[House Report 105-63]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                                       
105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                     105-63
_______________________________________________________________________


 
         NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1997
                                _______
                                

 April 21, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1273]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 
1273) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 
1999 for the National Science Foundation, and for other 
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do 
pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendment.......................................................2
  II. Purpose of the Bill.............................................7
 III. Background and Need for Legislation.............................7
  IV. Summary of Hearings.............................................7
   V. Committee Actions..............................................15
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................16
 VII. Section-By-Section Analysis....................................16
VIII. Committee Views................................................20
  IX. Committee Cost Estimate........................................30
   X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................31
  XI. Compliance with Public Law 104-4...............................32
 XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............33
XIII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on 
      Government Reform and Oversight................................33
 XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................33
  XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................33
 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................33
XVII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported..........33
XVIII.Committee Recommendations......................................40

 XIX. Additional Views...............................................41
  XX. Results of Roll Call Vote Taken at Full Committee Markup on 
      April 16, 1997.................................................42

                              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 1997''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

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

           TITLE I--NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION

SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

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

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

SEC. 103. CONSULTATION AND REPRESENTATION EXPENSES.

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

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. NATIONAL RESEARCH FACILITIES.

  (a) Facilities Plan.--The Director shall provide to Congress, not 
later than December 1 of each year, a plan for the proposed 
construction of, and repair and upgrades to, national research 
facilities. The plan shall include estimates of the cost for such 
construction, repairs, and upgrades, and estimates of the cost for the 
operation and maintenance of existing and proposed new facilities. For 
proposed new construction and for major upgrades to existing 
facilities, the plan shall include funding profiles by fiscal year and 
milestones for major phases of the construction. The plan shall include 
cost estimates in the categories of construction, repair, and upgrades 
for the year in which the plan is submitted to Congress and for not 
fewer than the succeeding 4 years.
  (b) Status of Facilities Under Construction.--The plan required under 
subsection (a) shall include a status report for each uncompleted 
construction project included in the current and previous plans. The 
status report shall include data on cumulative construction costs by 
project compared with estimated costs, and shall compare the current 
and original schedules for achievement of milestones for major phases 
of the construction.
  (c) Limitation on Obligation of Unauthorized Appropriations.--No 
funds appropriated for any project which involves construction of new 
national research facilities or construction necessary for upgrading 
the capabilities of existing national research facilities shall be 
obligated unless the funds are specifically authorized for such purpose 
by this Act or any other Act which is not an appropriations Act, or 
unless the total estimated cost to the Foundation of the construction 
project is less than $50,000,000. This subsection shall not apply to 
construction projects approved by the National Science Board prior to 
June 30, 1997.

SEC. 202. ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS.

  (a) National Science Foundation Act of 1950 Amendments.--The National 
Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended--
          (1) in section 4 (42 U.S.C. 1863)--
                  (A) by striking ``the appropriate rate provided for 
                individuals in grade GS-18 of the General Schedule 
                under section 5332'' in subsection (g) and inserting in 
                lieu thereof ``the maximum rate payable under section 
                5376''; and
                  (B) by redesignating the subsection (k) that was 
                added by section 108 of the National Science Foundation 
                Authorization Act of 1988 as subsection (l);
          (2) in section 5(e) (42 U.S.C. 1864(e)) by amending paragraph 
        (2) to read as follows:
  ``(2) Any delegation of authority or imposition of conditions under 
paragraph (1) shall be promptly published in the Federal Register and 
reported to the Committees on Labor and Human Resources and Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science 
of the House of Representatives.'';
          (3) in section 14(c) (42 U.S.C. 1873(c))--
                  (A) by inserting ``be entitled to'' between ``shall'' 
                and ``receive'';
                  (B) by inserting ``, including traveltime,'' after 
                ``Foundation'';
                  (C) by striking ``the rate specified for the daily 
                rate for GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 
                5332'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the maximum rate 
                payable under section 5376''; and
                  (D) by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
                ``Members of the Board and special commissions may 
                waive compensation and reimbursement for travel 
                expenses.''; and
          (4) by striking ``Atomic Energy Commission'' in section 15(a) 
        (42 U.S.C. 1874(a)) and inserting in lieu thereof ``Secretary 
        of Energy''.
  (b) National Science Foundation Authorization Act, 1976 Amendments.--
Section 6(a) of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act, 1976 
(42 U.S.C. 1881a(a)) is amended by striking ``social,'' the first place 
it appears.
  (c) National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988 
Amendments.--(1) Section 117(a)(1)(B)(v) of the National Science 
Foundation Authorization Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 1881b(1)(B)(v)) is 
amended to read as follows:
          ``(v) from schools established outside the several States and 
        the District of Columbia by any agency of the Federal 
        Government for dependents of its employees.''.
  (2) Section 117(a)(3)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1881b(3)(A)) is 
amended by striking ``Science and Engineering Education'' and inserting 
in lieu thereof ``Education and Human Resources''.
  (d) Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act Amendments.--The 
Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act is amended--
          (1) in section 34 (42 U.S.C. 1885b))--
                  (A) by amending the section heading to read as 
                follows: ``participation in science and engineering of 
                minorities and persons with disabilities''; and
                  (B) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
  ``(b) The Foundation is authorized to undertake or support programs 
and activities to encourage the participation of persons with 
disabilities in the science and engineering professions.''; and
          (2) in section 36 (42 U.S.C. 1885c))--
                  (A) by striking ``minorities,'' and all that follows 
                through ``in scientific'' in subsection (a) and 
                inserting in lieu thereof ``minorities, and persons 
                with disabilities in scientific'';
                  (B) in subsection (b)--
                          (i) by striking ``with the concurrence of the 
                        National Science Board''; and
                          (ii) by amending the second sentence thereof 
                        to read as follows: ``In addition, the Chairman 
                        of the National Science Board may designate a 
                        member of the Board as a member of the 
                        Committee.'';
                  (C) by striking subsections (c) and (d);
                  (D) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as 
                subsections (d) and (e), respectively;
                  (E) by inserting after subsection (b) the following 
                new subsection:
  ``(c) The Committee shall be responsible for reviewing and evaluating 
all Foundation matters relating to participation in, opportunities for, 
and advancement in education, training, and research in science and 
engineering of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities.''; and
                  (F) in subsection (d), as so redesignated by 
                subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, by striking 
                ``additional''.
  (e) Technical Amendment.--The second subsection (g) of section 3 of 
the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 is repealed.

SEC. 203. INDIRECT COSTS.

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

SEC. 204. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.

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

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

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

SEC. 206. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY INSTITUTE.

  (a) Amendment.--Section 822 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1991 (42 U.S.C. 6686) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``Critical Technologies Institute'' in the 
        section heading and in subsection (a), and inserting in lieu 
        thereof ``Science and Technology Policy Institute'';
          (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``As determined by the 
        chairman of the committee referred to in subsection (c), the'' 
        and inserting in lieu thereof ``The'';
          (3) by striking subsection (c), and redesignating subsections 
        (d), (e), (f), and (g) as subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), 
        respectively;
          (4) in subsection (c), as so redesignated by paragraph (3) of 
        this subsection--
                  (A) by inserting ``science and'' after ``developments 
                and trends in'' in paragraph (1);
                  (B) by striking ``with particular emphasis'' in 
                paragraph (1) and all that follows through the end of 
                such paragraph and inserting in lieu thereof ``and 
                developing and maintaining relevant informational and 
                analytical tools.'';
                  (C) by striking ``to determine'' and all that follows 
                through ``technology policies'' in paragraph (2) and 
                inserting in lieu thereof ``with particular attention 
                to the scope and content of the Federal science and 
                technology research and development 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 and Technology Policy Institute.

SEC. 207. NEXT GENERATION INTERNET.

  None of the funds authorized by this Act, or any other Act enacted 
before the date of the enactment of this Act, may be used for the Next 
Generation Internet. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, funds may 
be used for the continuation of programs and activities that were 
funded and carried out during fiscal year 1997.

SEC. 208. LIMITATIONS.

  (a) Prohibition of Lobbying Activities.--None of the funds authorized 
by this Act shall be available for any activity whose purpose is to 
influence legislation pending before the Congress, except that this 
subsection shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States 
or of its departments or agencies from communicating to Members of 
Congress on the request of any Member or to Congress, through the 
proper channels, requests for legislation or appropriations which they 
deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business.
  (b) Limitation on Appropriations.--No sums are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Director for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for the 
activities for which sums are authorized by this Act, unless such sums 
are specifically authorized to be appropriated by this Act.
  (c) Eligibility for Awards.--
          (1) In general.--The Director shall exclude from 
        consideration for grant agreements made by the Foundation after 
        fiscal year 1997 any person who received funds, other than 
        those described in paragraph (2), appropriated for a fiscal 
        year after fiscal year 1997, under a grant agreement from any 
        Federal funding source for a project that was not subjected to 
        a competitive, merit-based award process. Any exclusion from 
        consideration pursuant to this subsection shall be effective 
        for a period of 5 years after the person receives such Federal 
        funds.
          (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the receipt 
        of Federal funds by a person due to the membership of that 
        person in a class specified by law for which assistance is 
        awarded to members of the class according to a formula provided 
        by law.
          (3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
        ``grant agreement'' means a legal instrument whose principal 
        purpose is to transfer a thing of value to the recipient to 
        carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized 
        by a law of the United States, and does not include the 
        acquisition (by purchase, lease, or barter) of property or 
        services for the direct benefit or use of the United States 
        Government. Such term does not include a cooperative agreement 
        (as such term is used in section 6305 of title 31, United 
        States Code) or a cooperative research and development 
        agreement (as such term is defined in section 12(d)(1) of the 
        Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 
        3710a(d)(1))).

SEC. 209. NOTICE.

  (a) Notice of Reprogramming.--If any funds authorized by this Act are 
subject to a reprogramming action that requires notice to be provided 
to the Appropriations Committees of the House of Representatives and 
the Senate, notice of such action shall concurrently be provided to the 
Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committees 
on Labor and Human Resources and Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
of the Senate.
  (b) Notice of Reorganization.--The Director shall provide notice to 
the Committees on Science and Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives, and the Committees on Labor and Human Resources, 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Appropriations of the 
Senate, not later than 15 days before any major reorganization of any 
program, project, or activity of the Foundation.

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

  With the year 2000 fast approaching, it is the sense of Congress that 
the Foundation should--
          (1) give high priority to correcting all 2-digit date-related 
        problems in its computer systems to ensure that those systems 
        continue to operate effectively in the year 2000 and beyond;
          (2) assess immediately the extent of the risk to the 
        operations of the Foundation posed by the problems referred to 
        in paragraph (1), and plan and budget for achieving Year 2000 
        compliance for all of its mission-critical systems; and
          (3) develop contingency plans for those systems that the 
        Foundation is unable to correct in time.

SEC. 211. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

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

SEC. 212. BUY AMERICAN.

  (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--No funds appropriated pursuant 
to this Act may be expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that 
in expending the assistance the entity will comply with sections 2 
through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, popularly 
known as the ``Buy American Act'').
  (b) Sense of Congress.--In the case of any equipment or products that 
may be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided 
under this Act, it is the sense of Congress that entities receiving 
such assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase only 
American-made equipment and products.
  (c) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing financial 
assistance under this Act, the Director shall provide to each recipient 
of the assistance a notice describing the statement made in subsection 
(a) by the Congress.

                        II. Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of the bill is to authorize appropriations for 
FY 98 and FY 99 for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and 
other purposes. H.R. 1273 contains $3,505,630,000 in 
authorization for the programs of the NSF in FY 1998 and 
$3,613,630,000 for FY 99.

                III. Background and Need for Legislation

    The National Science Foundation 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.

                        IV. Summary of Hearings

    On March 5, 1997, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held 
the first of three hearings (with a fourth hearing conducted by 
the full Committee) to receive testimony on the 
Administration's fiscal year (FY) 1998 budget request for the 
National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF is a key supporter of 
U.S. scientific strength by funding research and education 
activities in all fields of science and engineering at more 
than 2,000 colleges, universities and research institutions 
throughout the United States. NSF provides approximately 25 
percent of basic research funding at universities and over 50 
percent of the federal funding for basic research in certain 
fields of science, including math, computer sciences, 
environmental sciences, and the social sciences. Moreover, NSF 
plays an important role in pre-college and undergraduate 
science and mathematics education through programs of model 
curriculum development, teacher preparation and enhancement, 
and informal science education.
    Witnesses at the first hearing included: Dr. Richard Zare, 
Chairman of the National Science Board, and Dr. Neal Lane, 
Director of the National Science Foundation, accompanied by Dr. 
Joseph Bordogna, Acting Deputy Director of the National Science 
Foundation.
    Dr. Zare's testimony focused on the research and education 
activities supported by the NSF as well as the work of the 
National Science Board (NSB) in developing the NSF budget for 
FY 1998 and in achieving a better understanding of how federal 
agency research programs fit into the broader national picture 
of federal support for research. According to Dr. Zare, NSF's 
FY 1998 budget will fund thousands of research projects and 
efforts to improve the United States' education in science, 
mathematics, engineering, and technology. Dr. Zare highlighted 
a new NSF initiative, Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence 
(KDI), which seeks to improve the connection between research 
and teaching and learning technologies. He noted that the NSF's 
investments in the Next Generation Internet will be a part of 
the KDI package, but added that although NSF will have an 
important role in the development of the Next Generation 
Internet, NSF is looking beyond that project. Dr. Zare also 
indicated the NSB's intention to adopt revised criteria for 
proposal review, reducing the number of criteria from four to 
two, for NSF project selection. In addition, he announced that 
the revised plan has been open for public comment from the 
scientific community. The NSB, added Dr. Zare, will also be 
providing oversight of NSF as it develops methods and processes 
to comply with the Government Performance and Results Act. Dr. 
Zare pointed out that aside from the its oversight of NSF, the 
NSB has a role in monitoring the health of science and 
engineering in the U.S. and in providing advice on national 
policy in research and education.
    Dr. Lane stated that the $3.367 billion budget request for 
the NSF in FY 1998 allows for investment in more than 19,000 
science and engineering research and education projects and 
emphasized the budget's compliance with the NSF Strategic Plan. 
He emphasized the NSF's efforts to develop performance 
measurements so that the next budget submission complies with 
the Government Performance and Results Act as well. Dr. Lane 
indicated that numerous innovations, from biotechnology to high 
speed computational and communications technologies, all have 
roots in the fundamental research and education supported 
through the NSF and other agencies and are the key to 
productivity in a wide array of industries and sectors. In 
addition, Dr. Lane pointed out that theNSF's role in support of 
university-based research and education, a vital link to the 
competitive position of U.S. industry, is among the most productive of 
all public investments. Responding to concerns over the recompetition 
and planned down-selection of the NSF's supercomputing centers, Dr. 
Lane indicated the NSF's goal for a seamless transition for high-end 
users under the new plan and stated that detailed information on the 
impact of the down-selection will be available later this month. Dr. 
Lane highlighted priorities in the FY 1998 request, including: a 
focused, multidisciplinary $58 million program of activities in support 
of KDI research, infrastructure development, and education; continued 
development of the program for the study of life in extreme 
environments; and support of innovative, systematic approaches to 
education and training at all levels to address the challenges of the 
changing scientific landscape facing students of the 21st century. 
Further, Dr. Lane indicated the NSF's understanding of the need for 
investment in research facilities to support the activities of 
researchers and educators. Addressing concerns of cost-overruns in the 
construction of new NSF-funded facilities, Dr. Lane informed the 
Subcommittee that the NSF is not only aware of the problem, but is 
actively designing a plan to minimize cost-overruns.
    On March 12, 1997, the Committee on Science held a hearing 
entitled, ``The United States and Antarctica in the 21st 
Century.'' The hearing was held to review the United States 
Antarctic Program External Panel's report entitled, ``The 
United States and Antarctica in the 21st Century.'' The 
discussion focused on the importance of U.S. presence in the 
Antarctic. The hearing also addressed the long-term funding 
issues of the U.S. Antarctic Program, including the future of 
the South Pole Station. The U.S. Antarctic Program is managed 
by the NSF.
    Witness: Mr. Norman Augustine, Chairman of the United 
States Antarctic Program External Panel for the National 
Science Foundation.
    Mr. Augustine testified that U.S. presence in Antarctica is 
essential for continued political stability in the area and the 
preservation of its ecological system. He further discussed the 
Panel's conclusion that it is a necessity to redevelop 
America's research facility at the South Pole in order to 
respond to the challenges of modern-day science in the 
Antarctic. The Panel recommends a continued year-round presence 
in the Antarctic to protect the U.S. position on sovereignty in 
the region and to provide the U.S. a decisive role in the 
Antarctic Treaty's activities-based decision system, both of 
which are essential to maintaining the political and legal 
balance that makes the Treaty work. Mr. Augustine identified 
four factors which make the time between now and the year 2000 
a particularly significant period to develop new means of 
reducing costs and re-inventing ways of conducting Antarctic 
activities. In his testimony he listed twelve principle 
recommendations made by the Panel to continue U.S. leadership 
in Antarctic issues.
    On March 13, 1997, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held 
the second of three Subcommittee hearings to receive testimony 
on the Administration's fiscal year (FY) 1998 budget request 
for the National Science Foundation (NSF). Witnesses were asked 
to assess the NSF's science, math, and engineering education 
programs.In addition, to examining the budget requests for 
these programs, witnesses were also asked to address the impacts and 
expectations of the programs.
    Witnesses included: Mr. Richard P. Mills, Commissioner of 
Education, New York State Department of Education, and 
President of the University of the State of New York; Dr. 
Edward A. Friedman, Director, Center for Improvement of 
Engineering and Science Education, Stevens Institute of 
Technology; Dr. Nathan S. Lewis, Professor of Chemistry and 
Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology; and 
Dr. Alfredo de los Santos, Jr., Vice Chancellor for Student and 
Educational Development, Maricopa County Colleges.
    Mr. Mills emphasized the importance of NSF education 
initiatives, not only as a funding source, but also as a 
strategic resource to improve the achievement level of New York 
State's students. According to Mr. Mills, as result of NSF's 
urging and the State's own needs, The New York State Systematic 
Initiative (NYSSI), from its inception in 1993, has evolved 
from an attempt to improve math, science, and technology 
education in New York's challenging urban schools to become the 
focus of the statewide effort to implement new learning 
standards in math, science, and technology. He explained that 
SSI is a philosophy of changes that help teachers develop 
habits of planning and teaching that guide students to deeper 
understanding of concepts and application of knowledge. Mr. 
Mills pointed out that the NSF's $10 million investment has 
been the driving force to bring together the capacity to meet 
these higher standards. He added that NSF has brought vision 
and discipline to elementary and secondary education as well as 
an insistence upon results, and a systematic approach that 
allows students to engage in inquiry-based learning. However, 
Mr. Mills indicated that, in addition to NSF's contribution to 
the establishment of higher standards, the curriculum, the 
teacher training, and the links with higher education are all 
necessary factors for achieving better results in the education 
of the nation's children.
    Dr. Friedman expressed frustration that school systems 
currently lag behind industry and higher education in 
integrating information technology into the educational 
process. He also indicated his concern that some schools are in 
danger of moving ahead with hardware without the capability to 
implement the technology into classroom learning. According to 
Dr. Friedman, NSF should play a leadership role in transforming 
schools into technological front runners by developing an 
effective strategy and incorporating the technology into the 
mainstream of NSF's various educational programs. He stressed a 
need for the participation of practicing scientists in NSF 
education programs as well as support for multidisciplinary 
team efforts. As these programs develop, Dr. Friedman 
emphasized that they will need mechanisms to facilitate timely 
wide-scale dissemination requiring coordination with 
publishers, educational television producers, and state 
departments of education. In addition, he indicated the 
advantage of regional centers where teachers and school systems 
can receive guidance and support for the integration of 
technology. Dr. Friedman suggested NSF engage in the 
implementation of an infrastructure that makes use of distance 
learning technologies with on-site support from such regional 
resource centers. He emphasized these training centers should 
be pursued in parallel with curriculum development, teacher 
enhancement, evaluation, and other programs which NSF supports. 
Mr. Friedman added that although teachers and students in some 
foreign countries, like Bulgaria, have superior training and 
education in math and science, the U.S. leads the world in the 
use of technology in the classroom. According to Mr. Friedman, 
the U.S. has a real opportunity to expand its effectiveness in 
math and science education by capitalizing on this resource.
    Dr. Lewis commended NSF for allowing Caltech to establish a 
national model for a coordinated, institution-wide effort to 
incorporate multimedia materials into the routine course 
experiences of the science and engineering student. His 
testimony focused on the new NSF-supported Teaching and 
InterDisciplinary Education program (TIDE) at Caltech which was 
designed to foster Institute-wide development of multi-media 
educational tools involving the combined teaching skills and 
technical backgrounds of undergraduate students and Caltech 
faculty. Although the program was primarily designed to enhance 
the educational experience of Caltech students, according to 
Dr. Lewis, the project is now involved in expanding the effort 
to make the new media and technology widely available for many 
science and technology disciplines in order to educate the 
broadest cross section of students at a variety of educational 
levels. Dr. Lewis cited the Caltech Chemistry Animation 
Project, one example of an effective teaching resource 
developed at Caltech, which is used in six countries by over 
half a million students to help teach chemistry to students and 
teachers. In addition to its support of education programs at 
Caltech, Dr. Lewis commended NSF for not putting all of its 
eggs into one basket and allowing for experimental technology 
integration programs at all educational levels. He added that 
networking among teachers is the highest leverage that the U.S. 
has to improve its entire educational system and advocates a 
teacher training center at which educators from the K-12 and 
community college level can share experimental ideas and 
results.
    Dr. de los Santos noted that increasingly, as adults must 
return to school to obtain new skills and upgrade old ones, the 
task of providing that education falls upon undergraduate 
institutions, especially community colleges. He explained that 
the NSF and its Division of Undergraduate Education supports 
institutes, laboratories, and curriculum development projects 
that are having a substantial effect on the ability of 
community colleges to provide the high level of education and 
training necessary for a technology-based society. According to 
Dr. de los Santos, one of Division's programs, the Advanced 
Technology Education (ATE) program, is a unique partnership 
designed for associate degree-granting institutions to promote 
improvement in advanced technological education through the 
support of curriculum development and program improvement, and 
by targeting technicians being educated for employment that 
requires the use of advanced technologies. He explained that 
the ATE program's success can be measured in several ways: It 
produces new ways to train and educate the workforce; it brings 
business and education together in new and productive ways; and 
it stimulates innovation among those competing for the grants. 
Dr. de los Santosadded that ATE's greatest strength is the very 
close partnerships between industry and educational institutions it 
fosters, and he indicated that companies such as Motorola and Intel are 
contributing equipment, software and scholarships. He praised NSF for 
fostering a fundamental change in the relationships between community 
colleges and business and industry.
    On April 9, 1997, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held a 
third and final hearing to receive testimony on the National 
Science Foundation's (NSF) fiscal year (FY) 1998 authorization. 
Witnesses testified on the results of the National Science 
Board's Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure 
(PACI) program as well as the new proposed facilities within 
the Major Research Equipment (MRE) Account of the NSF budget 
and the Internet II/Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative.
    Witnesses testifying on the PACI program included Dr. 
Richard Zare, Chairman, National Science Board; Dr. Neal Lane, 
Director, National Science Foundation; Dr. Paul Young, Senior 
Advisor, Computer and Information Science and Engineering 
(CISE), National Science Foundation; and Dr. Shirley M. Malcom, 
Member of the Executive Committee, National Science Board. 
Testimony on programs within the MRE Account and the Internet 
II/Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative was received from 
Dr. Graham B. Spanier, President, Penn State University; Dr. 
Michael Kelley, Professor, School of Electrical Engineering, 
Cornell University; and Dr. Paul A. Vanden Bout, Director, 
National Radio Astronomy Observatory.
    Dr. Zare announced the National Science Board's (NSB) 
approval for selection of two awardees for the PACI program and 
the phase out awards for two existing supercomputer centers. 
Dr. Zare emphasized that the rapidly shifting world of computer 
science and engineering has forced the Board to make difficult 
choices to curtail support for good projects and initiate 
support for others that promise to produce better results. 
According to Dr. Zare, this is why the NSB requested that the 
NSF develop a plan for supercomputing designed to take 
advantage of the new distributed environment in information 
science and technology. He indicated that the new PACI program 
is made possible by breakthroughs in high-speed networking and 
advanced computer architecture and is consistent with the 
Board's vision of the future in information science and 
technology. According to Dr. Zare, the program will keep the 
U.S. ahead in all fields of science and engineering while also 
pushing the technological advances that will fuel economic 
growth. Dr. Zare stated that the program will also allow 
students and scientists at all levels to enjoy a vast resource 
for education and training through the multitude of new 
participating PACI institutions. He emphasized that innovative 
partnerships, which increase the opportunities for more people 
to use these resources and push the frontiers of knowledge, are 
the core of the PACI program.
    Dr. Lane stated that NSF's PACI program goes well beyond 
the current paradigm of supercomputing centers and was 
carefully designed to build the infrastructure needed for both 
the education and training of future generations of world 
leaders in science and technology. He stated that after 10 
years of the successful Supercomputer Centers Program, the NSB 
asked whether NSF should continue support for the current 
program or phase out the existing program to make room for a 
new one. To answer that question, Dr. Lane appointed the Hayes 
Task Force, comprised of high performance computing experts 
from academia, industry and government, who presented a vision 
of the future of supercomputing and proposed that NSF announce 
a new competition for a restructured High Performance Computing 
Centers program that would permit funding of selected sites for 
a period of 5 years. Dr. Lane stated the two major changes to 
the existing program recommended by the task force: First, 
support of national ``leading-edge sites'' with a balanced set 
of high-end hardware and software capabilities, coupled with 
appropriate staff; and second, partnering of each leading-edge 
site with experimental facilities at universities, NSF research 
centers, and/or national and regional high performance 
computing centers. According to Dr. Lane, the task force also 
urged that the new PACI program support the needs of the 
national computational science community through leading edge 
sites and their partners, rather than through independent basic 
research. He highlighted the report's recommendation that the 
computational capability of the leading edge centers should be 
one or two orders of magnitude beyond what is available at 
leading research universities. According to Dr. Lane, it was 
clear that a reduction in the number of sites would likely be 
necessary to achieve such economies of operation and to 
maintain the very high end capability.
    Dr. Young stated that the new PACI program is an important 
element in the Foundation's future infrastructure for the 
support of academic science and engineering, research and 
education. He announced that the selection of the National 
Computational Science Alliance (NCSA), led by the University of 
Illinois at Urbana/Champaign, and the National Partnership for 
Advanced Computational Infrastructure (NPACI), led by the 
University of California, San Diego represents the formal 
beginning of the new PACI Program. Dr. Young indicated that the 
Hayes Task Force felt that two major technological factors 
called for a change in the structure of the existing Centers 
Program: The increasing dominance of scaleable parallel 
computers, with their promise of highly cost effective 
computing power; and the expected growth and ubiquity of high 
speed networks. According to Dr. Young, breakthrough 
technologies and intellectual challenges led the Task Force to 
recommend a new program based on extensive partnerships and to 
be selected through a rigorous open competition for the best 
ideas and minds. He emphasized that the panel's decision was 
unanimous that two of the organizations had met the 
requirements in the program solicitation and the two successful 
proposals were highly complementary, forming together, a 
balanced national program involving some of the best minds and 
the finest institutions in the country. Dr. Young also stated 
that the Board approved funds to phase out NSF's support for 
the current NSF Supercomputer Centers at Pittsburgh and 
Cornell, convinced that after a transition period, the new 
program would fully pick up the load and that the new 
directions were the best way to insure that computation would 
continue to flourish in the coming environment.
    Dr. Malcom provided insight into the processes and workings 
of the National Science Board in considering the proposals 
presentedduring the recompetition of the NSF Supercomputer 
Centers. She stated that in May 1994, the Board delegated to the 
Director the authority to approve awards up to $3 million in one year 
and $15 million over 5 years. Dr. Malcom indicated that the NSB reviews 
and acts directly on the proposals above that threshold. She stated 
that the NSF staff process includes reviews at higher management 
levels, including, for packages that come to the NSB, a review by the 
Director's Review Board, or DRB. Once packages are approved by the DRB, 
they come to the Board and are assigned to one of our committees for 
in-depth consideration, then presented to the Board for action. 
According to Dr. Malcom, the NSF staff provided a presentation to the 
Board on the supercomputer centers' proposal packages, after which a 
lead reviewer and a secondary reviewer provided detailed reviews, 
commented on issues for which more information was needed, and made 
comments as to the fairness of the procedures and the appropriateness 
of the recommendations from staff. She emphasized that the Board's 
discussion of the proposals considered issues such as assurance that a 
diverse set of computer architectures were used by the partnerships, 
the management of large, far flung partnerships, the effects of budget 
reductions on the overall coherence of the proposed projects, and the 
transition process to the new program and its impact on the user 
community. Dr. Malcom assured the Subcommittee that the Board was aware 
of challenges that had been made by competitors about the fairness of 
the selection process, asked hard questions, reviewed reports from the 
merit review process, and assured themselves that the review process 
was thorough, fair, and consistent with NSF's high standards.
    In testimony on the Internet II/Next Generation Internet 
Initiative, Dr. Spanier explained that in order to continue the 
rapid growth of the Internet, investment in both basic and 
applied research in networking will be necessary to meet the 
expanding information and communication needs of the 21st 
Century. He emphasized that the ``one size fits all'' Internet 
currently used must be overhauled to support a greater variety 
of uses and that there must also be an organized process 
through which discoveries at the basic research level are moved 
into the applied development phase and then transitioned into 
routine commercial use. Dr. Spanier explained that the Internet 
II will address the major challenges facing the next generation 
of university networks by: creating and sustaining a leading 
edge network capability for the national research community; 
directing network development efforts to enable a new 
generation of applications to exploit fully the capabilities of 
broadband networks; and integrating the work of Internet II 
with ongoing efforts to improve production Internet services 
for all members of the academic community. According to Dr. 
Spanier, the President's Next Generation Internet (NGI) 
Initiative's goals are compatible with those of the Internet II 
with the joint goal of ensuring that a developmental high 
performance network is available to the academic and research 
community at the earliest opportunity. However, he noted that 
like all partnerships, there are areas of NGI and Internet II 
that reflect the specific needs of the government and of the 
universities that will be conducted separately. Finally, Dr. 
Spanier recommended that the High Performance Connections (HPC) 
element of the NSF's Very High Performance Backbone Network 
System (vBNS) be used as the means to fulfill the federal role 
in implementing the first goal of the NGI program.
    In testimony on the NSF's Major Research Equipment (MRE) 
account, Dr. Kelley announced that the proposed Polar Cap 
Observatory (PCO) will be the next evolutionary step in an 
existing chain of facilities sponsored by NSF. He indicated the 
Foundation's support of four existing stations: one at the 
magnetic equator near Lima, Peru (operated by Cornell 
University); a second near Arecibo, Puerto Rico (also operated 
by Cornell University); a third near Boston, Massachusetts 
(operated by MIT); and the fourth station located in southern 
Greenland (operated by SRI International). According to Dr. 
Kelly, the need for the completion of this chain with an upper 
atmospheric observatory near the magnetic North Pole has become 
clear as scientists have realized the importance of the polar 
cap. He explained that the capstone instrument at each site is 
a high power radar, capable of measuring temperature, densities 
and wind velocity from the top of the atmosphere to thousands 
of kilometers into space. Dr. Kelley added the PCO will be able 
to measure the electronic field that originates from solar wind 
which interacts with the Earth's magnetic field and penetrates 
downward into the Earth's upper atmosphere, sometimes causing 
disruptions in communications and satellite transmissions. He 
emphasized that space weather can also destroy satellites, 
damage electrical power grids and present a health hazard to 
astronauts. Dr. Kelley indicated that the PCO will be a major 
contributor to understanding space weather and assist in making 
timely and accurate space environment forecasts in order to 
prevent damage from powerful space storms.
    Dr. Vanden Bout stated that the Millimeter Array (MMA) 
radio telescope will provide images of astronomical objects as 
they appear at millimeter wavelengths which exceed the quality 
of those at optical and infrared wavelengths taken with the 
Hubble Space Telescope. He highlighted the MMA's capability to 
provide an unprecedented view of the origins of galaxies, stars 
and planets. According to Dr. Vanden Bout, the MMA has had an 
extensive planning history, during which the community 
developed the concept in response to scientific requirements. 
He emphasized that no aperture syntheses telescope on the scale 
of the Millimeter Array has ever been built at millimeter 
wavelengths, and for that reason, two stages were proposed: a 
development phase and a construction phase. He explained that 
during the development phase, the antenna, key electronic and 
software systems will all be designed and prototyped. Dr. 
Vanden Bout stated that the goals of the development phase are 
working prototypes, architectures of software systems, firm 
cost estimates, schedule, and a site, and established 
arrangements with partners. He added that a number of 
interested foreign partners for the endeavor are being pursued 
including Chile, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain and Mexico. In 
addition, he indicated that a series of workshops have been 
conducted to forge a possible cooperation between the MMA and a 
project proposed by Japanese radio astronomers.

                          V. Committee Actions

    The Subcommittee on Basic Research held authorization 
hearings for National Science Foundation programs under its 
jurisdiction, summarized in the previous section. The Chairman, 
with the consent of the Ranking Democratic Member, considered 
the legislation only at full Committee in order to speed up the 
legislative process to take advantage of the House floor time 
available in early May.
    The Full Committee marked up H.R. 1273, the National 
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1997 on April 16, 1997. 
The bill was adopted, with amendments, by a voice vote and 
ordered reported to the full House for consideration. A motion 
was then adopted to prepare a clean bill for introduction in 
the House, and that the measure be deemed reported by the 
Committee. Amendments to the committee print were offered in 
the following order:
    1. Mr. Schiff's (manager's en bloc) amendment was offered 
by Mr. Sensenbrenner. This amendment offered several clarifying 
language provisions and allowed continuation for present 
activities in the Next Generation Internet (NGI) programs. The 
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    2. Mr. Coburn offered an amendment to freeze funding for 
the Education and Human Resources Directorate at 1997 levels 
for FY 98 and FY 99. This amendment was defeated on a roll call 
vote of 11 to 26.
    3. Mr. Traficant's ``Buy American'' amendment, which was 
offered by Mr. Hastings, was adopted by voice vote.

              VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

    The National Science Foundation Act of 1997 authorizes 
appropriations for the major activities and budget categories 
of the NSF for FY 1998 and FY 1999. In addition, the bill 
provides full authorization of the Antarctic rehabilitation 
program, and authorizes the Polar Cap Observatory and design 
and development of the Millimeter Array radio telescope in the 
Major Research Equipment account. Further, the bill requires an 
annual report on the construction, repair and upgrades to 
National Research Facilities; a report on indirect cost 
savings; subjects temporary NSF employees to the same financial 
disclosure requirements as permanent employees; requires NSF 
supported universities to develop policies to compensate 
military reservists who are involuntarily called to active 
duty; redesignates the Critical Technology Institute as the 
Science and Technology Policy Institute; contains no new 
authorization for the Next Generation Internet (NGI) 
initiative; places limits on lobbying activities; places a 
funding ban on institutions which receive earmarks; requires 
reprogramming notification to all the relevant Committees of 
both the House and Senate; and includes a sense of Congress 
that NSF should have a plan that its date-related computer 
programs will operate effectively in the year 2000 and beyond.

        VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (By Title and Section)

                           SECTION-BY-SECTION

       THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1997

Section 1. Short Title

    Cites the Act as the ``National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 1997.''

Section 2. Definitions

    Contains definitions of the terms used in the Act.

Title I National Science Foundation Authorization

Section 101. Authorization of Appropriations

    (b) Authorizes $3,505,630,000 for the National Science 
Foundation (NSF) for fiscal year 1998 of which:
          (A) $2,563,330,000 is authorized to be appropriated 
        for Research and Related Activities, of which:
                  (i) Biological Sciences, $330,820,000.
                  (ii) Computer & Information Science and 
                Engineering, $289,170,000.
                  (iii) Engineering, $360,470,000.
                  (iv) Geosciences, $452,610,000.
                  (v) Mathematical & Physical Sciences, 
                $715,710,000.
                  (vi) Social, Behavioral, and Economic 
                Sciences, $130,660,000.
                  (vii) United States Polar Research Programs, 
                $165,930,000.
                  (viii) United States Antarctic Logistical 
                Activities, $62,600,000.
                  (ix) Critical Technologies Institute, 
                $2,730,000.
          (B) Education & Human Resources, $625,500,000.
          (C) Major Research Equipment, $175,000,000.
          (D) Salaries & Expenses, $136,950,000 of which 
        $5,200,000 is for Headquarters Relocation.
          (E) Office of Inspector General, $4,850,000.
    (c) Authorizes $3,613,630,000 to be appropriated for the 
National Science Foundation for Fiscal Year 1999 as follows:
          (A) Research & Related Activities, $2,740,000,000.
          (B) Education & Human Resources, $644,245,000.
          (C) Major Research Equipment, $90,000,000.
          (D) Salaries & Expenses, $134,385,000.
          (E) Office of Inspector General, $5,000,000.

Section 102. Proportional Reduction of Research and Related Activities

    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. Consultation and Representation Expenses

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

Title II General Provisions

Section 201. National Research Facilities

    (a) Facilities plan. The Director shall provide to 
Congress, annually, a plan for the proposed construction of, 
and repair and upgrades to, national research facilities.
    (b) Status of facilities under construction. The report 
shall provide a status report for each uncompleted construction 
project with current and original schedules for achievement.
    (c) Limitation of obligation of unauthorized 
appropriations. 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 202. Administrative Amendments

    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.

Section 203. Indirect Costs

    (a) Matching funds. Matching funds required of the academic 
research facilities Modernization Act of 1988 shall not be 
considered facilities cost for purposes of determining indirect 
cost rates.
    (b) Report. The Director of Office of Science and 
Technology Policy shall prepare a report analyzing ways to 
reduce indirect cost rates.

Section 204. Financial Disclosure

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

Section 205. Educational Leave of Absence for Active Duty

    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 206. Science and Technology Policy Institute

    The Critical Technologies Institute is renamed the 
``Science Technology and Policy Institute''; the duties of the 
Institute are redefined; and the sponsor of the Institute is 
designated as the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Section 207. Next Generation Internet

    No funds are authorized for the Next Generation Internet 
(NGI), except that activities which were initiated during FY 
1997 and were identified as part of the NGI in the FY 1997 
budget request may continue.

Section 208. Limitations

    (a) Prohibition of Lobbying Activities. Prohibits the use 
of funds authorized by this Act for any activity whose purpose 
is to influence legislation pending before the Congress. This 
section does not prevent employees of the departments and 
agencies from communicating with Members of Congress to conduct 
public business.
    (b) Limitation on Appropriations. Disallows authorization 
of funds for NSF which are not specifically authorized to be 
appropriated by this Act for FY's 1998 and 1999, or by an Act 
of Congress in succeeding fiscal years.
    (c) Eligibility for Awards. Requires the Director of NSF to 
exclude, for a period of 5 years, any person who received funds 
for a project not subject to competitive, merit-based review 
process after FY 1997. This section is not applicable to the 
long-standing Cooperative Research and Development Agreement 
program nor awards to persons who are members of a class 
specified by law for which assistance is awarded according to 
formula provided by law.

Section 209. Notice

    If any funds of this Act, or amendments made by this Act, 
are subject to reprogramming which requires notice to be given 
to the Appropriations Committees of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate, notice of such action shall be 
concurrently provided 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.
    If any program, project, or activity of the National 
Science Foundation is preparing to undergo any major 
reorganization, the Director of the National Science Foundation 
shall notify the Committees on Science and Appropriations of 
the House of Representatives, and the Committees on Labor and 
Human Resources, Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and 
Appropriations of the Senate no later than 15 days prior to 
such reorganization.

Section 210. Sense of the Congress on the Year 2000 Problem

    It is the sense of Congress that the National Science 
Foundation should give high priority to correcting the year 
2000 problem in all of its computer systems to ensure effective 
operation in the year 2000 and beyond. The National Science 
Foundation needs to assess immediately the risk of the problem 
upon their systems and develop a plan and a budget to correct 
the problem for its mission-critical programs. The National 
Science Foundation also needs to begin consideration of 
contingency plans, in the event that certain systems are unable 
to be corrected in time.

Section 211. National Oceanographic Partnership Program

    The National Science Foundation is authorized to 
participate in the National Oceanic Partnership Program 
established by the National Oceanic Partnership Act.

Section 212. Buy American

    Requires any entity that is appropriated funds pursuant to 
this act or amendments thereto, to comply with sections 2-4 of 
the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, popularly known as 
the ``Buy American Act''). Requires that recipients of funds 
pursuant to this act shall be notified of subsection (a)'s 
requirement of compliance with the Buy American Act.

                         VIII. Committee Views

The Future of the National Science Foundation

    The Committee on Science 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 in 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 understands that methodology for assessment of basic 
research is not well established, but strongly believes that 
the NSF must develop methodology that will provide a sound 
basis for justifying current and future federal support for the 
NSF, as required by the Government Performance Results Act (PL 
103-62).

Undergraduate Education

    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, 
that of 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 Committee commends the Foundation on the increasing 
attention it is paying to undergraduate education at all 
institutions of higher education and its new initiatives in 
this area. The Committee appreciates the report NSF submitted 
in response to the Committee's request last year.
    The Committee requests that NSF report on how it is 
evaluating its efforts to increase the focus research 
institutions place on undergraduate education and any results 
that have come in so far from those evaluations, be they formal 
or informal. The report should be submitted by January 31, 
1998.

National Research Facilities

    The Committee has encouraged NSF to develop a comprehensive 
plan and prioritization process for the selection of projects 
for construction of new national research facilities and for 
the replacement and refurbishment of existing facilities. The 
Committee believes that the establishment of the Major 
Equipment Account (MRE), along with developing the procedures 
for selecting projects to include in the account, is an 
important step for rationalizing the allocation of resources 
for new facilities construction and upgrading of existing 
facilities.
    In section 201 of the bill, the Committee has included a 
requirement for the annual submittal of a five-year plan for 
national research facilities. The Committee intends that this 
annual document on national research facilities provide a full 
description of current and planned expenditures for all major 
facilities, including costs for construction, operation, and 
maintenance.
    The Committee expects the plan to describe projects which 
are in the pipeline for selection under the process NSF has 
instituted for selection of projects to include in the MRE 
account. The Committee recognizes that projects described in 
the plan ultimately may not be selected and approved by the 
National Science Board nor appear in the President's budget 
request for NSF. Also, the Committee realizes that estimated 
funding profiles for projects in the earlier stages of 
development are subject to change. However, the Committee seeks 
information about potential resource requirements for 
infrastructure improvements and expects estimated schedule and 
cost profiles to be included for all projects under 
consideration. This information is of particular importance 
since the Committee normally will pursue multi-year 
authorization legislation.
    In addition to information on construction plans, the plan 
should include a status report on all construction projects 
currently underway. The Committee notes that schedule delays 
and potential cost overruns have occurred for two current radio 
telescope construction projects. The purpose of the reporting 
requirement is to formally document the status of construction 
projects and to reinforce the Committee's view on the need for 
high level management attention at NSF to major facilities 
construction projects. The reporting requirement does not 
relieve NSF of the responsibility to inform the Committee, at 
the time they are identified, of problems that will 
significantly impact cost or schedule for major construction 
projects.
    Finally, the plan should include information on the 
resources budgeted for the operation and maintenance of new and 
existing facilities for the period covered by the plan. 
Resources for operation and maintenance of major facilities are 
budgeted within the same accounts that fund research awards. 
The Committee is seeking information on how research support is 
affected by the routine costs associated with major facilities 
and what the impact will be when new facilities come on line.
    The authorization of appropriations for MRE contained in 
the bill fully authorizes construction of South Pole station 
and the Polar Cap Observatory and also authorizes activities 
necessary for the design and development of the Millimeter 
Array radio telescope. The Committee has not authorized 
construction of the MMA.

Computer Security

    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, the frequency 
and severity of unauthorized intrusions into computers 
connected to these networks has become an increasingly serious 
problem. Unless the associated risks and vulnerabilities are 
properly addressed, the full potential of networking will not 
be realized. The Committee encourages NSF to promote research 
and education on all aspects of computer security. Only through 
an educated teacher base will the United States create a 
knowledgeable public sector with the necessary resources to 
engage in electronic commerce.

U.S. Antarctic Program

    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. Within the authorization of the Major Research Equipment 
account, $115 million is available for appropriation to the 
replacement and refurbishment of Antarctic facilities. The 
Committee shares NSF's concern for safety of personnel and the 
protection of the environment.

Replacement and Refurbishment of Antarctic Facilities

Background

    Over the past year, the Committee has received testimony on 
two major reviews of the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP), which 
is managed by and funded through the NSF. A hearing in July 
1996 considered a study conducted by the National Science and 
Technology Council (NSTC) regarding the need for maintaining 
three major U.S. stations in Antarctica; the roles of NSF, DOD 
and other agencies in the USAP; the degree to which the USAP 
satisfies our national interests in Antarctica; and the 
affordability of a continued U.S. presence in Antarctica. The 
NSTC provided a general endorsement of the USAP, recommended 
that the number of permanent stations not be reduced, and 
suggested that NSF commission an outside review of how to 
sustain a vigorous USAP and provide for required facilities.
    The USAP External Panel is an external advisory committee 
that was established by NSF pursuant to the NSTC 
recommendation. It was tasked to examine and make 
recommendations concerning:

          ``. . . the stations and logistics systems that 
        support the science while maintaining appropriate 
        environmental, safety, and health standards; the 
        efficiency and appropriateness of the management of 
        these support systems; and how and at what level the 
        science programs are implemented. The panel's views and 
        recommendations should include consideration of 
        eventual replacement of South Pole Station and other 
        infrastructure.''

    The USAP External Panel was asked to consider options for 
replacement of South Pole Station under the assumption of no-
growth budgets. Recommendations were sought for ways to achieve 
cost savings in the USAP, including the deployment of new 
technologies to gain efficiencies in the operation of remote 
facilities.
    The recommendations of the USAP External Panel, which the 
Committee received in a hearing in March 1997, include the 
following:
    1. As a matter of national policy, the United States should 
maintain a year-round presence in Antarctica, including at the 
South Pole, and the United States should continue to operate 
the three existing permanent stations.
    2. South Pole Station should be replaced by 2005 with a 
moderate-sized facility costing $130 million (an additional $15 
million was recommended for necessary upgrades to the McMurdo 
and Palmer stations). In order to complete construction by 
2005, necessary budgetary steps should be taken immediately for 
funding over the five-year period FY 1998-FY 2002.
    3. Resources for rebuilding South Pole Station should be 
provided by a combination of reprogramming $20 million over 5 
years from USAP research activities, achieving savings of $30 
million over the same period in Antarctic logistics support 
operations, and obtaining new funding for the balance of the 
cost.
    4. NSF should prepare and annually update a long-range plan 
that coordinates science, support, and facility needs to carry 
out the USAP. Without such a plan and the supporting budget it 
will be impossible to maintain an efficient and modern set of 
facilities.
            Committee View
    The Committee endorses the principal recommendations of the 
USAP External Panel regarding replacement of South Pole Station 
and providing upgrades to the other two permanent USAP 
stations. The authorization of appropriations for the Major 
Research Equipment account is $175 million, which is $90 
million above the request. Of the amount authorized, the 
Committee intends that $115 million be provided for 
construction and refurbishment of USAP facilities. In testimony 
before the Committee, the chairman of the USAP External Panel 
indicated that the cost of rebuilding South Pole Station is 
estimated to be $130 million and that the cost of needed 
upgrades at McMurdo and Palmer stations totals $15 million. The 
authorization provided is $30 million below the total amount 
required for these construction projects.
    The USAP External Panel recommended that part of the 
construction cost be offset by moving $20 million from USAP 
research activities and by achieving $30 million in savings 
from Antarctic logistics operations over the 5 year 
construction period for South Pole Station. The Committee has 
authorized all but $30 million of the estimated construction 
costs with the expectation that the shortfall can be met from 
savings in logistics operations. The Committee expects NSF to 
make every effort to achieve the savings required tomeet the 
funding shortfall and to avoid, if possible, reprogramming funds from 
research activities.
    The Committee endorses the recommendation of the USAP 
External Panel to prepare and annually update a long-range plan 
that coordinates science, support, and facility needs to carry 
out the USAP. The Committee recommends that this long-range 
plan be included as part of the national research facilities 
plan required by section 201 of the bill.

Grant Review Process

    The Committee demands that use of taxpayers' federal 
revenues 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.

Advanced Technological Education Program

    The Committee commends the Foundation for its efforts to 
improve science and engineering education at two year and 
community colleges through the Advanced Technological Education 
(ATE) program, and in particular, fully endorses the proposed 5 
percent increase for the ATE budget for fiscal year 1998. The 
ATE program was established under the authority of the 
Scientific and Advanced Technology Act ( P.L. 102-476), which 
was a legislative initiative of the Committee.
    The Committee has strongly encouraged NSF to focus more 
attention on strengthening science education at two year 
colleges both because of their important role in training 
technicians needed for the increasingly high-technology 
workplace and because they are a major point of entry and 
provide preparatory science and mathematics courses for 
students who will go on to complete their education at four 
year colleges and universities. The ATE program supports 
curriculum and faculty development, and it helps to establish 
partnerships between two year institutions and business, 
industry, secondary schools and universities. Programs and 
educational materials developed under ATE serve as models for 
dissemination throughout the nation.

Indirect Cost

    The Committee continues to be concerned that too great a 
share of academic research funds may be allocated to indirect 
costs. According to the President's budget, over 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.
    The bill directs the Office of Science and Technology 
(OSTP) to develop 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 
should 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 
Institute of Health in preparing the report. The report is due 
by December 31, 1997.
    The Committee believes that any resultant savings in 
indirect cost payments should be used to increase overall 
federal research support.

The Future of the Gemini Program

    The Committee expresses its concern over the status of 
payments by certain member countries to the Gemini Telescope 
Program. The Committee urges NSF to seek full funding by all 
member nations and to ensure the program cost for the Gemini 
program stays within cost estimates. Should a member country 
not be able to meet its commitment to the program, NSF is 
encouraged to seek new partnerships in the program. The 
Committee does not believe that any shortfall in the program 
should be unilaterally absorbed by the United States.

Tariff Relief

    The Committee expresses its extreme displeasure at the 
Administration's interpretation of the Florence Agreement 
regarding multi-national research facilities. In the case of 
the Gemini telescope program, the Administration's 
interpretation would have resulted in tariff fees to NSF in 
excess of $2 million for the completion of the Gemini 
telescope. This interpretation would have moved valuable 
research dollars from one government account to another. 
Because of this interpretation, the Congress was required to 
grant special tariff relief for NSF. As the Committee, the 
Administration and the science community work toward promoting 
large international scientific collaboration programs, the 
Committee believes the Congress should not have to provide 
individual tariff relief for large multi-national scientific 
projects. The Committee is firmly convinced that the Florence 
Agreement exempts such projects from tariffs and encourages NSF 
to work with the Commerce Department to revise tariff 
regulations as necessary to conform to the intention of the 
Florence Agreement.

Competition with Private Laboratories

    The Committee expresses continued concern about NSF's 
enforcement of Important Notice 91. Still too often, the 
Committee is receiving complaints of universities in 
competition with the private sector. While the Committee 
strongly endorses university/private sector collaboration, the 
Committee does not desire to see federal resources used to 
compete against private sector interests.

Next Generation Internet

    The progression of our country's computer networking 
technology plays a vital role in our nation's continued 
leadership in scientific research. The Committee is working 
with the Administration to develop a comprehensive plan for 
implementation of NGI. The Committee expects to hold hearings 
on NGI in the future to better understandhow it will further 
the goals of advancing network technologies and meeting the needs of 
the research and education communities.

Prohibition of Lobbying Activities

    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 the award. The Committee, however, does not 
exclude appropriate communications between the executive branch 
and the Congress.

Limitation on Appropriations

    This section emphasizes the Committee's position that the 
only funds authorized to be appropriated for the National 
Science Foundation are made available through this Act. It is 
the Committee's position that authorizations designating 
specific sums are required for appropriations of such sums to 
be authorized.

Eligibility for Awards

    The Committee has a long-standing position that awards 
should be based on a competitive merit-based process. Merit 
review allow taxpayers' dollars to be spent in the most cost-
effective manner.

Notice of Reprogramming

    The Committee believes that such notice must be given if it 
is to carry out its oversight responsibilities under the Rules 
of the House.

Sense of the Congress on the Year 2000 Problem

    Despite knowing of the problem for years, the Federal 
Government has yet to adequately create strategies to address 
the year 2000 problem. The Committee believes Congress should 
continue to take a leadership role in raising awareness about 
the issue with both government and the private sector.
    The potential impact on federal programs if the year 2000 
problem is not corrected in an effective and timely manner is 
substantial and potentially serious. If federal computers are 
not prepared to handle the change of date on January 1, 2000, 
there is a risk to all government systems and the programs they 
support. It is imperative that such corrective action be taken 
to avert disruption to critical Federal Government programs.

Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)

    EPSCoR is an important effort by the National Science 
Foundation to insure that all parts of the nation share in the 
research, educational and economic benefits of a strong science 
and technology research base and to meet the mandate of its 
original legislation to insure geographic distribution of 
federal support. EPSCoR contributes to increased regional and 
institutional research capacity by directing funding to merit-
based awards for proposals from states that historically have 
not participated fully in federal research and development 
funding. EPSCoR offers the mechanism to help institutions in 
the participating states improve their competitive positions in 
selected research specialties and fields through the 
development of infrastructure necessary to sustain these new 
capabilities. The development and support of infrastructure 
has--and continues to be--the cornerstone of the program. 
Without such infrastructure, nothing else is possible. NSF is, 
however, also embarking upon new efforts to bring principal 
investigators and institutions in the participating states into 
the mainstream of U.S. science and technological research and 
policy. Such mainstreaming must, of course, be the ultimate 
goal of the EPSCoR program. Consequently, the Committee expects 
continued NSF support for infrastructure and viable assistance 
in developing the contacts and participating in advisory, 
review and policy activities which will lead to mainstreaming 
of these states into the nationwide science and technology 
structure.

Support for Astronomy and Astrophysical Research

    The Committee is concerned over the plans for long term 
support for basic research in astronomy and astrophysics. 
Although the first priority recommended by the ``Bahcall 
Report'' on the future of astronomy addressed core funding for 
basic research grants and for operation and maintenance of 
existing facilities, these have generally lagged in agency 
planning.
    In addition, the Committee is concerned over the extent to 
which the major funding agencies, NSF and NASA, have 
coordinated their respective plans for basic research. NASA has 
taken on an increasing share of basic research responsibility 
in astronomy because of the need to complement major facility 
class missions such as the Space Telescope, the Advanced X-Ray 
Astrophysics Facility and the Space Infrared Telescope. 
However, this basic research support is associated with the 
mission lifetimes. NSF must address more fully the need to 
provide ongoing stable and balanced support for basic research. 
The Committee urges NSF and NASA to conduct a joint review of 
the division of responsibilities and funding for core support 
in astronomy and astrophysics and to develop a plan which 
addresses the long term needs of the science community in this 
area.

National High Magnetic Field Laboratory

    The Committee commends the National High Magnetic Field 
Laboratory in Tallahassee, Florida, a unique consortium of 
Florida State University, the University of Florida, and the 
Los Alamos National Laboratory which has led to a world-class 
facility and international leadership in research and 
development in this crucial area. The NSF recently extended the 
support for the NHMFL for an additional 5 years and increased 
the level of NSF support for that facility substantially. One 
of the areas that NSF was unable to fund, however, are the 
research areas related to structural biology and aspects of 
magnetic resonance. The Committee strongly encourages the NSF 
to work with the NHMFL, its partners, and new collaborators 
such as the University of Miami in securing the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) as a partner with NSF and the 
Department of Energy in supporting the Laboratory. The NIH role 
in supporting structural biology and the medical applications 
of magnetic resonance is well-known and indispensable to 
futurebreakthroughs in this crucial area. The advanced instrumentation 
at the NHMFL will be necessary for utilization by scientists and 
engineers to push back the frontiers of knowledge in these medically-
related areas. We look forward to receiving a report from the NSF on 
progress made in assisting the NHMFL and the NIH to work together as 
partners with other federal R&D agencies.
    The state-of-the art equipment at the NHMFL, like all 
advanced scientific equipment, needs to be upgraded in order to 
maintain international scientific leadership in this arena. For 
that reason, the Committee hopes the NSF is sensitive to the 
need to upgrade these major equipment systems. The Committee is 
aware of a major initiative being discussed in Japan related to 
magnetic resonance in Secuba City. Japanese industry, working 
with the Government of Japan, is considering a major push, far 
surpassing the U.S. investment at the NHMFL. The Committee 
requests NSF to review the Japanese initiative, review plans 
for upgrading the major equipment at the NHMFL, and report on 
its findings to this Committee by October 1, 1997. Maintaining 
U.S. leadership in this key area is an important endeavor.

National Oceanographic Partnership Program

    The Committee has included bill language specifically 
authorizing NSF participation in the National Oceanographic 
Partnership Program. The Committee supports the goals of the 
Program to maximize efficiency in the execution of ocean 
research efforts among nine federal agencies, academia and 
industry. The Committee encourages NSF to take a proactive role 
in the Program via membership on the National Oceanographic 
Research Leadership Council; to use the Partnership Program 
mechanism to leverage NSF oceanographic resources; and to 
coordinate with ongoing and planned efforts of federal agencies 
and other entities having similar research requirements. 
Further, the Committee strongly encourages NSF to incorporate 
funding requests for the National Oceanographic Partnership 
Program into future budget requests.

Buy American

    It is the view of this Committee that the Federal 
Government buy goods manufactured in the United States when 
feasible, where cost-effective, and practicable.

Partnerships for Advanced Computational Infrastructure (PACI)

    The Committee commends the Foundation for moving ahead with 
the PACI. However, the Committee is concerned that insufficient 
attention has been paid to the problems that will occur during 
the transition from the supercomputer center program to PACI. 
The Foundation's own documents, the National Science Board and 
the PACI peer review panels all expressed concerns about how 
high-end users of the supercomputer centers will be treated 
during the transition. In addition, the Committee heard from 
users who expressed the same concern. These problems are likely 
to be exacerbated because the transition period began at 
virtually the moment the new PACI awards were made.
    To enable the Committee to track and help remedy any issues 
that arise during the transition, NSF shall submit reports on 
July1 and October 1, 1997 and on April 1, 1998 detailing how 
the transition has been proceeding. The reports should describe how 
users have been transferred to other centers, how many users are 
continuing to use the supercomputer centers and any problems 
encountered in this transition. The reports should also include an 
assessment of whether any additional funding is needed to smooth the 
transition.

Recusal Policy

    As a result of the competition for the Partnerships for 
Advanced Computational Infrastructure (PACI), the Committee is 
concerned about the way the Foundation handles recusals. The 
issues raised are not unique to that program, but could arise 
any time NSF is running a competition for a large, national 
program for which large consortia are applying.
    The Committee requests that NSF review its recusal criteria 
and to report on the results of that review by January 31, 
1998. The review should include a comparison of NSF policies 
with those of other agencies handling similar programs and 
should involve other government agencies that set ethics 
policies.

Education and Human Resources Directorate

    While the Committee recognizes the benefits of the National 
Science Foundation's science education programs, the Committee 
is concerned about possible misuse of funds for particular 
education projects and inefficiency in the administration of 
programs within the Education and Human Resources Directorate. 
The Committee intends to hold hearings on the management and 
programs of this Directorate and recommends the Director review 
current policies and take any corrective action to improve the 
operations of this Directorate.

Large Hadron Collider

    The Committee is concerned that negotiations, past and 
present, between the United States and Member States of CERN on 
international collaboration in the construction, management and 
operation of high energy physics facilities, have not resulted 
in mutually satisfying agreements for the negotiating parties.
    The Committee is specifically concerned over the potential 
impacts on U.S. high energy and nuclear physics facilities of 
proposed U.S. funding for the Large Hadron Collider project at 
CERN. As a result, the Committee has not authorized any funds 
in FY 99 in the Major Research Equipment account for 
construction of the proposed ATLAS and CSM detectors until the 
Director, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, has 
provided a report to the Committee on such impacts.
    This restriction does not apply to the $1.4 million in the 
Research and Related Activities Account requested by NSF for 
the LHC-related planning and research and development support 
for FY 98 and FY 99.

Outreach

    The Committee is supportive of the National Science 
Foundation's efforts to reach out to Hispanics with culturally 
and linguistically appropriate outreach efforts. Specifically, 
the Committee supports the culturally and linguistically 
appropriate outreach efforts aimed at increasing the 
understanding of science, math, and engineering concepts among 
traditionally underserved populations in the United States. 
These activities should continue.

U.S./Mexico Foundation for Science

    The bill authorizes $1 million per year for funding the 
non-governmental U.S./Mexico Foundation for Science. The 
Foundation was established in 1992 by the Governments of Mexico 
and the United States with the strong support of the research 
and business communities of both countries. Each country 
provided equal financial support to the Foundation (a total of 
$4 million).
    The Foundation's mission is to contribute to the 
technological and scientific strength of the two countries 
through fostering relevant research, training and human 
resource development, and promoting collaborative and 
comprehensive solutions of common problems. The Foundation is 
uniquely structured to accomplish this mission. The 
Foundation's Board of Governors consists of high level and 
influential members from the Mexican Academy of Scientific 
Investigation, the National Academy of Medicine, and the 
Academy of Engineering; and the U.S. National Academies of 
Science and of Engineering and the Institute of Medicines. In 
addition, there are representatives of both Mexican and 
American businesses who are members of the Board.
    The Foundation is binational in structure and has the 
ability to be flexible in selection of priority areas which are 
defined as being of mutual interest and potential benefit to 
both countries. The Foundation has a proven track record of 
supporting high-quality research projects selected with a peer-
review system. The Foundation also currently supports a 
visiting scientist program, a Hewlett Foundation training 
program in S&T policy and graduate and summer scholarship 
programs.
    The Mexicans have agreed to provide additional funds to the 
Foundation, contingent upon a U.S. contribution.

                           IX. Cost Estimate

    Clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee report accompanying 
each bill or joint resolution of a public character to contain: 
(1) an estimate, made by such Committee, of the costs which 
would be incurred in carrying out such bill or joint resolution 
in the fiscal year in which it is reported, and in each of the 
5 fiscal years following such fiscal year (or for the 
authorized duration of any program authorized by such bill or 
joint resolution, if less than 5 years); (2) a comparison of 
the estimate of costs described in subparagraph (1) of this 
paragraph made by such Committee with an estimate of such costs 
made by any government agency and submitted to such Committee; 
and (3) when practicable, a comparison of the total estimated 
funding level for the relevant program (or programs) with the 
appropriate levels under current law. However, clause 7(d) of 
that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when a 
cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted 
prior to the filing of the report and included in the report 
pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI. A cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of this 
report and included in Section X of this report pursuant to 
clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI.
    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee report that accompanies 
a measure providing new budget authority (other than continuing 
appropriations), new spending authority, or new credit 
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures to 
contain a cost estimate, as required by section 308(a)(1) of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and, when practicable with 
respect to estimates of new budget authority, a comparison of 
the total estimated funding level for the relevant program (or 
programs) to the appropriate levels under current law. H.R. 
1273 does not contain any new budget authority, credit 
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming 
that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 
1273 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as 
described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the 
bill, which is contained in Section X of this report.

              X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, April 18, 1997.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
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. 1273, the National 
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1997.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Kristen 
Layman (for federal costs), and Pepper Santalucia (for the 
state and local impact).
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

    Summary: H.R. 1273 would authorize appropriations for the 
National Science Foundation (NSF) for fiscal years 1998 and 
1999. In addition, the legislation would revise various 
policies governing NSF's administration and grants. The 
Director of the foundation would be required to submit a status 
report for each uncompleted construction project, along with 
the previously required plan for proposed construction and 
repairs of national research facilities. H.R. 1273 stipulates 
that no funds authorized by the bill are to be used for the 
next generation Internet, except as a continuation of programs 
that were funded in fiscal year 1997.
    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO 
estimates that enacting H.R. 1273 would result in additional 
discretionary spending of about $7 billion over the 1998-2002 
period. The legislation would not affect direct spending or 
receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. 
The legislation also does not contain any intergovernmental or 
private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), and would not impose any costs on 
state, local, or tribal governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1273 is shown in the table below. For 
the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that all amounts 
authorized in H.R. 1273 will be appropriated by the start of 
each fiscal year and that outlays will follow historical 
spending patterns for NSF programs.

                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION                                       
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF spending under current law:                                                                                 
    Budget authority \1\............................     3,270         0         0         0         0         0
    Estimated outlays...............................     3,120     2,322       754       204       102        25
Proposed changes:                                                                                               
    Authorization level.............................         0     3,506     3,614         0         0         0
    Estimated outlays...............................         0     1,039     2,732     2,296       713       206
NSF spending under H.R. 1852:                                                                                   
    Authorization level \1\.........................     3,270     3,506     3,614         0         0         0
    Estimated outlays...............................     3,120     3,361     3,486     2,500       815       231
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1997 level is the amount appropriated for that year.                                                    

    The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 
050 (national defense) and 250 (general science, space, and 
technology).
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: 
The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA, but it would create new eligibility criteria for 
universities and colleges seeking NSF research funding, which 
could reduce the income of state educational institutions that 
apply for grants.
    Section 205 would make eligibility for NSF funding 
contingent upon policies regarding students called to active 
military duty. In order to receive funding after fiscal year 
1997, colleges and universities would have to provide that 
students called to active duty will be restored to their 
previous educational status without loss of tuition, fees, 
scholarships, or grant funding paid prior to the commencement 
of military duty. According to Department of Defense officials 
and higher education associations, most colleges and 
universities are already complying with this provision. 
Therefore, CBO does not expect that this provision would 
significantly affect the eligibility of public institutions of 
higher education for NSF funding.
    Two other provisions in the bill would affect eligibility 
for federal grants. The first would require compliance with the 
``Buy American Act.'' The second would exclude grantees from 
consideration for awards if they had received funds under any 
other federal grant program that was not subject to a 
competitive, merit-based award process. The latter provision 
could change the allocation of funds among grant recipients, 
including state universities and colleges. CBO cannot predict 
how the share of research funding awarded to public 
universities and colleges would change because of this 
provision.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: This legislation 
contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal cost: Kristen Layman; Impact 
on State, local, and tribal governments: Pepper Santalucia.
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                  XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H.R. 1273 contains no unfunded mandates.

         XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

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

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

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

                XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement

    Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires each report of a committee on a bill 
or joint resolution of a public character to include a 
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in 
the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint 
resolution. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the 
United States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 1273.

                XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    This legislation does not establish or authorize the 
establishment of a new advisory committee.

                 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act

    The Committee finds that H.R. 1273 does not relate to the 
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services 
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of 
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

      XVII. 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) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  [(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) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (g) The Board may, with the concurrence of a majority of its 
members, permit the appointment of a staff consisting of not 
more than five professional staff members and such clerical 
staff members as may be necessary. Such staff shall be 
appointed by the Director and assigned at the direction of the 
Board. The professional members of such staff may be appointed 
without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States 
Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and 
the provisions of chapter 51 of such title relating to 
classification, and compensated at a rate not exceeding [the 
appropriate rate provided for individuals in grade GS-18 of the 
General Schedule under section 5332] the maximum rate payable 
under section 5376 of such title, as may be necessary to 
provide for the performance of such duties as may be prescribed 
by the Board in connection with the exercise of its powers and 
functions under this Act. Each appointment under this 
subsection shall be subject to the same security requirements 
as those required for personnel of the Foundation appointed 
under section 14(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) The Director may make grants, contracts, and other 
arrangements pursuant to section 11(c) only with the prior 
approval of the Board, or under authority delegated by the 
Board, and subject to such conditions as the Board may specify.
  [(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 onScience, 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.
          * * * * * * *

                        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] the maximum rate payable under 
section 5376 of title 5, United States Code, and shall be 
allowed travel expenses as authorized by section 5703 of title 
5, United States Code. Members of the Board and special 
commissions may waive compensation and reimbursement for travel 
expenses.
          * * * * * * *

                          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 authority 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 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, behavorial, [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) The President is authorized to make 
Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science 
Teaching to kindergarten through grade 12 school teachers of 
mathematics and science who have demonstrated outstanding 
teaching ability in the field of teaching mathematics or 
science.
  (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.
  (2) The President shall carry out this subsection, including 
the establishment of the selection procedures, after 
consultation with the Director and other appropriate officials 
of Federal agencies.
  (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.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


            SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES ACT

          * * * * * * *

          Part B--Women, Minorities, Science, and Engineering

          * * * * * * *

                        [minorities in science]

participation in science and engineering of minorities and persons with 
                              disabilities

  Sec. 34. (a) The Foundation is authorized (1) to undertake or 
support a comprehensive science and engineering education 
program to increase the participation of minorities in science 
and engineering, and (2) to support activities to initiate 
research at minority institutions.
  [(b) By September 30, 1981, the Director, with the advice and 
assistance of the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science 
and Technology established in section 36, shall prepare and 
transmit to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the 
Senate and the Committee on Science and Technology of the House 
of Representatives a report proposing a comprehensive and 
continuing program at the Foundation to promote the full 
participation of minorities in science and technology. Such 
report shall contain budgetary and legislative recommendations 
for the carrying out of such program by the Foundation.]
  (b) The Foundation is authorized to undertake or support 
programs and activities to encourage the participation of 
persons with disabilities in the science and engineering 
professions.
          * * * * * * *

      committee on equal opportunities in science and engineering

  Sec. 36. (a) There is established within the Foundation a 
Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering 
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Committee''). The Committee 
shall provide advice to the Foundation concerning (1) the 
implementation of the provisions of this Act and (2) other 
policies and activities of the Foundation to encourage full 
participation of women, [minorities, and other groups currently 
underrepresented in scientific] minorities, and persons with 
disabilities in scientific, engineering, and professional 
fields.
  (b) Each member of the Committee shall be appointed by the 
Director [with the concurrence of the National Science Board. 
The Chairperson of the National Science Board Committee on 
Minorities and Women shall be an ex officio member of the 
Committee.]. In addition, the Chairman of the National Science 
Board may designate a member of the Board as a member of the 
Committee. Members of the Committee shall be appointed to serve 
for a three-year term, and may be reappointed to serve one 
additional term of three years.
  [(c) There shall be a subcommittee of the Committee which 
shall be known as the Subcommittee on Women in Science and 
Engineering. The Subcommittee on Women in Science and 
Engineering shall have responsibility for all Committee matters 
relating to (1) the participation in and opportunities for the 
education, training, and research of women in science and 
engineering and (2) the impact of science and engineering on 
women. The Subcommittee shall be composed of all the women 
members of the Committee and such other members of the 
Committee as the Committee may designate.
  [(d) There shall be a subcommittee of the Committee which 
shall be known as the Subcommittee on Minorities in Science and 
Engineering. The Subcommittee on Minorities in Science and 
Engineering shall have responsibility for all Committee matters 
relating to (1) the participation in and opportunities for 
education, training, and research for minorities in science and 
engineering and (2) the impact of science and engineering on 
minorities. The Subcommittee shall be composed of all minority 
members of the Committee and such other members of the 
Committee as the Committee may designate.]
  (c) The Committee shall be responsible for reviewing and 
evaluating all Foundation matters relating to participation in, 
opportunities for, and advancement in education, training, and 
research in science and engineering of women, minorities, and 
persons with disabilities.
  [(e)] (d) The Committee may organize such [additional] 
standing or ad hoc subcommittees as the Committee finds 
appropriate.
  [(f)] (e) Every two years, the Committee shall prepare and 
transmit to the Director a report on its activities during the 
previous two years and proposed activities for the next two 
years. The Director shall transmit to Congress the report, 
unaltered, together with such comments as the Director deems 
appropriate.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


 SECTION 822 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  1991

SEC. 822. [CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES INSTITUTE] SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 
                    POLICY INSTITUTE

  (a) Establishment.--There shall be established a federally 
funded research and development center to be known as the 
``[Critical Technologies Institute] Science and Technology 
Policy 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 Defense 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)] (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.

                    XVIII. Committee Recommendations

    On April 16, 1997, a quorum being present, the Committee 
favorably reported the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 1992, by a voice vote and recommends its 
enactment.
                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    As a scientist trained as a physician, I recognize the 
importance of scientific advancement, and generally support the 
merits of the National Science Foundation. However, during this 
time of financial uncertainty, I cannot support the proposed 
budgetary increase, regardless of how insignificant it might 
seem, especially in the area of Education and Human Resources.
    Furthermore, the NSF has proven to be less than a good 
steward with taxpayer dollars. For instance, the Office of the 
Inspector General found that one community college which 
received a four year grant of $314,521 had ``significant 
problems with the community college's financial management of 
the grant'' totaling $258,955--82 percent of the total award. 
The IG investigation found that the college: paid an employee 
$46,048 for time he did not work on the award; charged $50,563 
for travel costs in excessive amounts and could not provide 
reports or receipts; charged $43,320 of participant support 
funds and other costs without NSF's approval; charged $33,190 
for unallowable food, entertainment, personal items and 
indirect costs; did not contribute $84,921 for the community 
college's share of cost sharing proposed under the award.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General, 
Semiannual Report to the Congress, Number 14, October 1, 1995-March 31, 
1996, April 30, 1996 p. 17, 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because of such inefficiency and mismanagement, I do not 
believe the NSF needs an authorization above and beyond the FY 
97 level.
                                                     Tom A. Coburn.


 XX. Results of Rollcall Vote Taken at Full Committee Markup on April 
                                16, 1997

    Subject: H.R. 1273--Coburn amendment.
    Total votes: ayes 11, nays 26, not voting 2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Not                                               Not  
         Representative              Aye       Nay     voting     Representative       Aye       Nay     voting 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sensenbrenner...............  ........        X   ........  Mr. Brown.........  ........        X   ........
Mr. Boehlert....................  ........        X   ........  Mr. Hall..........  ........  ........  ........
Mr. Fawell......................  ........        X   ........  Mr. Gordon........  ........        X   ........
Mrs. Morella....................  ........        X   ........  Mr. Traficant.....  ........  ........  ........
Mr. Curt Weldon.................  ........        X   ........  Mr. Roemer........  ........        X   ........
Mr. Rohrabacher.................  ........  ........        X   Mr. Cramer........  ........        X   ........
Mr. Schiff \1\..................  ........  ........        X   Mr. Barcia........  ........        X   ........
Mr. Barton......................        X   ........  ........  Mr. McHale........  ........        X   ........
Mr. Calvert.....................  ........        X   ........  Ms. Johnson.......  ........        X   ........
Mr. Bartlett....................        X   ........  ........  Mr. Hastings......  ........        X   ........
Mr. Ehlers......................  ........        X   ........  Ms. Rivers........  ........        X   ........
Mr. Dave Weldon.................        X   ........  ........  Ms. Lofgren.......  ........        X   ........
Mr. Salmon......................        X   ........  ........  Mr. Doggett.......  ........        X   ........
Mr. Thomas Davis................  ........        X   ........  Mr. Doyle.........  ........        X   ........
Mr. Gutknecht...................        X   ........  ........  Ms. Jackson-Lee...  ........        X   ........
Mr. Foley.......................        X   ........  ........  Mr. Luther........  ........        X   ........
Mr. Ewing.......................  ........  ........  ........  Mr. Capps.........  ........  ........  ........
Mr. Pickering...................  ........  ........  ........  Ms. Stabenow......  ........        X   ........
Mr. Cannon......................        X   ........  ........  Mr. Etheridge.....  ........  ........  ........
Mr. Brady.......................        X   ........  ........  Mr. Lampson.......  ........        X   ........
Mr. Cook........................        X   ........  ........  Ms. Hooley........  ........        X   ........
Mr. English.....................  ........        X   ........  ..................  ........  ........          
Mr. Nethercutt..................        X   ........  ........  ..................  ........  ........  ........
Mr. Coburn......................        X   ........  ........  ..................  ........  ........  ........
Mr. Sessions....................  ........  ........  ........  ..................  ........  ........  ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Absent.                                                                                                     

                                
