same amendment that the 
Chair has so graciously accepted in connection with previous 
bills, and I ask that it be considered at this time.
    The Chairman. The Chair is prepared to accept the 
amendment. Without objection, the amendment would be agreed 
to--I'm sorry. The amendment should be distributed. It is the 
same language as we have previously considered, and as I say, 
without objection, the amendment will be considered as added to 
the en bloc.
    Mr. Boehlert.
    Mr. Boehlert. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment also to 
your en bloc.
    The Chairman. Let's distribute the Boehlert amendment as 
well.
    Mr. Boehlert. My amendment would simply add one additional 
requirement to the reporting of indirect costs that you have 
requested from the Executive Branch. I feel that continuing the 
pressure of the Executive Branch to look for ways to reduce 
indirect costs and variance among institutions is laudable. But 
I would also like to see an evaluation of the relative benefits 
and burdens of each option on the institutions.
    I would also extend the report date by 45 days, to December 
31, 1995, to accommodate this requirement.
    The Chairman. The Chair again is prepared to accept the 
gentleman's amendment. I think that it strengthens what we're 
attempting to do.
    Is there further discussion of the Boehlert amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, without objection, the Boehlert 
amendment will be regarded as having been added to the en bloc 
amendment.
    Ms. Lofgren also has an amendment to the en bloc amendment.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps we can 
distribute it. It's at the desk.
    The Chairman. The Lofgren amendment should be distributed 
to the members. I'm being told that we're somewhat behind in 
distributing amendments to the members. I guess we'd better 
hold for a moment until we get the language before the members.
    [Pause.]
    The gentlelady is recognized for her amendment.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I'm proposing is 
to Section 212.
    Shall I suspend until we return, Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. This is another motion that we rise.
    May I suggest to the gentlelady she go ahead and describe 
her amendment? We can use that five minutes, and then we will 
come back for further consideration.
    Ms. Lofgren. My amendment is to Section 212 to your en bloc 
amendment, which reduces by one the number of assistant 
directors authorized for NSF, and which would trigger 
reorganization of NSF's administrative structure.
    I think your amendment raises the good point, that I agree 
with, that NSF needs to consider ways to streamline and reduce 
administrative expenses in the face of reductions in salary and 
expense accounts. I'm hopeful that organizational changes will 
be found which will reduce costs and also improve the 
efficiency of the agency, even though I think we've already 
acknowledged that the agency is not in terrible shape.
    The concern I have, and the reason why I propose this 
amendment is that your en bloc amendment assumes that the best 
way to achieve those cost cuts and efficiencies is the 
elimination of a directorate. And we don't know whether or not 
that is the best way to do that at this point. We haven't had 
hearings on it. We haven't, at least I have not.
    The Committee has received a plan for reorganization from 
the National Science Foundation. It seems to me that, rather 
than have the Committee impose a reorganization in this way, 
that it would be better to ask NSF to come back to us with 
their plan to achieve savings and to become more efficient.
    I know that there is work underway under the overall 
reinventing government activity. Whether or not that is going 
to lead to the final best result, I cannot say. But the 
amendment I'm proposing would give the National Science 
Foundation some time until February 15 of next year to come 
back with an overall reorganization plan to improve 
effectiveness and reduce costs. I think the Committee will have 
time to consider the recommendations of the plan through the 
hearing process prior to the preparation of the follow-on 
authorization bill, and then on the basis of the plan and its 
reception through subsequent hearings, the Committee will be 
able to make a better-informed decision on the legislation.
    I think we need to proceed in a very systematic way to 
address this issue. I think Mr. Schiff has already indicated, 
and I think we all know, that NSF is not a bloated bureaucracy. 
It is on the lean side already. But that doesn't mean that we 
can't do more, and we can't do better.
    I am just suggesting that, for an organization that we have 
expressed admiration for in the past--really, all of us, on a 
bipartisan basis--we ought to let them dig in and do the best 
job. I'm hopeful, frankly, that they could come up with savings 
that exceed what are recommended in the Chairman's bill as a 
very efficient organization.
    So that is really the gist of my amendment, and I would 
urge its adoption. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The Chair intends to recess the Committee at 
this point. I would ask the forbearance of the members to come 
back immediately after the vote, if we can, so that we may 
complete. After this amendment, and we are finished with that, 
the Chair knows of only one more amendment to this bill. We 
would then move to final passage, and we have one more bill 
left, the fire bill, which the Chair knows of no controversy on 
at all. And so we can complete our work here in a matter of a 
reasonably short time if members would come back, help us get a 
quorum, and we can roll forward then.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. The hearing will come to order.
    The Chair will rescind that for a moment. There's still a 
vote on the other side. Until a vote goes off, I don't want to 
call the Committee to order.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, can I respectfully recommend that 
we proceed with the debate?
    The Chairman. That's a good idea. Okay.
    We have a quorum in the room, so we can proceed with the 
debate, and talk on the Lofgren amendment which is before us. 
But we will not vote until the vote has been called on the 
House floor.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, did I finish before we left? The 
hour was late, and I couldn't remember.
    The Chairman. You had done your five minutes. I was about 
to ask whether additional members wished to be heard on the 
amendment.
    Ms. Lofgren. All right.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
    Are there additional members that wish to be heard on the 
amendment of the gentlelady from California?
    Mr. Barton. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Mr. Barton.
    Mr. Barton. I would ask unanimous consent to suspend the 
rules of the Committee and maybe discuss the next amendment, so 
that whatever debate there is on the Barton amendment can 
commence while we're waiting for the vote to occur on the 
Lofgren amendment, if such a vote needs to occur. I just want 
to do my talking now, so that once we get people back and we do 
the vote, if there is a vote, then we can go immediately to a 
vote on my amendment if possible.
    The Chairman. I would say to the gentleman, I would prefer 
not to get too far outside the process. I do want to make some 
comments on the Lofgren amendment. I think it's been offered in 
good faith, and I understand what she's attempting to do. I do 
think there needs to be an explanation for the language which 
is in the bill. I intend to do that. By that time, we would 
hope that maybe the vote would be over on the House floor. Then 
we can move immediately to that, and then go immediately to the 
gentleman's debate.
    Mr. Barton. I would point out to the Chairman, in all 
probability, there is going to be another immediate vote on the 
floor.
    The Chairman. I understand. Let's try to do our best here.
    Is there any other member that wishes to be heard on the 
Lofgren amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair would point out that the 
gentlelady's amendment unnecessarily extends the reorganization 
beyond the next budget cycle. Reducing the salaries and expense 
account by $4 million in FY '96 requires NSF to move quickly to 
save dollars that should go to supporting research. Our effort 
here is to make certain that the money, insofar as possible, is 
being spent on research.
    I have consulted with the head of the NSF, Neal Lane, the 
NSF Director, on my proposal to limit the number of assistant 
directors to not more than six. He has indicated he can live 
with this. I would say that he is not thrilled with it, but he 
did indicate that the proposal that you had before us here is 
much different than what most people had interpreted the budget 
as having done, and in fact allows him the discretion that he 
needs as an administrator to do the reorganization.
    His concerns that he expressed to me were fully 
incorporated in the en bloc amendment. And while it does 
involve some changes at NSF, it really is a situation where we 
have given the administrator there, the Director, broad 
administrative authority, and I think it is something that can 
be handled.
    I understand the gentlelady's point, that the Foundation 
giving us the study will allow us to more fully understand what 
they might do. But I would point out again that the problem 
with that is that we go through one full budget cycle then 
while they're studying this, not getting the administrative 
savings that we think are possible that can be applied to the 
science accounts.
    Since you have a fairly limited ceiling on the amounts of 
money that we have for NSF, any money wasted in administration 
ends up not going into science. I would prefer to see us 
devoting the money to science at this juncture.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    The Chairman. Sure, I'd be happy to yield.
    Ms. Lofgren. This may not be protocol in terms of the 
procedure. But I'm wondering if an earlier date within this 
calendar year might address the Chairman's concerns that I 
think are reasonable, and also whether we might just--even if 
this amendment is not adopted, as it may not be--give 
additional discretion for them to come back within a very short 
period of time, achieving the savings identified in maybe a 
more creative way. Maybe they only need three directors and 
want to cut middle management. I really don't know. But I'd 
love to give them the chance to be creative.
    The Chairman. There is nothing to prevent them from going 
further than what we specified. We say that the limit they 
shall have is six. But if they have a plan to do it with three, 
they are perfectly able to do that within the proposal that we 
have put forward here. So if they want to go further in terms 
of administrative savings, there is nothing in the language 
that is before the Committee to prevent them from going 
substantially further than what we've asked them to do. We want 
them to go at least as far, however, as we had indicated in the 
en bloc amendment as the standard that we're setting.
    Ms. Lofgren. Since we're still waiting for the vote to end 
over across the way, I wonder if I could ask one further 
question, Mr. Chairman.
    If they were to come back and identify the same level of 
savings, but do it a completely different way than is 
envisioned in your amendment, would this Committee then have an 
opportunity to be receptive to that--say, we'll cut middle 
management or something I can't think of?
    The Chairman. Obviously, they can submit a recision. They 
can do a number of things that would allow us to act 
differently than this. But we are making a specific 
recommendation to them that they must cut one directorate. That 
is in fact something which is locked in.
    If they want to go beyond that and do some other things, 
the Committee would certainly be cooperative with that.
    I'm watching. We are down to 0/0/0 on the clock in the 
chamber, which means that the vote is finished there. The Chair 
would ask unanimous consent at this point to proceed with the 
vote, since we are at 0/0/0.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I do not object to that. Let's 
proceed. It is late.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Is there objection to proceeding with the vote, since the 
vote is past the 15 minutes?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The Chair hears no objection, and we will put 
the question on the Lofgren amendment. Those in favor will say 
aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the no's have 
it. The no's have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The next amendment on the calendar is the Barton amendment. 
The Clerk will distribute the amendment. It's in the package, 
I'm told. The gentleman is recognized to describe his 
amendment.
    Mr. Barton. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be considered as read.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Mr. Barton. I didn't think that was controversial.
    Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late, and I could give a 
very eloquent talk about why we need to change the name of the 
National Science Foundation to the National Science and 
Engineering Foundation, which is what this amendment does. This 
isn't rocket science. There's no hidden agenda here.
    In 1985, we changed the statute that said, everywhere in 
the statute that said ``science,'' we added ``and 
engineering.'' Engineering is a separate directorate of the 
National Science Foundation. It is actually a separate 
discipline. It is not a subset of science. It is a separate 
discipline than science. If you go to universities, they have 
engineering departments and science departments.
    The National Society of Professional Engineers has asked 
that I offer this amendment. I offered it in Subcommittee, and 
withdrew after a straw vote that was somewhat in the negative 
against me. I think, as the Chairman knows, I have offered to 
change the amendment so that we can conduct a study. The 
engineering professions--there are about 30 of them in the 
country--requested that I actually offer the full-blown 
amendment to change the name. I would point out that the new 
building that's being built for the National Academy of Science 
and Engineering says ``Science and Engineering.''
    This would not be a costly amendment. So I would hope that 
we could support it, vote for it, and do something that would 
encourage all engineers in the country and bring credit to this 
Committee.
    With that, I would yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 
time.
    Are there additional members who wish to be heard on the 
gentleman's amendment? Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, the National Science 
Foundation, in spite of being a Federal entity, has acquired a 
very well-deserved excellent reputation as a basic research 
institution. Engineering is not basic research, and the fact 
that we have added engineering to some of the legislation 
referring to the National Science Foundation should not justify 
now a change in the name.
    For a number of reasons, I need to object to this amendment 
by my very good and very well-respected friend. I think we need 
to respect the role of basic science. I think the National 
Science Foundation--that its basic mission would be compromised 
by a change in name which would indicate that we were deviating 
from our commitment to support this institution as a basic 
research institution.
    So I stand in opposition to the motion. Thank you.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    If the Chair could retreat for just a moment. Bouncing back 
and forth here to the floor, the Chair kind of forgot where we 
were. The Lofgren amendment was actually offered to the en bloc 
amendment of the Chairman. The Chairman did not ask for a vote 
on the en bloc amendment, and so we do that at the present 
time.
    Those in favor of the en bloc amendment as amended will 
respond by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The en bloc amendment is 
approved.
    We will continue now on the Barton amendment. Are there 
additional people who wish to be heard on the Barton amendment 
proposing a name change for the National Science Foundation?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair is prepared to close the 
debate.
    The Chair has talked to the Director of NSF about this. The 
Director made a very strong point with me, and that is that the 
NSF is in fact a worldwide institution, known across the world 
for excellence, and to change the name would in fact lend a 
note of confusion to something where we have built a reputation 
over the years. This is known as the premier science agency in 
the world, and I think that it probably would not be in the 
best interests of our pursuit of science excellence to change 
the name at the present time.
    With that, the Chair would put the question. Those in favor 
of the Barton amendment will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the no's have 
it.
    Mr. Barton. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to reluctantly ask for 
a roll call vote only because the engineers had asked that I 
ask for a roll call vote.
    The Chairman. Could the gentleman accommodate us by perhaps 
doing it by a division vote?
    Mr. Barton. They actually want to put people on record.
    The Chairman. That's nice of them.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. The gentleman may certainly ask for a roll 
call vote. The Clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker?
    Mr. Walker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz.
    Mr. Boehlert?
    Mr. Boehlert. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Boehlert votes yes.
    Mr. Fawell?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz.
    Mrs. Morella?
    Mrs. Morella. No.
    Mrs. Schwartz. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania?
    Mr. Curt Weldon. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes yes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz.
    Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Pass.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barton?
    Mr. Barton. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barton votes yes.
    Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert votes yes.
    Mr. Baker?
    Mr. Baker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Baker votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ehlers votes no.
    Mr. Wamp?
    Mr. Wamp. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Wamp votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida?
    Mr. Dave Weldon. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes yes.
    Mr. Graham?
    Mr. Graham. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Graham votes yes.
    Mr. Salmon?
    Mr. Salmon. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Salmon votes yes.
    Mr. Davis?
    Mr. Davis. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Davis votes no.
    Mr. Stockman?
    Mr. Stockman. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Stockman votes yes.
    Mr. Gutknecht?
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Gutknecht votes no.
    Mrs. Seastrand?
    Mrs. Seastrand. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Seastrand votes no.
    Mr. Tiahrt?
    Mr. Tiahrt. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tiahrt votes yes.
    Mr. Largent?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz.
    Mr. Hilleary?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz.
    Mrs. Cubin?
    Mrs. Cubin. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Cubin votes no.
    Mr. Foley?
    Mr. Foley. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Foley votes no.
    Mrs. Myrick?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Brown?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hall votes yes.
    Mr. Traficant?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hayes?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz.
    Mr. Geren?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz.
    Mr. Roemer?
    Mr. Roemer. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Roemer votes no.
    Mr. Cramer?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barcia?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. McHale?
    Mr. McHale. Pass.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Harman?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Johnson votes yes.
    Mr. Minge?
    Mr. Minge. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Minge votes no.
    Mr. Olver?
    Mr. Olver. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Olver votes no.
    Mr. Hastings?
    Mr. Hastings. Present.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers?
    Ms. Rivers. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers votes no.
    Ms. McCarthy?
    Mrs. McCarthy. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. McCarthy votes no.
    Mr. Ward?
    Mr. Ward. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ward votes yes.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Lofgren votes no.
    Mr. Doggett?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle?
    Mr. Doyle. I'm voting with my chairman. No.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Good boy.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Jackson-Lee?
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Jackson-Lee votes yes.
    Mr. Luther?
    Mr. Luther. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Luther votes no.
    Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The Chairman. How is Mr. Hastings recorded?
    Mrs. Schwartz. Mr. Hastings voted present.
    Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be recorded as no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. How is Mr. Rohrabacher recorded?
    Mrs. Schwartz. Mr. Rohrabacher is not recorded.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Taking Mr. Doyle's lead, I'll just have to 
vote no.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Doyle has convinced me that I 
really shouldn't follow your policy, so I'm going to vote yes.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Fawell. How am I recorded?
    Mr. Doyle. I'm going to turn this thing around.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Fawell.
    Mr. Fawell. No.
    Mr. Geren. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The Chairman. How is Mr. Geren recorded?
    Mrs. Schwartz. Mr. Geren is not recorded.
    Mr. Geren. I vote aye.
    Mr. McHale. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Mr. McHale.
    Mr. McHale. How am I recorded, Mr. Chairman?
    Mrs. Schwartz. Mr. McHale is not recorded.
    Mr. McHale. I'm going to vote yes.
    The Chairman. Mr. McHale votes yes.
    Are there additional members that wish to be recorded?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Clerk will report.
    Mrs. Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, yes is 16, no 22.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments to the bill?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Hearing none, the question is on the bill 
H.R. 1852. Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report 
the bill H.R. 1852 as amended. Furthermore, I move to instruct 
the staff to prepare the legislative report, including 
supplemental minority or additional views, to make technical 
and conforming amendments, and that the Chairman take all 
necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for 
consideration.
    The Chairman. Would the gentleman add to that three 
legislative days for everyone to file supplemental views?
    Mr. Schiff. I further add to the motion that three 
legislative days be allowed for all members to provide 
supplemental views.
    The Chairman. The question is on the motion. Those in favor 
will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it.
    Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I move pursuant to clause 1 of 
Rule 20 of the rules of the House of Representatives that the 
Committee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may 
be necessary in the House to go to conference with the Senate 
on the bill H.R. 1852 or a similar Senate bill.
    The Chairman. The Committee has heard the motion. Those in 
favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    The Chairman. The ayes have it.
    This concludes the markup on the measure H.R. 1852.
    [The bill H.R. 1852, plus the Amendment Roster follows:]
    
    
