39–006

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
2

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 Founda- tion $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.
3

(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
4

(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.
5

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

(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;
7

(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
8

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 the

NSF’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.
9

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 modernday 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 reinventing 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. Ac-
10

cording 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-
11

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 Santos

added 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.
12

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 cen-
13

ters. 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 presented

during 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 infor-
14

mation 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
15

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
16

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.
17

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.
18

(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.
19

(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 missioncritical 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.
20

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.
21

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.
22

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 nogrowth 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
23

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 mod- erate-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 to

meet 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
24

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
25

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 understand how 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 Foun-
26

dation 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.
27

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 future

breakthroughs 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
28

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 highend 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 July

1 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.
29

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 rel-
30

evant 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
31

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.
32

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.
33

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) * * *

* * * * * * *
34

ø(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 øthe 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).

* * * * * * *

ø(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.

ø(2) Any delegation of authority or imposition of conditions under

the preceding sentence shall be effective only for such period of

time, not exceeding two years, as the Board may specify, and shall

be promptly published in the Federal Register and reported to the

Committees on Labor and Human Resources and Commerce,

Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on

Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives.

On October 1 of each odd-numbered year the Board shall submit

to the Congress a concise report which explains and justifies any

actions taken by the Board under this subsection to delegate its au-
35

thority 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 øthe 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 øAtomic 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, øsocial,¿ 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
36

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) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(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 øScience and

Engineering Education¿ Education and Human Resources.

* * * * * * *

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES

ACT

* * * * * * *

PART B—WOMEN, MINORITIES, SCIENCE, AND ENGINEERING

* * * * * * *

øMINORITIES 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.
37

ø(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, øminorities,

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 øwith 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.

ø(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.

ø(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.¿
38

(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.

ø(e)¿ (d) The Committee may organize such øadditional¿ standing or ad hoc subcommittees as the Committee finds appropriate.

ø(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. øCRITICAL 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 ‘‘øCritical

Technologies Institute¿ Science and Technology Policy Institute’’ (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ‘‘Institute’’).

(b) INCORPORATION.—øAs 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.

ø(c) OPERATING COMMITTEE.—(1) The Institute shall have an Operating Committee composed of six members as follows:

ø(A) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology

Policy, who shall chair the committee.

ø(B) The Director of the National Institutes of Health.

ø(C) The Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology.

ø(D) The Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency.

ø(E) The Director of the National Science Foundation.

ø(F) The Under Secretary of Energy having responsibility for

science and technology matters.

ø(2) The Operating Committee shall meet not less than four

times each year.¿

ø(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, øwith 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 de-
39

veloping and maintaining relevant informational and analytical tools.

(2) Analysis and interpretation of the information referred to

in paragraph (1) øto 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. ø(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

ø(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.

ø(e)¿ (d) CONSULTATION ON INSTITUTE ACTIVITIES.—In carrying

out the duties referred to in subsection ø(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.

ø(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.

ø(g) SPONSORSHIP.—(1) The Director of the National Science

Foundation shall be the sponsor of the Institute.

ø(2) The Director of the National Science Foundation, in consultation with the chairman of the committee, shall enter into a
40

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.
(41)

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.

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

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.
(42)

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.

Representative Aye Nay Not

voting Representative Aye Nay Notvoting

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.

Æ