Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

106th Congress                                            Rept. 106-472
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 1

======================================================================



 
   NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT

                                _______
                                

               November 16, 1999.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEW

                        [To accompany H.R. 2086]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 
2086) to authorize funding for networking and information 
technology research and development for fiscal years 2000 
through 2004, and for other purposes, having considered the 
same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend 
that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

   I. Amendment.......................................................2
  II. Purpose of the Bill.............................................7
 III. Background and Need for Legislation.............................7
  IV. Summary of Hearings.............................................9
   V. Committee Actions..............................................14
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................16
 VII. Section-By-Section Analysis....................................19
VIII. Committee Views................................................22
  IX. Committee Cost Estimate........................................25
   X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................26
  XI. Compliance with Public Law 104-4...............................28
 XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............28
XIII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on 
      Government Reform..............................................28
 XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................28
  XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................28
 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................28
XVII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported..........28
XVIII.Committee Recommendations......................................37

 XIX. Additional Views...............................................38
  XX. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup...........................39

                              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 ``Networking and Information Technology 
Research and Development Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

  The Congress makes the following findings:
          (1) Information technology will continue to change the way 
        Americans live, learn, and work. The information revolution 
        will improve the workplace and the quality and accessibility of 
        health care and education and make government more responsible 
        and accessible.
          (2) Information technology is an imperative enabling 
        technology that contributes to scientific disciplines. Major 
        advances in biomedical research, public safety, engineering, 
        and other critical areas depend on further advances in 
        computing and communications.
          (3) The United States is the undisputed global leader in 
        information technology.
          (4) Information technology is recognized as a catalyst for 
        economic growth and prosperity.
          (5) Information technology represents one of the fastest 
        growing sectors of the United States economy, with electronic 
        commerce alone projected to become a trillion-dollar business 
        by 2005.
          (6) Businesses producing computers, semiconductors, software, 
        and communications equipment account for one-third of the total 
        growth in the United States economy since 1992.
          (7) According to the United States Census Bureau, between 
        1993 and 1997, the information technology sector grew an 
        average of 12.3 percent per year.
          (8) Fundamental research in information technology has 
        enabled the information revolution.
          (9) Fundamental research in information technology has 
        contributed to the creation of new industries and new, high-
        paying jobs.
          (10) Our Nation's well-being will depend on the 
        understanding, arising from fundamental research, of the social 
        and economic benefits and problems arising from the increasing 
        pace of information technology transformations.
          (11) Scientific and engineering research and the availability 
        of a skilled workforce are critical to continued economic 
        growth driven by information technology.
          (12) In 1997, private industry provided most of the funding 
        for research and development in the information technology 
        sector. The information technology sector now receives, in 
        absolute terms, one-third of all corporate spending on research 
        and development in the United States economy.
          (13) The private sector tends to focus its spending on short-
        term, applied research.
          (14) The Federal Government is uniquely positioned to support 
        long-term fundamental research.
          (15) Federal applied research in information technology has 
        grown at almost twice the rate of Federal basic research since 
        1986.
          (16) Federal science and engineering programs must increase 
        their emphasis on long-term, high-risk research.
          (17) Current Federal programs and support for fundamental 
        research in information technology is inadequate if we are to 
        maintain the Nation's global leadership in information 
        technology.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) National Science Foundation.--Section 201(b) of the High-
Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5521(b)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``From sums otherwise authorized to be 
        appropriated, there'' and inserting ``There'';
          (2) by striking ``1995; and'' and inserting ``1995;''; and
          (3) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
        $439,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; $468,500,000 for fiscal year 
        2001; $493,200,000 for fiscal year 2002; $544,100,000 for 
        fiscal year 2003; and $571,300,000 for fiscal year 2004. 
        Amounts authorized under this subsection shall be the total 
        amounts authorized to the National Science Foundation for a 
        fiscal year for the Program, and shall not be in addition to 
        amounts previously authorized by law for the purposes of the 
        Program.''.
  (b) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.--Section 202(b) of 
the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5522(b)) is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``From sums otherwise authorized to be 
        appropriated, there'' and inserting ``There'';
          (2) by striking ``1995; and'' and inserting ``1995;''; and
          (3) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
        $164,400,000 for fiscal year 2000; $201,000,000 for fiscal year 
        2001; $208,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; $224,000,000 for 
        fiscal year 2003; and $231,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.
  (c) Department of Energy.--Section 203(e)(1) of the High-Performance 
Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5523(e)(1)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``1995; and'' and inserting ``1995;''; and
          (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
        $106,600,000 for fiscal year 2000; $103,500,000 for fiscal year 
        2001; $107,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; $125,700,000 for 
        fiscal year 2003; and $129,400,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.
  (d) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--(1) Section 
204(d)(1) of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 
5524(d)(1)) is amended--
          (A) by striking ``1995; and'' and inserting ``1995;''; and
          (B) by striking ``1996; and'' and inserting ``1996; 
        $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; $9,500,000 for fiscal year 
        2001; $10,500,000 for fiscal year 2002; $16,000,000 for fiscal 
        year 2003; and $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and''.
  (2) Section 204(d) of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 
U.S.C. 5524(d)) is amended by striking ``From sums otherwise authorized 
to be appropriated, there'' and inserting ``There''.
  (e) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.--Section 
204(d)(2) of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 
5524(d)(2)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``1995; and'' and inserting ``1995;''; and
          (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
        $13,500,000 for fiscal year 2000; $13,900,000 for fiscal year 
        2001; $14,300,000 for fiscal year 2002; $14,800,000 for fiscal 
        year 2003; and $15,200,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.
  (f) Environmental Protection Agency.--Section 205(b) of the High-
Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5525(b)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``From sums otherwise authorized to be 
        appropriated, there'' and inserting ``There'';
          (2) by striking ``1995; and'' and inserting ``1995;''; and
          (3) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
        $4,200,000 for fiscal year 2000; $4,300,000 for fiscal year 
        2001; $4,500,000 for fiscal year 2002; $4,600,000 for fiscal 
        year 2003; and $4,700,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.

SEC. 4. NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

  (a) National Science Foundation.--Section 201 of the High-Performance 
Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5521) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new subsections:
  ``(c) Networking and Information Technology Research and 
Development.--(1) Of the amounts authorized under subsection (b), 
$310,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; $333,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; 
$352,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; $390,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; 
and $415,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 shall be available for grants for 
long-term basic research on networking and information technology, with 
priority given to research that helps address issues related to high 
end computing and software; network stability, fragility, reliability, 
security (including privacy), and scalability; and the social and 
economic consequences of information technology.
  ``(2) In each of the fiscal years 2000 and 2001, the National Science 
Foundation shall award under this subsection up to 20 large grants of 
up to $1,000,000 each, and in each of the fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 
2004, the National Science Foundation shall award under this subsection 
up to 30 large grants of up to $1,000,000 each.
  ``(3)(A) Of the amounts described in paragraph (1), $40,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2000; $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; $45,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2002; $45,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and $50,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2004 shall be available for grants of up to $5,000,000 each 
for Information Technology Research Centers.
  ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `Information 
Technology Research Centers' means groups of 6 or more researchers 
collaborating across scientific and engineering disciplines on large-
scale long-term research projects which will significantly advance the 
science supporting the development of information technology or the use 
of information technology in addressing scientific issues of national 
importance.
  ``(d) Major Research Equipment.--(1) In addition to the amounts 
authorized under subsection (b), there are authorized to be 
appropriated to the National Science Foundation $70,000,000 for fiscal 
year 2000, $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $80,000,000 for fiscal 
year 2002, $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, and $85,000,000 for fiscal 
year 2004 for grants for the development of major research equipment to 
establish terascale computing capabilities at 1 or more sites and to 
promote diverse computing architectures. Awards made under this 
subsection shall provide for support for the operating expenses of 
facilities established to provide the terascale computing capabilities, 
with funding for such operating expenses derived from amounts available 
under subsection (b).
  ``(2) Grants awarded under this subsection shall be awarded through 
an open, nationwide, peer-reviewed competition. Awardees may include 
consortia consisting of members from some or all of the following types 
of institutions:
          ``(A) Academic supercomputer centers.
          ``(B) State-supported supercomputer centers.
          ``(C) Supercomputer centers that are supported as part of 
        federally funded research and development centers.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, or agency 
policy, a federally funded research and development center may apply 
for a grant under this subsection, and may compete on an equal basis 
with any other applicant for the awarding of such a grant.
  ``(3) As a condition of receiving a grant under this subsection, an 
awardee must agree--
          ``(A) to connect to the National Science Foundation's 
        Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure network;
          ``(B) to the maximum extent practicable, to coordinate with 
        other federally funded large-scale computing and simulation 
        efforts; and
          ``(C) to provide open access to all grant recipients under 
        this subsection or subsection (c).
  ``(e) Information Technology Education and Training Grants.--
          ``(1) Information technology grants.--The National Science 
        Foundation shall provide grants under the Scientific and 
        Advanced Technology Act of 1992 for the purposes of section 
        3(a) and (b) of that Act, except that the activities supported 
        pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to improving 
        education in fields related to information technology. The 
        Foundation shall encourage institutions with a substantial 
        percentage of student enrollments from groups underrepresented 
        in information technology industries to participate in the 
        competition for grants provided under this paragraph.
          ``(2) Internship grants.--The National Science Foundation 
        shall provide--
                  ``(A) grants to institutions of higher education to 
                establish scientific internship programs in information 
                technology research at private sector companies; and
                  ``(B) supplementary awards to institutions funded 
                under the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority 
                Participation program for internships in information 
                technology research at private sector companies.
          ``(3) Matching funds.--Awards under paragraph (2) shall be 
        made on the condition that at least an equal amount of funding 
        for the internship shall be provided by the private sector 
        company at which the internship will take place.
          ``(4) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
        `institution of higher education' has the meaning given that 
        term in section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
        U.S.C. 1141(a)).
          ``(5) Availability of funds.--Of the amounts described in 
        subsection (c)(1), $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, 
        $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $20,000,000 for fiscal year 
        2002, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, and $25,000,000 for 
        fiscal year 2004 shall be available for carrying out this 
        subsection.
  ``(f) Educational Technology Research.--
          ``(1) Research program.--As part of its responsibilities 
        under subsection (a)(1), the National Science Foundation shall 
        establish a research program to develop, demonstrate, assess, 
        and disseminate effective applications of information and 
        computer technologies for elementary and secondary education. 
        Such program shall--
                  ``(A) support research projects, including 
                collaborative projects involving academic researchers 
                and elementary and secondary schools, to develop 
                innovative educational materials, including software, 
                and pedagogical approaches based on applications of 
                information and computer technology;
                  ``(B) support empirical studies to determine the 
                educational effectiveness and the cost effectiveness of 
                specific, promising educational approaches, techniques, 
                and materials that are based on applications of 
                information and computer technologies; and
                  ``(C) include provision for the widespread 
                dissemination of the results of the studies carried out 
                under subparagraphs (A) and (B), including maintenance 
                of electronic libraries of the best educational 
                materials identified accessible through the Internet.
          ``(2) Replication.--The research projects and empirical 
        studies carried out under paragraph (1)(A) and (B) shall 
        encompass a wide variety of educational settings in order to 
        identify approaches, techniques, and materials that have a high 
        potential for being successfully replicated throughout the 
        United States.
          ``(3) Availability of funds.--Of the amounts authorized under 
        subsection (b), $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $10,500,000 
        for fiscal year 2001, $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
        $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, and $12,500,000 for fiscal 
        year 2004 shall be available for the purposes of this 
        subsection.
  ``(g) Peer Review.--All grants made under this section shall be made 
only after being subject to peer review by panels or groups having 
private sector representation.''.
  (b) Other Program Agencies.--
          (1) National aeronautics and space administration.--Section 
        202(a) of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 
        5522(a)) is amended by inserting ``, and may participate in or 
        support research described in section 201(c)(1)'' after ``and 
        experimentation''.
          (2) Department of energy.--Section 203(a) of the High-
        Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5523(a)) is 
        amended by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
        comma, and by adding after paragraph (4) the following:
``and may participate in or support research described in section 
201(c)(1).''.
          (3) National institute of standards and technology.--Section 
        204(a)(1) of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 
        U.S.C. 5524(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``; and'' at the end 
        of subparagraph (C) and inserting a comma, and by adding after 
        subparagraph (C) the following:
        ``and may participate in or support research described in 
        section 201(c)(1); and''.
          (4) National oceanic and atmospheric administration.--Section 
        204(a)(2) of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 
        U.S.C. 5524(a)(2)) is amended by inserting ``, and may 
        participate in or support research described in section 
        201(c)(1)'' after ``agency missions''.
          (5) Environmental protection agency.--Section 205(a) of the 
        High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5525(a)) is 
        amended by inserting ``, and may participate in or support 
        research described in section 201(c)(1)'' after ``dynamics 
        models''.

SEC. 5. NEXT GENERATION INTERNET.

  Section 103 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 
5513) is amended--
          (1) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
  ``(c) Study of Internet Privacy.--
          ``(1) Study.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
        enactment of the Networking and Information Technology Research 
        and Development Act, the National Science Foundation may enter 
        into an arrangement with the National Research Council of the 
        National Academy of Sciences for that Council to conduct a 
        study of privacy on the Internet.
          ``(2) Subjects.--The study shall address--
                  ``(A) research needed to develop technology for 
                protection of privacy on the Internet;
                  ``(B) current public and private plans for the 
                deployment of privacy technology, standards, and 
                policies;
                  ``(C) policies, laws, and practices under 
                consideration or formally adopted in other countries 
                and jurisdictions to protect privacy on the Internet;
                  ``(D) Federal legislation and other regulatory steps 
                needed to ensure the development of privacy technology, 
                standards, and policies; and
                  ``(E) other matters that the National Research 
                Council determines to be relevant to Internet privacy.
          ``(3) Transmittal to congress.--The National Science 
        Foundation shall transmit to the Congress within 21 months of 
        the date of enactment of the Networking and Information 
        Technology Research and Development Act a report setting forth 
        the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the National 
        Research Council.
          ``(4) Federal agency cooperation.--Federal agencies shall 
        cooperate fully with the National Research Council in its 
        activities in carrying out the study under this subsection.
          ``(5) Availability of funds.--Of the amounts described in 
        subsection (d)(2), $900,000 shall be available for the study 
        conducted under this subsection.''; and
          (2) in subsection (d)--
                  (A) in paragraph (1)--
                          (i) by striking ``1999 and'' and inserting 
                        ``1999,''; and
                          (ii) by inserting ``, $15,000,000 for fiscal 
                        year 2001, and $15,000,000 for fiscal year 
                        2002'' after ``fiscal year 2000'';
                  (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, and 
                $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $25,000,000 for 
                fiscal year 2002'' after ``Act of 1998'';
                  (C) in paragraph (4)--
                          (i) by striking ``1999 and'' and inserting 
                        ``1999,''; and
                          (ii) by inserting ``, $10,000,000 for fiscal 
                        year 2001, and $10,000,000 for fiscal year 
                        2002'' after ``fiscal year 2000''; and
                  (D) in paragraph (5)--
                          (i) by striking ``1999 and'' and inserting 
                        ``1999,''; and
                          (ii) by inserting ``, $5,500,000 for fiscal 
                        year 2001, and $5,500,000 for fiscal year 
                        2002'' after ``fiscal year 2000''.

SEC. 6. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

  Section 101 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 
5511) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (b)--
                  (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as 
                subparagraphs (A) through (E), respectively;
                  (B) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Advisory 
                Committee.--''; and
                  (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
  ``(2) In addition to the duties outlined in paragraph (1), the 
advisory committee shall conduct periodic evaluations of the funding, 
management, implementation, and activities of the Program, the Next 
Generation Internet program, and the Networking and Information 
Technology Research and Development program, and shall report not less 
frequently than once every 2 fiscal years to the Committee on Science 
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation of the Senate on its findings and recommendations. 
The first report shall be due within 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of the Networking and Information Technology Research and 
Development Act.''; and
          (2) in subsection (c)(1)(A) and (2), by inserting ``, 
        including the Next Generation Internet program and the 
        Networking and Information Technology Research and Development 
        program'' after ``Program'' each place it appears.

SEC. 7. EVALUATION OF CAPABILITIES OF FOREIGN ENCRYPTION.

  (a) Study.--The National Science Foundation shall undertake a study 
comparing the availability of encryption technologies in foreign 
countries to the encryption technologies subject to export restrictions 
in the United States.
  (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the National Science Foundation shall transmit 
to the Congress a report on the results of the study undertaken under 
subsection (a).

SEC. 8. RESEARCH CREDIT MADE PERMANENT.

  (a) In General.--Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to credit for increasing research activities) is amended by 
striking subsection (h).
  (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 45C(b) of such 
Code is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
  (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply 
to amounts paid or incurred after June 30, 1999.

SEC. 9. STUDY OF APPROPRIATIONS IMPACT ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 
                    RESEARCH.

  Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Comptroller General, in consultation with the National Science and 
Technology Council and the President's Information Technology Advisory 
Committee, shall transmit to the Congress a report on the impact on 
information technology research of the fiscal year 2000 appropriations 
acts for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development, and Independent Agencies; for the Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies; and for Energy 
and Water Development.

                        II. Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 2086 is to authorize appropriations for 
networking and information technology research and development 
(R&D;) at the National Science Foundation (NSF), National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of 
Energy (DOE), National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bill authorizes 
appropriations of $4,768.7 million over Fiscal Years 2000 
through 2004.

                III. Background and Need for Legislation

    Information technology (IT) research has been instrumental 
in bringing about the information revolution, creating new 
industries and high-paying jobs, and advancing science. The 
importance of IT to the economy has grown spectacularly over 
the past 20 years. IT now represents one of the fastest growing 
sectors of the U.S. economy, growing at an annual rate of 12 
percent between 1993 and 1997. Since 1992, businesses producing 
computers, semiconductors, software, and communications 
equipment have accounted for one-third of the economic growth 
in the U.S. In 1998, the Internet economy generated more than 
$300 billion in U.S. revenue and 1.2 million jobs.
    The Federal Government has been a leader in IT research. 
The first high-performance computers were placed in government 
installations, primarily for national defense purposes. 
Government support for high-performance computing expanded in 
the 1970s, and by the early 1980s many agencies had developed 
independent programs. In the late 1980s, these programs were 
linked by the High-Performance Computing and Communications 
(HPCC) initiative, which ultimately involved 10 federal 
agencies.
    These activities were formalized by the High-Performance 
Computing Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194). This Act established a 
multi-agency program of research and authorized appropriations 
for Fiscal Years 1992 through 1996 at six agencies: NSF, NASA, 
DOE, the Department of Commerce (NIST and NOAA), EPA, and the 
Department of Education.
    More recently, the 105th Congress authorized the Next 
Generation Internet (NGI) program (P.L. 105-305), which amended 
the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. The goals of the 
NGI program are threefold: to promote experimental research 
into advanced network technologies; to establish a network 
testbed that will increase network speed and capacity; and to 
link the missions of federal agencies with the needs of 
universities, laboratories, and industry through revolutionary 
applications. P.L. 105-305 authorizes a total of $142 million 
for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 at DOE, NSF, the National 
Institutes of health (NIH), NASA, and NIST.
    The President's Information Technology Advisory Committee 
(PITAC), established pursuant to the High-Performance Computing 
Act of 1991, recently looked at a number of issues in high-
performance computing and communications research and, in 
February 1999, issued Information Technology Research: An 
Investment in Our Future. In general, PITAC concluded that U.S. 
leadership in IT provides an essential foundation for promoting 
economic growth, education and research, environmental 
stewardship, public health, and national security. It also 
concluded that support for long-term fundamental research in IT 
has eroded and that current research is too focused on near-
term problems linked to agency missions.
    To address these and other issues, PITAC recommended the 
Federal Government develop a strategic initiative for long-term 
R&D;, fund projects for longer periods, establish an effective 
structure for managing and coordinating R&D;, and increase 
spending $1.4 billion by Fiscal Year 2004.
    As part of its Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request, the 
Administration proposed a $366 million research initiative--
Information Technology for the 21st Century, or IT2. 
As envisaged, the program would support activities in three 
areas: long-term IT research; advanced computing for science, 
engineering, and the Nation; and research on the economic and 
social implications of the Information Revolution. The 
Administration's IT2 request represented a 28 
percent increase in IT research at six agencies: the Department 
of Defense (DOD), DOE, NASA, NIH, NOAA, and NSF. In addition, 
the Administration proposed an increase of $89 million for HPCC 
separate from IT2. For Civilian IT research 
overall--including HPCC and IT2--the Administration 
proposed a $455 million increase from Fiscal Year 1999.
    The Administration proposal did not address fully the need 
for increased basic IT research. Specifically, IT2 
was a one-year request without a long-term commitment to 
funding. As the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) April 1999 
Memorandum ``Current Investment in the Information Technology 
Sector: Statistical Background'' points out, the Administration 
has not yet formulated funding proposals for the years beyond 
2000. In fact, the total budget proposed by the Administration 
for each of the civilian technology agencies that would fund 
the President's initiative would remain flat or decline in 
those years. In addition, the Administration's proposal 
provided a large share of the 2000 funding to the DOE, which 
has shifted much of its research funding to applied research. 
According to the CBO Memorandum, in 1986 the ratio of applied 
vs. basic IT research spending at DOE was five-to-one basic 
research; by 1996 DOE spent $187 million on applied IT research 
but only $14 million on basic IT research, a ration of 13-to-
one. In light of the PITAC report, the selection of DOE for a 
large share of the new funding seems inappropriate.
    On June 9, 1999, Committee on Science Chairman F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. and the late Ranking Minority Member George 
Brown introduced H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information 
Technology Research and Development Act (NITRD), which is 
intended to meet the needs identified by PITAC while addressing 
the shortcoming of IT2. NITRD is a five-year 
authorization bill that would amend the High-Performance 
Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5503) and reinvigorate basic 
research programs in IT under the jurisdiction of the Science 
Committee. This bipartisan legislation was introduced with 24 
additional co-sponsors.

                        IV. Summary of Hearings

    On October 6, 1998, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held 
a hearing on high-performance computing and information 
technology. Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee were: 
Dr. Ken Kennedy, Co-Chair of PITAC; Dr. Neal Lane, Assistant to 
the President for Science and Technology and Director, Office 
of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); Dr. Joseph Bordogna, 
Deputy Director, NSF; Dr. Edward Lazowska, Professor and Chair, 
Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington; and 
Dr. Joe Thompson, William L. Giles Distinguished Professor of 
Aerospace Engineering, Mississippi State University.
    Dr. Kennedy summarized the findings and recommendations of 
PITAC's Interim Report. He testified that the principal finding 
of the report was that there has been a pronounced shift 
infederal funding away from long-term, high-risk projects and toward 
short-term, applied and mission-related research in the last decade. He 
noted that while there has been explosive growth in the size of the IT 
endeavor as a proportion of the economy, federal funding has grown at 
about the rate of inflation. In addition to its importance to the 
economy, IT is critical to solving problems in business, science, 
medicine, and education.
    Dr. Kennedy said the shift away from fundamental research 
needs to be reversed if we are to preserve the Nation's 
economic leadership in the coming decade. The PITAC Interim 
Report listed a number of areas that would benefit from the 
increased support, including: secure, robust, and reliable 
software; scalable information infrastructure; high-end 
computing and communications; and sociological and economic 
impacts and workforce impacts of IT.
    Dr. Lane began his testimony by noting that the Nation's 
security, health care, education, and environment all depend on 
our ability to master the power of IT. IT is an industry that 
requires constant innovation tightly linked to IT research 
begun decades earlier. He said that the Administration agrees 
with many of PITAC's findings and is working to address their 
recommendations. Under OSTP, an interagency team has been 
assembled to respond to PITAC's advice and to build on the 
foundation of interagency coordination that began with the HPCC 
Program.
    Dr. Bordogna said that the U.S.'s commanding lead in IT was 
the result of a partnership among government, industry, and 
academia. R&D; conducted by private firms is almost entirely 
focused on products and activities that yield short-term 
payoffs. The PITAC report sets out a plan for more long-term 
research and recommends that NSF play a lead coordinating role. 
Dr. Bordogna said NSF can and should play a strong role, but 
contended that any IT partnership could only proceed through 
consensus, trust, and close cooperation among participating 
agencies. He outlines three priorities for NSF in IT: (1) 
fundamental, high-risk research, including software, scalable 
infrastructure, and high-end computing; (2) competitive access 
to high-end computing and networking; and (3) education at all 
levels.
    Dr. Lazowska testified that IT is more than high-
performance computing. He said that the Science Committee has 
demonstrated an awareness of four things: (1) computing enables 
all of science and engineering; (2) sustaining the Nation's 
science effort requires more than just buying hardware and 
cable--investment computing and computational research is 
needed; (3) there is more to IT than enabling other fields of 
study--computing science and engineering are disciplines of 
their own; and (4) a broad-based research program is required 
to support these other goals. The PITAC report says that to 
advance computer science, engineering, and communications 
requires investment in research in those areas closely coupled 
to the demands of applications. He said that the PITAC has five 
bottom-line messages: (1) leadership in IT is critical; (2) the 
return on past IT research has been spectacular; (3) current 
federal support for IT is inadequate; (4) the focus has been 
too much on short-term problems; and (5) critical problems are 
going unsolved.
    Dr. Thompson also endorsed the PITAC Interim Report and 
made two general points: (1) we have neglected to fund software 
research to the same degree as we fund hardware acquisitions; 
and (2) we are reaping the fruits of last decade's research 
while we have neglected research this decade. He noted that 
government and academia are not the only sectors using high-
performance computing; industry is now a big user. He added 
that we cannot allow other nations to exceed our capabilities 
and that more powerful machines do not increase capability 
proportionally until software suitable to the hardware is 
developed.
    On Tuesday, March 16, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic 
Research held a hearing on the Administration's ``Information 
Technology for the 21st Century'' initiative, better known as 
IT\2\. Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee were: Dr. 
Neal Lane, Assistant to the President for Science and 
Technology, and Director, OSTP; Dr. Ken Kennedy, Co-Chair, 
PITAC and Director, Center for Research on Parallel 
Computation, Rice University; Dr. Erich Bloch, President, 
Washington Advisory Group and Distinguished Fellow, Council on 
Competitiveness; Dr. Stephen Wolff, Executive Director, 
Advanced Internet Initiatives Division, Cisco Systems; Dr. Fred 
Hausheer, Chairman and CEO, BioNumerick Pharmaceuticals; and 
Dr. Hal R. Varian, Dean, School of Information Management, 
University of California, Berkeley.
    Dr. Lane testifies that the Administration focused on IT 
research in the Fiscal Year 2000 R&D; budget for three central 
reasons: (1) IT has become a key driver of the economy; (2) IT 
is essential for achieving some of our most overarching public 
goals; and (3) federal investment in fundamental IT research is 
essential to provide the reservoir of ideas that will lead to 
IT innovations in the generations to come. The President's IT 
\2\ initiative, which would provide $366 million in new funding 
at six agencies (DOD, DOE, NASA, NIH, NOAA, and NSF), is a 
direct response to the PITAC's recommendation for increased 
federal support of fundamental, long-term IT research. Ideally, 
additional incremental investments would be needed over the 
next 5 years, but until the funding issues surrounding Social 
Security, Medicare and the budget surplus are resolved, the 
picture for the outyears of the IT\2\ initiative remains 
uncertain, he said.
    Dr. Lane described the three elements comprising IT\2\: (1) 
long-term fundamental research aimed at fundamental advances in 
computing and communications; (2) advanced computing 
infrastructure as a tool to facilitate important scientific and 
engineering discoveries of national interest; and (3) expanded 
research into social, economic, and workforce impacts of 
information technology, including transformation of social 
institutions, impact of legislation and regulation, electronic 
commerce, barriers to information technology diffusion, and 
effective use of technology in education.
    Dr. Kennedy summarized PITAC's principal finding, noting 
that there has been a pronounced shift in federal IT programs 
away from long-term high-risk projects toward short-term, 
applied research linked to mission agencies. It is PITAC's view 
that unless this shift away from fundamental high-risk research 
is reversed, it will threaten the Nation's economic leadership, 
along with the continued beneficial effects on the health and 
welfare of its citizens. PITAC recommended four areas requiring 
greater research: (1) software; (2) scalable information 
infrastructure; (3) high-end computing; and (4) social, 
economic, and workforce implications. In addition, PITAC 
recommended developing a strategic initiative for long-term 
R&D;, funding projects for longer periods, establishing an 
effective structure for managing and co-ordinating R&D;, and 
increasing spending by $1.4 billion by Fiscal Year 2004.
    Dr. Erich Bloc summarized the findings of a recent National 
Research Council report, Funding a Revolution: Government 
Support for Computing Research. He noted that the history of 
federal investment in information technology research is full 
of examples of research that would never have been done--and 
discoveries that could never have been made--if it had been 
left to the private sector alone. This research has generated 
an information revolution that has impacted not only science 
and research, but also the economy, education, and health. Dr. 
Bloc agreed with PITAC that there is an increased need for 
research to address the challenges of an evolving information 
infrastructure and to ensure its continued development and he 
supported the government's continuing role in supporting basic 
IT research.
    Dr. Wolff testified that Cisco strongly supports the 
principal findings of PITAC and the Administration's response 
to its recommendations. The proposed long-term research in 
``deeply networked systems'' will support and complement 
nascent industry initiatives in Electronic Persistent 
Presence--ubiquitous, very large-scale, and permanent Internet 
connectivity. The IT \2\ thrust in modeling and simulation also 
will support this massive growth. However, he also advocated a 
research thrust related to cryptography within both the 
software and the socio-economic areas. IT \2\'s sub-programs on 
economic and social implications and on workforce development 
complement and support industry activities.
    Dr. Hausheer discussed the importance of IT to biomedical 
research. The successful application of IT to NIH programs is 
critical to using the vast amount of genomic and biological 
information generated by the human genome project to benefit 
patients. Saving more lives, reducing health care costs, 
compressing the time to discover new and better drugs, making 
biomedical education more effective, and maintaining the U.S. 
leadership in this field should be goals of the IT \2\ 
initiative. Specifically, Dr. Hausheer said NIH's IT goals 
should include: (1) on-site supercomputing capability advanced 
in the near term to multi-teraflops, and ultimately petaflop 
capability; (2) dedicated biomedical IT training and research 
program for physicians and scientists; (3) dedicated NIH 
software development on-site with laboratory validation of 
simulations; (4) avoid ``off-the-shelf, just as fast, but 
cheaper'' computing research projects; and (5) greater IT-
biomedical research representation on PITAC.
    Dr. Varian spoke to the socio-economic aspects of the IT 
\2\ proposal. Basic IT research has had, and will continue to 
have, a major impact on our economy and society, but it also 
will have a significant impact on law, education, commerce, 
organizations, and communities. Policy choices made now, such 
as definition of technological and legal standards, will be 
with us of a long time, and attention must be paid not only to 
their technological merit, but also their social and economic 
impact. Understanding the social and economic consequences of 
our technological choices is vitally important in achieving the 
full potential of advances in IT.
    On July 1, 1999, the Subcommittee on Technology held a 
hearing on ``The Networking and Information Technology Research 
and Development Act of 1999.'' Witnesses appearing before the 
Subcommittee were: Dr. William Destler, Interim Vice President 
for University Advancement, University of Maryland; Ms. Laura 
Allbritten, Director of Tax, PeopleSoft, Inc.; and Mr. Kevin 
Hassett, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.
    Dr. Destler testified that the United States corporate 
sector has been steadily reducing its expenditures on medium- 
and long-term R&D; to remain price competitive with companies 
abroad. He stated that this is especially true in the areas of 
computer networking, encryption, and information technology due 
to the intense competition for expanding world markets. 
Compounding these problems is the fact U.S. corporate demand 
for IT professionals currently far outstrips supply, thereby 
raising IT labor costs and limiting corporate expansion even 
when opportunities for growth are strong. Dr. Destler stated 
that for the United States to maintain its position of global 
leadership in these critical areas, it is essential that H.R. 
2086 become law.
    Ms. Allbritten testified that making the existing R&D; tax 
credit permanent serves the Nation's long term economic 
interests. She argued that by eliminating uncertainty over the 
credit's future, a permanent extension would allow R&D; 
performing businesses to make important long-term business 
decisions regarding research spending and investment. 
Furthermore, by creating an environment favorable to private 
sector R&D; investment through the permanent extension, jobsand 
economic value would remain in the United States. She concluded by 
stating that the R&D; tax credit is essential for the United States 
economy for its industries to compete globally.
    Mr. Hassett testified the R&D; is a classic example of an 
activity that has external benefits; when a firm uncovers 
something new, the knowledge will ultimately help some other 
firm perform its own R&D.; Therefore, the benefits to society of 
R&D; are likely to be higher than the benefits to individual 
firms doing the research, since these firms tend to look only 
at their own payoffs. Without the R&D; tax credit, it is likely 
that there would be relatively little long-term R&D.; Mr. 
Hassett continued by stating that the current situation where 
the R&D; credit is continually renewed exposes firms to a great 
deal of uncertainty, leading them to respond with less R&D; than 
they might otherwise perform. He cited a Coopers and Lybrand 
report which estimated that a permanent credit would stimulate 
an additional $41 billion of R&D; spending between 1998-2010, 
but would produce more than $58 billion worth of new goods over 
this same period, and thus pay for itself.
    On Wednesday, July 14, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic 
Research held a hearing on H.R. 2086, ``The Networking and 
Information Technology Research and Development Act.'' 
Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee were: Dr. Neal 
Lane, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, 
and Director, OSTP; Dr. Roberta Katz, President and CEO, 
Technology Network (TechNet); Dr. Edward D. Lazowska, Professor 
and Chair, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, 
University of Washington and Chair, Computing Research 
Association; and Mr. Alan Blatecky, Vice President for 
Information Technology, MCNC.
    Dr. Lane testified that the Administration strongly 
supports the aims of H.R. 2086 but believes there are areas 
where bill could be improved. These include: (1) including DOD 
and NIH in the proposed legislation; (2) providing funding for 
DOE's Scientific Simulation Initiative, including terascale 
computing infrastructure; (3) providing increased funding for 
DOE's base advanced mathematics and computation programs; (4) 
funding the NIST at the requested level for Fiscal Year 2000; 
and (5) incorporating all of the NOAA's IT programs in H.R. 
2086. In addition, the Administration also is concerned about a 
provision in H.R. 2086 calling for the NSF to conduct a study 
to assess foreign encryption technologies and domestic 
technologies subject to export restriction. The Administration 
supports the bill's provision making the R&D; tax credit 
permanent, but takes the position that it must be paid for per 
the PAYGO requirements of the Budget Enforcement Act.
    Dr. Katz began at stating that TechNet has adopted 
strengthening the Nation's federal investment in basic IT R&D; 
and enacting a permanent R&D; tax credit as top priorities. H.R. 
2086 is an important first step in achieving consistent 
increases in federal support for critical IT research programs. 
She noted TechNet appreciates the bill's reliance on the 
recommendations of PITAC. In particular, TechNet supports H.R. 
2086's emphasis on fundamental IT research. TechNet also 
supports the bill's provisions on the large-scale IT grants and 
internship programs and completion of the NGI program. Dr. Katz 
also agreed that NSF was the appropriate agency to run the 
terascale computing competition. She concluded by noting that 
the five-year authorizations in the bill demonstrate a 
commitment to a continued strong federal investment in basic IT 
research and by relaying TechNet's strong support for permanent 
extension of the R&D; tax credit.
    Dr. Lazowska praised the bill, saying that it exemplifies a 
sound approach to making research policy by responding to clear 
national needs with recognizable objectives and setting forth a 
well defined program for meeting them. Concerning the 
legislation, Dr. Lazowska made three mainpoints: (1) H.R. 2086 
expands fundamental research in targeted critical areas and sustains 
successful interagency programs with multi-year funding; (2) H.R. 2086 
strengthens the federal role in long-term IT research, a role that 
industry cannot be expected to assume; and (3) H.R. 2086 appropriately 
increases support for NSF, the agency with the broadest role in 
computing research and infrastructure. Concerning the current 
environment, he said: (1) NSF is undertaking a thorough planning 
process to maximize the benefits of IT research for all of science and 
engineering, and for all of society; (2) expanding the federal 
investment in information technology research is widely supported by 
the scientific community; and (3) the impact of IT on society and the 
economy clearly demonstrates the need for and timeliness of the NITRD 
Act. Dr. Lazowska also signified his support for having NSF conduct the 
terascale computing competition.
    Mr. Blatecky noted the importance of IT to the Nation's 
economy and talked about the impact IT has had on the economy 
of North Carolina. He also noted the importance of a national 
grid of communication and computing resources and said that the 
technology development cycle does not address the equally 
important issues of scalability, long term basic research in 
networking and computing, software development, human 
interfaces, network security, information and training. H.R. 
2086 directly address these needs through three key provisions: 
(1) long-term basic research grants for high end computing and 
networking; (2) provision of 20 to 30 large focused grants by 
NSF; and (3) establishment of eight to ten IT research centers. 
In addition, he supported the establishment of a scientific 
internship program to encourage and develop an effective 
mechanism to link the private sector with the universities and 
community colleges that will broaden the educational experience 
of students and create a more effective way to transfer 
technology.

                          V. Committee Actions

    As summarized above, the Subcommittee on Basic Research of 
the Committee on Science heard testimony relevant to NITRD at 
hearings held on October 6, 1998 and on March 16 and July 14, 
1999, and the Subcommittee on Technology heard testimony at a 
hearing held on July 1, 1999.
    On April 26, 1999, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI), 
Chairman of the Committee on Science, and the late Congressman 
George Brown (CA), joined by 24 other co-sponsors, introduced 
H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information Technology Research 
and Development Act, a bill to authorize appropriations for six 
agencies networking and information technology R&D; for Fiscal 
Year 2000 through 2004.
    The Full Science Committee met to consider H.R. 2086 on 
Thursday, September 9, 1999, and entertained the following 
amendments and report language.
    Amendment 1.--Mrs. Biggert (IL) offered an en bloc 
amendment: (1) to increase the Fiscal Year 2000 authorization 
for DOE by $6 million and to reduce the authorization for NSF 
by $6 million; and (2) to ensure that federally-funded research 
and development centers (FERDCs) could compete in the NSF 
terascale computing competition authorized in the bill. The 
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendments 2 and 3.--A Unanimous consent request was 
granted to offer Amendments 2 and 3 en bloc. Ms. Johnson (TX) 
offered the en bloc amendment: (1) to include language on the 
economic and social consequences of IT; and (2) to amend 
language on the internship program authorized in the bill to 
allow the participation of NSF's Advanced Technology Education 
andLouis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participating programs. 
The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 4.--Mr. Doyle (PA) offered an en bloc amendment: 
(1) to provide that awards made through the terascale computing 
competition cover base operating expenses; and (2) to provide 
that the terascale computing competition be nationwide and that 
awardees may include consortia. The amendment was adopted by 
voice vote.
    Amendment 5.--Ms. Woolsey (CA) offered an amendment to 
establish a research program at NSF that would develop, 
demonstrate, assess, and disseminate effective applications of 
IT for elementary and secondary education. The amendment was 
adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 6.--Mr. Wu (OR) offered an amendment to allow NSF 
to arrange with the National Research Council for a study on 
Internet privacy. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 7.--Mr. Doyle (PA) offered an amendment to 
transfer authorized funding from NSF to DOE to raise the DOE 
authorization to the level proposed in the IT 2 
initiative, except for terascale infrastructure acquisitions. 
The amendment was withdrawn.
    Amendment 8.--Capuano (MA) offered an amendment to require 
from the Comptroller General a study on the impact of Fiscal 
Year 2000 appropriations on IT research. The amendment was 
adopted by voice vote.
    Report Language.--Mr. Doyle (PA) offered report language 
encouraging public-private partnerships to increase use of 
underutilized supercomputing facilities. The report language 
was adopted by voice vote.
    Report Language.--Mr. Baird (WA) offered report language 
encouraging the use of new computing architectures, including 
Multi-Thread Architecture. The report language was adopted by 
voice vote.
    Report Language.--Mr. Udall (CO) offered report language 
stressing the importance of including physics, mathematics, 
chemistry, engineering, and other fields of science in the IT 
research effort. The report language was adopted by voice vote.
    Report Language.--Mr. Smith (MI) offered report language 
urging NSF to make available on the Internet the results of the 
research carried out under the Networking and Information 
Technology Research program authorized under the bill. The 
report language was adopted by voice vote.
    With a quorum present, Ms. Johnson moved that the Committee 
report the bill, H.R. 2086, as amended, to the House, that the 
staff prepare the legislative report and make technical and 
conforming changes, and that the Chairman take all necessary 
steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration. the 
motion was approved by a recorded vote of 41 to 0.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner asked and received unanimous consent that 
Committee Members have two subsequent calendar days in which to 
submit supplemental, minority or additional views on the 
measure, and that, pursuant to Clause 1 of rule XXII of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee authorize 
the Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the 
House to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 2086 or a 
similar Senate bill.

              VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

    For Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004, H.R. 2086 authorizes a 
total of $4,768.7 million for the six agencies participating in 
the HPCC, NGI, and new NITRD programs. Over the five 
years,these authorizations represent a 92 percent increase in IT 
funding for the agencies under the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Science. Total funding authorizations by agency and program are as 
follows:
           $2,951.1 million for NSF, including:
                   $130 million for large grants of up 
                to $1 million for high-end computing, software, 
                and networking research;
                   $220 million for information 
                technology research centers;
                   $385 million for terascale 
                computing;
                   $95 million for universities to 
                establish internship programs for research at 
                private companies;
                   $56 million for educational 
                technology research; and
                   $50 million for the NGI program;
           $602.2 million for DOE (including $30 
        million for the NGI program);
           $1,048.4 million for NASA (including $20 
        million for the NGI program);
           $73 million NIST (including $11 million for 
        the NGI program);
           $71.7 million NOAA; and
           $22.3 million for EPA.
Table 1 provides a detailed summary of the authorizations in 
H.R. 2086.

                                      TABLE 1.--THE NETWORKING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT
                                                                [In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          NITRD
                                  HPCC/NGI FY     HPCC/NGI/IT  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Activity/Agency          1999 enacted     \2\ FY 2000      FY 2000        FY 2001        FY 2002        FY 2003        FY 2004         Total
                                                    request     authorization  authorization  authorization  authorization  authorization  authorization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          HPCC/NITRD
NSF:
    Total Grants..............           151.2           269.3         310.0          333.0          352.0          390.0          415.0        1,800.0
                               =========================================================================================================================
        Individual/Team Grants           151.2           293.3         240.0          258.0          257.0          290.0          310.0        1,355.0
        Large Grants..........             0.0             0.0           0.0           20.0           20.0           30.0           30.0          130.0
        IT Centers............             0.0            30.0          40.0           40.0           45.0           45.0           50.0          220.0
        Internships...........             0.0             0.0          10.0           15.0           20.0           25.0           25.0           95.0
    Education Technology                   0.0             0.0          10.0           10.5           11.0           12.0           12.5           56.0
     Research.................
    Other HPCC................           122.5           128.3         119.0          135.5          141.2          154.1          156.1          660.1
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NSF..............           273.7           397.5         439.0          468.5          493.2          544.1          571.3        2,516.1
                               =========================================================================================================================
NASA..........................            83.0           164.4         164.4          201.0          208.0          224.0          231.0        1,028.4
DOE...........................           110.8           140.8         106.6          103.5          107.0          125.7          129.4          572.2
NIST..........................            10.0             9.0           9.0            9.5           10.5           16.0           17.0           62.0
NOAA..........................            12.0            13.5          13.5           13.9           14.3           14.8           15.2           71.7
EPA...........................             4.0             4.2           4.2            4.3            4.5            4.6            4.7           22.3
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total HPCC/NITRD........           493.5           729.4         736.7          800.7          837.5          929.2          968.6        4,272.7
                               =========================================================================================================================
Terascale Computing:
    DOE.......................             0.0            29.4           0.0            0.0            0.0            0.0            0.0            0.0
    NSF.......................             0.0            36.0          70.0           70.0           80.0           80.0           85.0          385.0
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Terascale                     0.0            65.4          70.0           70.0           80.0           80.0           85.0          385.0
       Computing..............
                               =========================================================================================================================
NGI:
    NSF.......................            25.0        \1\ 25.0    \1\ [25.0]           25.0           25.0            0.0            0.0       \2\ 50.0
    NASA......................            10.0        \1\ 10.0      \1\ 10.0           10.0           10.0            0.0            0.0       \2\ 20.0
    DOE.......................            15.0        \1\ 14.6     \1\ [25.0           15.0           15.0            0.0            0.0       \2\ 30.0
    NIST......................             5.0         \1\ 5.2       \1\ 7.5            5.5            5.5            0.0            0.0       \2\ 11.0
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NGI..............            55.0        \1\ 54.8    \1\ [67.5]           55.5           55.5            0.0            0.0      \2\ 111.0
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Totals, excluding FY               548.5       \2\ 794.9     \2\ 806.7          926.2          973.0        1,009.2        1,053.6    \2\ 4,768.7
       2000 NGI...............
      Totals, including FY               548.5       \3\ 849.7     \3\ 874.2          926.2          973.0        1,009.2        1,053.6    \3\ 4,836.2
       2000 NGI...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NGI program for Fiscal Year 2000 is authorized under the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-305).
\2\ Total does not include NGI for Fiscal Year 2000, which is authorized under the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-305).
\3\ Total includes NGI for Fiscal Year 2000, which is authorized under the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-305).

    Other highlights of the bill include:
     New Large Research Grants--H.R. 2086 establishes a 
new pool of grant funding at NSF. The grants are limited to 
long-term, basic IT research with priority given to research 
that helps address issues related to high-end computing, 
software, social and economic consequences of IT, and network 
stability, security (including privacy) and scalability. All 
grants are required to be peer reviewed by panels that include 
private sector representatives.
     IT Research Centers--H.R. 2086 sets aside $220 
million for the establishment of IT centers of six or more 
researchers enter into multi-disciplinary collaborations for 
large-scale, long-term basic IT research projects.
     Education and Training--H.R. 2086 establishes a 
$95 million program to award grants (1) to colleges (including 
community colleges) to create for credit internships programs 
at IT companies and (2) to two-year colleges and fund NSF's 
Advanced Technology Education program to improve education in 
fields related to IT. To participate in the internship program, 
a company must commit to providing 50 percent of the cost of 
the internship.
     Hardware Acquisition--H.R. 2086 authorizes NSF to 
administer a terascale computing acquisition program. The 
program is authorized a total of $385 million to be allocated 
in an open competitions by NSF. Awardees must agree to 
integrate with the existing Advanced Partnership for Advanced 
Computational Infrastructure program and give access to NITRD 
research grant recipients.
     Tax Policy--H.R. 2086 makes the Research and 
Development Tax Credit permanent.
     Computer Security--H.R. 2086 requires NSF to 
research and report to Congress on the availability of 
encryption in foreign countries.

                    VII. Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Short title
    Cites the Act as the ``Networking and Information 
Technology Research and Development Act.''
Section 2. Finding
    The Congress finds that: (1) information technology will 
continue to change the way Americans live, learn, and work; (2) 
information technology is an important enabling technology, (3) 
the U.S. is the world leader in information technology; (4) 
information technology is a catalyst for economic growth; (5) 
information technology is the fastest growing sector for the 
U.S. economy; (6) information technology companies have 
accounted for about a third of the growth in the U.S. economy 
since 1992; (7) the information technology sector has been 
growing at 12.3 percent per year since 1993; (8) the 
information revolution is linked to fundamental research in 
information technology; (9) information technology research has 
created entirely new industries; (10) the social and economic 
consequences of IT need further research; (11) continued growth 
in information technology depends on research and a skilled 
workforce; (12) private industry provides most of the 
information technology research funding; (13) the private 
sector tends to focus on short-term research; (14) the Federal 
Government is positioned to support fundamental research; (15) 
federal applied research has growth at twice the rate of basic 
research since 1986; (16) federal programs must increase their 
emphasis on fundamental research; and (17) current federal 
support for long-term information technology research is 
inadequate.
Section 3. Authorization of appropriations
    Amends the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 to 
authorize a total of $4,272.7 million over Fiscal Year 2000 to 
2004 for six agencies participating in the National High-
Performance Computing (HPC) and National Research and Education 
Network programs. Specifically, it:
    (a) Amends section 201(b) to authorize a total of $2,516.1 
million for NSF over Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004.
    (b) Amends section 202(b) to authorize a total of $1,028.4 
million for NASA over Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004.
    (c) Amends section 203(e)(1) to authorize a total of $572.2 
million for DOE over Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004.
    (d) Amends section 204(d)(1) to authorize a total of $62.0 
million for NIST over Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004.
    (e) Amends section 204(d)(2) to authorize a total of $71.7 
million for NOAA over Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004.
    (f) Amends section 205(b) to authorize a total of $22.3 
million for EPA over Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004.
Section 4. Networking and information technology research and 
        development
    (a) NSF--Amends the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 
by adding the following new sections:
    ``(c) Networking and Information Technology Research and 
Development--(1) Authorizes, out of sums authorized for NSF in 
section 3, a total of $1,800.0 million over Fiscal Years 2000 
to 2004 for long-term, basic research grants into networking 
and information technology, including high-end computing, 
software, social and economic consequences of IT, and network 
fragility, security, and scalability. (2) Sets aside a total of 
$130 million over Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004 for large grants of 
up to 1.0 million each. (3) Sets aside a total of $220.0 
million over Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004 for Information 
Technology Research Centers, which shall be made up of groups 
of six of more researchers entering into multi-disciplinary 
collaborations for large-scale, long-term IT projects.
    ``(d) Major Research Equipment--(1) Authorizes a total of 
$385 million over Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004 to NSF to establish 
terascale computing capabilities at one or more sites and to 
promote diverse computer architectures. Awards made under this 
section shall provide for operating expenses. (2) Requires that 
grants be awarded through a nationwide, peer-reviewed 
competition, allows awardees to include consortia, and makes 
clear that FFRDCs may compete for these funds. (3) Requires 
that awardees must agree to connect to the existing partnership 
for Advanced Computational Infrastructure (PACI) network, co-
ordinate with other large-scale, federal-funded computing and 
simulation programs, and provide open access to all NITRD 
program grant recipients.
    ``(e) Information Technology Education and Training 
Grants--(1) Requires NSF to make grants to improve education in 
fields related to IT under the Advanced Technology Education 
program authorized in the Scientific and advanced Technology 
Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-476). (2) Authorizes NSF to establish 
information technology internship programs for research at 
private companies and to award supplementary grants through the 
Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation program. (3) 
Requires companies participating in the program to match at 
least 50 percent of the funding of the grant. (4) Defines 
institution of higher learning consistent with the Higher 
Education Act of 1965. (5) Authorizes, out of sums authorized 
for NSF in section 3, a total of $95.0 million over Fiscal 
years 2000 to 2004.
    ``(f) Educational Technology Research--(1) Requires NSF to 
establish a research program to develop, demonstrate, assess 
and disseminate effective applications for IT for elementary 
andsecondary education. (2) Requires that empirical studies use 
a wide variety of settings. (3) Authorizes, out of sums authorized for 
NSF in subsection (b), a total of $56 million over Fiscal Years 2000 to 
2004.
    ``(g) Peer Review--Requires that peer review panels have 
private-sector representation.''
    (b) Other Programs Agencies--Amends Title II--Agency 
Activities of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 to 
allow NASA, DOE, NIST, NOAA, and EPA to participate in or 
support the NSF research programs authorized under section 4 of 
NITRD.

Section 5. Next Generation Internet

    Amends section 103 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 
1991. (1) Adds the following new section:
    ``(c) Study of Internet Privacy--(1) Allows NSF to engage 
the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a study on 
Internet privacy. (2) Requires that such a study address 
privacy technology research, deployment, and policy, laws, and 
practices in other countries, federal legislation and 
regulation needed to ensure development of privacy 
technologies, and other relevant matters. (3) Requires NSF, if 
it goes forward with the study, to report to Congress on the 
results of the study within 21 months of enactment. (4) 
Requires federal agencies to cooperate with NRC in such a 
study. (5) Makes available, out of funds authorized in 
subsection (d)(2), $900,000 for such a study.''
    (2) Provides two-year authorizations for completion for the 
Next Generation Internet (NGI) programs. Authorizes a total of 
$111.0 million over Fiscal Year 2001 to 2002 for the four 
agencies participating in the program as follows: $30.0 million 
for DOE; $50.0 million for NSF; $20.0 million for NASA; and 
$11.0 million for NIST.

Section 6. Reporting requirements

    Amends section 101 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 
191 by (1) requiring the Advisory Committee established under 
the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 to provide to 
Congress not less than once every two years of report 
evaluating the funding, management, implementation, and 
activities of the HPC, NGI, and NITRD programs, and (2) 
requiring that the agencies include in their annual requests 
for appropriations to the Office of Management and Budget 
information on the NGI and NITRD programs in addition to the 
HPC program.

Section 7. Evaluation of capabilities of foreign encryption

    (a) Requires NSF to conduct a study on the availability of 
encryption technologies in foreign countries and how they 
compare with encryption technologies subject to export 
restrictions in the United States.
    (b) Requires NSF to transmit this report within 6 months 
after enactment.
Section 8. Research credit made permanent
    Amends Sections 41 and 45C(b) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 to make permanent the R&D; tax credit.
Section 9. Study of Appropriations Impact on Information Technology 
        Research
    Requires, within 90 days of enactment, the Comptroller 
General to report to Congress on the impact on IT research of 
the Fiscal Year 2000 appropriations for the following bills: 
the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development, and Independent Agencies; the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
Agencies and Energy and Water.

                         VIII. Committee Views

                                general

    Today, the United States is the undisputed global leader in 
computing and communications. A healthy information-technology 
industry is a critical component of U.S. economic and National 
security. IT represents one of the fastest growing sectors of 
the U.S economy. Between 1993 and 1997, the IT sector grew at 
an annual rate of 12 percent. And since 1992, one-third of U.S. 
economic growth has come from businesses producing computers, 
semiconductors, software, and communications equipment.
    Fundamental IT research has played an essential role in 
fueling the Information Revolution and creating new industries 
and millions of new, high-paying jobs. The Committee believes 
that maintaining the Nation's global leadership in information 
technology will require keeping open the pipeline of new ideas, 
technologies, and innovations that flow from fundamental 
research. Although the private sector provides the lion's share 
of the research funding, its spending tends to focus on short-
term, applied work. The Federal Government, therefore, has a 
critical role to play in supporting the long-term, basic 
research the private sector requires but is ill-suited to 
pursue.
    However, as the Congressionally-chartered PITAC noted in 
its recent report, Information Technology Research: Investing 
in Our Future, the emphasis of federal IT research programs in 
recent years has shifted from long-term, high-risk research to 
short-term, mission-orientated research--a trend that began in 
1986, but that has accelerated over the last six years. PITAC 
concluded that current federal support for fundamental research 
in information technology is inadequate to maintain the 
Nation's global leadership in this area, and it advocated a 
five-year initiative that would increase significantly basic IT 
research funding.
    It is the Committee's view that PITAC has made a compelling 
case for increasing funding for basic IT research. H.R. 2086 
provides long-term funding and a comprehensive research agenda 
for the agencies under the Committee's jurisdiction. Further, 
the Committee believes that, given the bill's emphasis on basic 
research, NSF should play a major role. Most of the newly 
authorized funding, therefore, is provided for research 
programs at NSF.
    PITAC also made specific recommendations about the mix of 
research. H.R. 2086 has responded by designing a new research 
program at NSF--the Networking and InformationTechnology 
Research and Development program. This program establishes funds for 
large team and individual grants of up to $1.0 million, IT research 
center grants of up to $5 million, for-credit internships programs at 
universities and community colleges, education technology research, and 
terascale computing. The Committee agrees with PITAC that, while 
funding for individual investigators remains important, funding team 
research, centers, and interdisciplinary projects can lead to dramatic 
progress and create a broader research community. This initiative and 
the other initiatives in the bill represent a major commitment to 
revitalizing long-term, fundamental IT research that will keep the 
Nation at the cutting edge of science and technology.

                    Terascale Computing Competition

    H.R. 2086 authorizes $385 million for NSF to establish one 
or more terascale supercomputing centers. The Committee did not 
include funding authorizations in the bill for a similar 
competition at DOE, which was requested by the Administration 
as part of its IT \2\ proposal. Recent General Accounting 
Office (GAO) testimony and reports \1\ have cast doubt on DOE's 
ability to run an effective competition and research program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``Department of Energy: Problems in the Management and Use of 
Supercomputers,'' Statement for the Record by Susan D. Kladiva, 
Associate Director, Energy, Resources, and Social Science Issues, 
Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division, GAO (GAO/RCED-
99-257), July 14, 1999; Information Technology: Department of Energy 
Does Not Effectively Manage Its Supercomputers, GAO (GAO/RCED-98-208), 
July 1998; Nuclear Weapons: DOE Needs to Improve Oversight of the $5 
billion Strategic Computing Initiative, GAO (GAO/RCED-99-195), June 
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As important, the Committee is satisfied that NSF is more 
than capable of conducting the competition. Indeed, NSF's PACI 
centers have done a credible job of bringing together 
universities, industry, and the national laboratories in 
fruitful partnerships. Open access also is important. The 
Committee believes that the vBNS and Abilene networks to the 
PACI machines provide better nationwide access than DOE's 
ESNet. Moreover, running the competition out of one agency will 
improve program coordination and efficiency.
    The Committee, nevertheless, recognizes that the national 
laboratories possess intellectual resources that can contribute 
to the Nation's IT effort. Therefore, H.R. 2086 includes 
language allowing the national laboratories and other FFRDCs to 
participate in the terascale computing competition.

                        Computing Architectures

    The Committee acknowledges the critical role of high-
performance computers to Federal Government missions such as 
cryptology, nuclear weapons testing and monitoring, data 
mining, etc. The Committee recognizes that the Massively 
Parallel (MP) approach to high performance computing, used in 
many areas of the Federal Government, has been an effective 
architecture for many mission areas.
    However, the Committee remains concerned over performance 
limitations inherent in the MP approach and agrees with PITAC's 
assessment that alternative architectures must be pursued with 
federal funding in order to meet current and future 
computationally-intensive challenges.
    Accordingly, the Committee included in section 4 of the 
bill a requirement for NSF to promote diverse computing 
architectures in developing terascale computing capabilities. 
TheCommittee is aware of recent breakthroughs in the Multi-
Thread Architecture and encourages that the most promising high 
performance computing architectures be explored for providing the 
terascale computing capability required to address the most challenging 
computational problems in science and engineering.

                 terascale supercomputing capabilities

    The Committee supports the goal of sustaining and 
increasing federal participation and support for high-end 
supercomputing research, including the procurement of major 
research equipment. The intent of the Committee is to encourage 
high-end supercomputing that is national in impact, respects 
the existing diversity in supercomputing architectures, and 
efficiently mobilizes resources across the U.S. supercomputing 
community. The Committee expects NSF to encourage 
collaborations and consortia among existing major supercomputer 
centers in the competition for terascale computing equipment. 
Partnerships are to be encouraged among centers, both members 
and non-members in NSF's PACI, in an effort to mobilize 
resources that have been underutilized.

                     multidisciplinary it research

    Advances at the cutting edge in information technology are 
in turn dependent on new developments in various fields of 
science, mathematics, and engineering. This is especially true 
for terascale computing which is pushing the limits of our 
knowledge in various aspects of physics, mathematics, 
chemistry, and engineering. Basic and applied research in each 
of these disciplines will be required if the goals of this 
legislation are to be met. Therefore, it is imperative that the 
research program anticipated under this legislation include 
support for fundamental research in pertinent areas of science, 
mathematics, and engineering which are related to the goals of 
the information technology initiative.

              disseminating the results of nitrd research

    H.R. 2086 recognizes the importance of basic IT research as 
a catalyst for economic growth and prosperity. IT represents 
one of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. economy and 
provides millions of good, high-paying jobs. The Nation's 
future economic success will depend in part on our ability to 
stay at the cutting edge of technology. Transferring the 
knowledge gained through H.R. 2086 to the private sector is, 
therefore, vitally important. To ensure that the fruits of this 
research are available to the private sector and to other 
researchers, the Committee expects NSF to make accessible 
through its Internet home page, to the greatest extent 
possible, the results of the research funded through the NITRD 
program authorized under this Act.

                      IX. Committee Cost Estimate

    Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(2) 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 that would be incurred in 
carrying out such bill or joint resolution in the Fiscal Year 
in that it is reported, and in each of the five Fiscal Years 
following such Fiscal Year (or for the authorized duration of 
any program authorized by such bill or joint resolution, if 
less than five 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 
practical, a comparison of the total estimated funding level 
for the relevant program (or programs) with the appropriate 
levels under current law. However, House Rule XIII, clause 
3(d)(3)(B) 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 House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3). 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 is included in Section X of this report pursuant to 
House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
    Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2) of the House of Representatives 
requires each committee report that accompanies a measure 
providing new budget authority (other than continuing 
appropriations), new spending authority, or new credit 
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures to 
contain a cost estimate, as required by section 308(a)(1) of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and, when practicable 
with respect to estimates of new budget authority, a comparison 
of the total estimated funding level for the relevant program 
(or programs) to the appropriate levels under current law. H.R. 
2086 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. 
2086 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, September 21, 1999.
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. 2086, the 
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development 
Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kathleen 
Gramp.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2086--Networking and Information Technology Research and 
        Development Act

    Summary: H.R. 2086 would authorize appropriations for 
research and development (R&D;) on information technology and 
reinstate the expired research and experimentation tax credit. 
The bill would authorize funding for both new and ongoing 
activities of the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department 
of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
Department of Commerce, and Environmental Protection Agency. 
The authorization for high-performance computing programs would 
extend from fiscal years 2000 through 2004, while the 
authorization for R&D; on a next-generation Internet would 
extend from fiscal year 2001 through 2002. In addition, the 
bill would direct the Comptroller General to submit a report 
within 90 days of enactment of the impact of information 
technology research funded by certain appropriation acts for 
fiscal year 2000.
    CBO estimates that appropriating the amounts authorized by 
H.R. 2086 would result in discretionary spending totaling $3.7 
billion over the 2000-2004 period. The Joint Committee on 
Taxation (JCT) estimates that extending the research and 
experimentation tax credit would reduce governmental receipts 
by $1.6 billion in 2000, $10.7 billion over the 2000-2004 
period, and $26.3 billion over the 2000-2009 period. Because 
the legislation would affect receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures 
would apply. H.R. 2086 contains no intergovernmental or 
private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 2086 is shown in the following table. 
The discretionary costs of this legislation fall within budget 
functions 250 (general science, space,and technology), 300 
(natural resources and the environment), 370 (commerce and housing 
credit), and 40 (transportation).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            By fiscal years, in millions of dollars--
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1999       2000       2001       2002       2003       2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending Under Current Law:
    Budget Authority/Authorization Level 1....        551         68          0          0          0          0
    Estimated Outlays.........................        522        348         99         25          7          1
Proposed Changes:
    Authorization Level.......................          0        807        926        973      1,009      1,054
    Estimated Outlays.........................          0        276        698        860        931        981
Spending Under H.R. 2086:
    Authorization Level 1.....................        551        875        926        973      1,009      1,054
    Estimated Outlays.........................        522        624        797        885        938        982

                                               CHANGES IN REVENUES

Estimated Revenues............................          0     -1,603     -1,793     -2,153     -2,454     -2,676
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The 1999 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the information technology R&D; programs included
  in H.R. 2086. The fiscal year 2000 level includes the amount authorized under current law for the next-
  generation Internet programs covered by this bill.

Sources: Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation.

    Basis of estimate: For purposes of this estimate, CBO 
assumes that the amounts authorized in the bill will be 
appropriated by the start of each fiscal year and that outlays 
will follow the historical spending patterns for such 
activities. The outlay estimates are drive by trends at NSF, 
which accounts for about 60 percent of the funding authorized 
by the bill. CBO estimates that the General Accounting Office 
would spend less than $125,000 to prepare the study on research 
funded in fiscal year 2000, assuming appropriation of the 
necessary amounts.
    This bill also would make the research and experimentation 
taxation credit permanent as of June 30, 1999, the date on 
which it expired. JCT estimates that this extension would 
reduce federal tax receipts by a total of $26.3 billion over 
the next 10 years. This estimate assumes that H.R. 2086 is 
enacted by October 1, 1999.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures 
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. The net 
changes in governmental receipts that are subject to pay-as-
you-go procedures are shown in the following table. For the 
purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the 
effects in the current year, the budget year, and the 
succeeding four years are counted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              By fiscal years, in millions of dollars--
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              1999      2000      2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008      2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays........................                                                  Not applicable
Changes in receipts.......................         0    -1,603    -1,793    -2,153    -2,454    -2,676    -2,830    -2,972    -3,120    -3,276    -3,440
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2086 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments. Some of the funds authorized in the bill 
would be used for internships and research at academic 
institutions, including public universities.
    Estimate prepared by: Kathleen Gramp.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                  XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H.R. 2086 contains no unfunded mandates.

         XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1) 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

    Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(4) of the House of Representatives 
requires each committee report to contain a summary of the 
oversight findings and recommendations made by the House 
Committee on Government Reform 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.

                XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement

    Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) 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. 2086.

                XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    H.R. 2086 does not establish, nor authorize the 
establishment of, any advisory committee.

                 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act

    The Committee finds that H.R. 2086 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(e) 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):

                HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING ACT OF 1991

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



   TITLE I--HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING AND THE NATIONAL RESEARCH AND 
                           EDUCATION NETWORK


SEC. 101. NATIONAL HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING PROGRAM.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Advisory Committee.--(1) The President shall establish an 
advisory committee on high-performance computing consisting of 
non-Federal members, including representatives of the research, 
education, and library communities, network providers, and 
industry, who are specially qualified to provide the Director 
with advice and information on high-performance computing. The 
recommendations of the advisory committee shall be considered 
in reviewing and revising the Program. The advisory committee 
shall provide the Director with an independent assessment of--
          [(1)] (A) progress made in implementing the Program;
          [(2)] (B) the need to revise the Program;
          [(3)] (C) the balance between the components of the 
        Program;
          [(4)] (D) whether the research and development 
        undertaken pursuant to the Program is helping to 
        maintain United States leadership in computing 
        technology; and
          [(5)] (E) other issues identified by the Director.
  (2) In addition to the duties outlined in paragraph (1), the 
advisory committee shall conduct periodic evaluations of the 
funding, management, implementation, and activities of the 
Program, the Next Generation Internet program, and the 
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development 
program, and shall report not less frequently than once every 2 
fiscal years to the Committee on Science of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate on its findings and 
recommendations. The first report shall be due within 1 year 
after the date of the enactment of the Networking and 
Information Technology Research and Development Act.
  (c) Office of Management and Budget.--(1) Each Federal agency 
and department participating in the Program shall, as part of 
its annual request for appropriations to the Office of 
Management and Budget, submit a report to the Office of 
Management and Budget which--
          (A) identifies each element of its high-performance 
        computing activities which contributes directly to the 
        Program, including the Next Generation Internet program 
        and the Networking and Information Technology Research 
        and Development program or benefits from the Program, 
        including the Next Generation Internet program and the 
        Networking and Information Technology Research and 
        Development program; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (2) The Office of Management and Budget shall review each 
such report in light of the goals, priorities, and agency and 
departmental responsibilities set forth in the annual report 
submitted under subsection (a)(3)(A), and shall include, in the 
President's annual budget estimate, a statement of the portion 
of each appropriate agency's or department's annual budget 
estimate relating to its activities undertaken pursuant to the 
Program, including the Next Generation Internet program and the 
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development 
program.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 103. NEXT GENERATION INTERNET.

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) Reports.--The Advisory Committee shall review 
implementation of the Next Generation Internet program and 
shall report, not less frequently than annually, to the 
President, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, the Committee on Appropriations, and the 
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, and the Committee on 
Science, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Committee on 
National Security of the House of Representatives on its 
findings and recommendations for the preceding fiscal year. The 
first such report shall be submitted 6 months after the date of 
the enactment of the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 
1998 and the last report shall be submitted by September 30, 
2000.]
  (c) Study of Internet Privacy.--
          (1) Study.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
        enactment of the Networking and Information Technology 
        Research and Development Act, the National Science 
        Foundation may enter into an arrangement with the 
        National Research Council of the National Academy of 
        Sciences for that Council to conduct a study of privacy 
        on the Internet.
          (2) Subjects.--The study shall address--
                  (A) research needed to develop technology for 
                protection of privacy on the Internet;
                  (B) current public and private plans for the 
                deployment of privacy technology, standards, 
                and policies;
                  (C) policies, laws, and practices under 
                consideration or formally adopted in other 
                countries and jurisdictions to protect privacy 
                on the Internet;
                  (D) Federal legislation and other regulatory 
                steps needed to ensure the development of 
                privacy technology, standards, and policies; 
                and
                  (E) other matters that the National Research 
                Council determines to be relevant to Internet 
                privacy.
          (3) Transmittal to congress.--The National Science 
        Foundation shall transmit to the Congress within 21 
        months of the date of enactment of the Networking and 
        Information Technology Research and Development Act a 
        report setting forth the findings, conclusions, and 
        recommendations of the National Research Council.
          (4) Federal agency cooperation.--Federal agencies 
        shall cooperate fully with the National Research 
        Council in its activities in carrying out the study 
        under this subsection.
          (5) Availability of funds.--Of the amounts described 
        in subsection (d)(2), $900,000 shall be available for 
        the study conducted under this subsection.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to 
be appropriated for the purposes of this section--
          (1) for the Department of Energy, $22,000,000 for 
        fiscal year [1999 and] 1999, $25,000,000 for fiscal 
        year 2000, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and 
        $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
          (2) for the National Science Foundation, $25,000,000 
        for fiscal year 1999 and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 
        2000, as authorized in the National Science Foundation 
        Authorization Act of 1998, and $25,000,000 for fiscal 
        year 2001 and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) for the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration, $10,000,000 for fiscal year [1999 and] 
        1999, $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $10,000,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001, and $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; 
        and
          (5) for the National Institute of Standards and 
        Technology, $5,000,000 for fiscal year [1999 and] 1999, 
        $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2000, $5,500,000 for fiscal 
        year 2001, and $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2002.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                      TITLE II--AGENCY ACTIVITIES

SEC. 201. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ACTIVITIES.

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--[From sums otherwise 
authorized to be appropriated, there] There are authorized to 
be appropriated to the National Science Foundation for the 
purposes of the Program $213,000,000 for fiscal year 1992; 
$262,000,000 for fiscal year 1993; $305,000,000 for fiscal year 
1994; $354,000,000 for fiscal year 1995; [and] $413,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1996[.]; $439,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; 
$468,500,000 for fiscal year 2001; $493,200,000 for fiscal year 
2002; $544,100,000 for fiscal year 2003; and $571,300,000 for 
fiscal year 2004. Amounts authorized under this subsection 
shall be the total amounts authorized to the National Science 
Foundation for a fiscal year for the Program, and shall not be 
in addition to amounts previously authorized by law for the 
purposes of the Program.
  (c) Networking and Information Technology Research and 
Development.--(1) Of the amounts authorized under subsection 
(b), $310,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; $333,000,000 for fiscal 
year 2001; $352,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; $390,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2003; and $415,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 shall 
be available for grants for long-term basic research on 
networking and information technology, with priority given to 
research that helps address issues related to high end 
computing and software; network stability, fragility, 
reliability, security (including privacy), and scalability; and 
the social and economic consequences of information technology.
  (2) In each of the fiscal years 2000 and 2001, the National 
Science Foundation shall award under this subsection up to 20 
large grants of up to $1,000,000 each, and in each of the 
fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, the National Science 
Foundation shall award under this subsection up to 30 large 
grants of up to $1,000,000 each.
  (3)(A) Of the amounts described in paragraph (1), $40,000,000 
for fiscal year 2000; $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; 
$45,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; $45,000,000 for fiscal year 
2003; and $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 shall be available 
for grants of up to $5,000,000 each for Information Technology 
Research Centers.
  (B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``Information 
Technology Research Centers'' means groups of 6 or more 
researchers collaborating across scientific and engineering 
disciplines on large-scale long-term research projects which 
will significantly advance the science supporting the 
development of information technology or the use of information 
technology in addressing scientific issues of national 
importance.
  (d) Major Research Equipment.--(1) In addition to the amounts 
authorized under subsection (b), there are authorized to be 
appropriated to the National Science Foundation $70,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2000, $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $80,000,000 
for fiscal year 2002, $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, and 
$85,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 for grants for the development 
of major research equipment to establish terascale computing 
capabilities at 1 or more sites and to promote diverse 
computing architectures. Awards made under this subsection 
shall provide for support for the operating expenses of 
facilities established to provide the terascale computing 
capabilities, with funding for such operating expenses derived 
from amounts available under subsection (b).
  (2) Grants awarded under this subsection shall be awarded 
through an open, nationwide, peer-reviewed competition. 
Awardees may include consortia consisting of members from some 
or all of the following types of institutions:
          (A) Academic supercomputer centers.
          (B) State-supported supercomputer centers.
          (C) Supercomputer centers that are supported as part 
        of federally funded research and development centers.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, or 
agency policy, a federally funded research and development 
center may apply for a grant under this subsection, and may 
compete on an equal basis with any other applicant for the 
awarding of such a grant.
  (3) As a condition of receiving a grant under this 
subsection, an awardee must agree--
          (A) to connect to the National Science Foundation's 
        Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure 
        network;
          (B) to the maximum extent practicable, to coordinate 
        with other federally funded large-scale computing and 
        simulation efforts; and
          (C) to provide open access to all grant recipients 
        under this subsection or subsection (c).
  (e) Information Technology Education and Training Grants.--
          (1) Information technology grants.--The National 
        Science Foundation shall provide grants under the 
        Scientific and Advanced Technology Act of 1992 for the 
        purposes of section 3(a) and (b) of that Act, except 
        that the activities supported pursuant to this 
        paragraph shall be limited to improving education in 
        fields related to information technology. The 
        Foundation shall encourage institutions with a 
        substantial percentage of student enrollments from 
        groups underrepresented in information technology 
        industries to participate in the competition for grants 
        provided under this paragraph.
          (2) Internship grants.--The National Science 
        Foundation shall provide--
                  (A) grants to institutions of higher 
                education to establish scientific internship 
                programs in information technology research at 
                private sector companies; and
                  (B) supplementary awards to institutions 
                funded under the Louis Stokes Alliances for 
                Minority Participation program for internships 
                in information technology research at private 
                sector companies.
          (3) Matching funds.--Awards under paragraph (2) shall 
        be made on the condition that at least an equal amount 
        of funding for the internship shall be provided by the 
        private sector company at which the internship will 
        take place.
          (4) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
        term ``institution of higher education'' has the 
        meaning given that term in section 1201(a) of the 
        Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)).
          (5) Availability of funds.--Of the amounts described 
        in subsection (c)(1), $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, 
        $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $20,000,000 for 
        fiscal year 2002, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, and 
        $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 shall be available for 
        carrying out this subsection.
  (f) Educational Technology Research.--
          (1) Research program.--As part of its 
        responsibilities under subsection (a)(1), the National 
        Science Foundation shall establish a research program 
        to develop, demonstrate, assess, and disseminate 
        effective applications of information and computer 
        technologies for elementary and secondary education. 
        Such program shall--
                  (A) support research projects, including 
                collaborative projects involving academic 
                researchers and elementary and secondary 
                schools, to develop innovative educational 
                materials, including software, and pedagogical 
                approaches based on applications of information 
                and computer technology;
                  (B) support empirical studies to determine 
                the educational effectiveness and the cost 
                effectiveness of specific, promising 
                educational approaches, techniques, and 
                materials that are based on applications of 
                information and computer technologies; and
                  (C) include provision for the widespread 
                dissemination of the results of the studies 
                carried out under subparagraphs (A) and (B), 
                including maintenance of electronic libraries 
                of the best educational materials identified 
                accessible through the Internet.
          (2) Replication.--The research projects and empirical 
        studies carried out under paragraph (1)(A) and (B) 
        shall encompass a wide variety of educational settings 
        in order to identify approaches, techniques, and 
        materials that have a high potential for being 
        successfully replicated throughout the United States.
          (3) Availability of funds.--Of the amounts authorized 
        under subsection (b), $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, 
        $10,500,000 for fiscal year 2001, $11,000,000 for 
        fiscal year 2002, $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, and 
        $12,500,000 for fiscal year 2004 shall be available for 
        the purposes of this subsection.
  (g) Peer Review.--All grants made under this section shall be 
made only after being subject to peer review by panels or 
groups having private sector representation.

SEC. 202. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES.

  (a) General Responsibilities.--As part of the Program 
described in title I, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration shall conduct basic and applied research in 
high-performance computing, particularly in the field of 
computational science, with emphasis on aerospace sciences, 
earth and space sciences, and remote exploration and 
experimentation, and may participate in or support research 
described in section 201(c)(1).
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--[From sums otherwise 
authorized to be appropriated, there] There are authorized to 
be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration for the purposes of the Program $72,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1992; $107,000,000 for fiscal year 1993; 
$134,000,000 for fiscal year 1994; $151,000,000 for fiscal year 
1995; [and] $145,000,000 for fiscal year 1996[.]; $164,400,000 
for fiscal year 2000; $201,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; 
$208,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; $224,000,000 for fiscal year 
2003; and $231,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.

SEC. 203. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ACTIVITIES.

  (a) General Responsibilities.--As part of the Program 
described in title I, the Secretary of Energy shall--
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) provide for networking infrastructure support for 
        energy-related mission activities[.],
and may participate in or support research described in section 
201(c)(1).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--(1) There are 
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for 
the purposes of the Program $93,000,000 for fiscal year 1992; 
$110,000,000 for fiscal year 1993; $138,000,000 for fiscal year 
1994: $157,000,000 for fiscal year 1995; [and] $169,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1996[.]; $106,600,000 for fiscal year 2000; 
$103,500,000 for fiscal year 2001; $107,000,000 for fiscal year 
2002; $125,700,000 for fiscal year 2003; and $129,400,000 for 
fiscal year 2004.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 204. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ACTIVITIES.

  (a) General Responsibilities.--As part of the Program 
described in title I--
          (1) the National Institute of Standards and 
        Technology shall--
                  (A)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (C) be responsible for developing benchmark 
                tests and standards for high-performance 
                computing systems and software[; and],
        and may participate in or support research described in 
        section 201(c)(1); and
          (2) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration shall conduct basic and applied research 
        in weather prediction and ocean sciences, particularly 
        in development of new forecast models, in computational 
        fluid dynamics, and in the incorporation of evolving 
        computer architectures and networks into the systems 
        that carry out agency missions, and may participate in 
        or support research described in section 201(c)(1).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--[From sums otherwise 
authorized to be appropriated, there] There are authorized to 
be appropriated--
          (1) to the National Institute of Standards and 
        Technology for the purposes of the Program $3,000,000 
        for fiscal year 1992; $4,000,000 for fiscal year 1993; 
        $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1994; $6,000,000 for fiscal 
        year 1995; [and] $7,000,000 for fiscal year [1996; and] 
        1996; $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; $9,500,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001; $10,500,000 for fiscal year 2002; 
        $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and $17,000,000 for 
        fiscal year 2004; and
          (2) to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration for the purposes of the Program 
        $2,500,000 for fiscal year 1992; $3,000,000 for fiscal 
        year 1993; $3,500,000 for fiscal year 1994; $4,000,000 
        for fiscal year 1995; [and] $4,500,000 for fiscal year 
        1996[.]; $13,500,000 for fiscal year 2000; $13,900,000 
        for fiscal year 2001; $14,300,000 for fiscal year 2002; 
        $14,800,000 for fiscal year 2003; and $15,200,000 for 
        fiscal year 2004.

SEC. 205. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ACTIVITIES.

  (a) General Responsibilities.--As part of the Program 
described in title I, the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
conduct basic and applied research directed toward the 
advancement and dissemination of computational techniques and 
software tools which form the core of ecosystem, atmospheric 
chemistry, and atmospheric dynamics models, and may participate 
in or support research described in section 201(c)(1).
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--[From sums otherwise 
authorized to be appropriated, there] There are authorized to 
be appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency for the 
purposes of the Program $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1992; 
$5,500,000 for fiscal year 1993; $6,000,000 for fiscal year 
1994; $6,500,000 for fiscal year 1995; [and] $7,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1996[.]; $4,200,000 for fiscal year 2000; 
$4,300,000 for fiscal year 2001; $4,500,000 for fiscal year 
2002; $4,600,000 for fiscal year 2003; and $4,700,000 for 
fiscal year 2004.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                    INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       Subtitle A--Income Taxes

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                 CHAPTER 1--NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


              Subchapter A--Determination of tax liability

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     PART IV--CREDITS AGAINST TAX

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                  Subpart D--Business Related Credits

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 41. CREDIT FOR INCREASING RESEARCH ACTIVITIES.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(h) Termination.--
          [(1) In general.--This section shall not apply to any 
        amount paid or incurred--
                  [(A) after June 30, 1995, and before July 1, 
                1996, or
                  [(B) after June 30, 1999.
        Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in the case of 
        a taxpayer making an election under subsection (c)(4) 
        for its first taxable year beginning after June 30, 
        1996, and before July 1, 1997, this section shall apply 
        to amounts paid or incurred during the 36-month period 
        beginning with the first month of such year. The 36 
        months referred to in the preceding sentence shall be 
        reduced by the number of full months after June 1996 
        (and before the first month of such first taxable year) 
        during which the taxpayer paid or incurred any amount 
        which is taken into account in determining the credit 
        under this section.
          [(2) Computation of base amount.--In the case of any 
        taxable year with respect to which this section applies 
        to a number of days which is less than the total number 
        of days in such taxable year, the base amount with 
        respect to such taxable year shall be the amount which 
        bears the same ratio to the base amount for such year 
        (determined without regard to this paragraph) as the 
        number of days in such taxable year to which this 
        section applies bears to the total number of days in 
        such taxable year.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 45C. CLINICAL TESTING EXPENSES FOR CERTAIN DRUGS FOR RARE DISEASES 
                    OR CONDITIONS.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Qualified Clinical Testing Expenses.--For purposes of 
this section--
          (1) Qualified clinical testing expenses.--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  [(D) Special rule.--For purposes of this 
                paragraph, section 41 shall be deemed to remain 
                in effect for periods after June 30, 1995, and 
                before July 1, 1996, and periods after June 30, 
                1999.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                    XVIII. Committee Recommendations

    On September 9, 1999, a quorum being present, the Committee 
favorably reported H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information 
Technology Research and Development Act, by a recorded vote of 
41 to 0, and recommends its enactment.

                          XIX. Additional View

    Mr. Chairman, I am a proud co-sponsor of the Networking and 
Information Technology Research and Development Act, H.R. 2086, 
and I am pleased that the Science Committee is moving on 
legislation that is essential to maintaining America's leading 
role in advancing technological progress.
    Fundamental, basic research in IT was instrumental in 
bringing about the information revolution and has contributed 
to the creation of new industries and new, high-paying jobs. 
Information technology will, indeed, change the way Americans 
live, learn, and work.
    I believe Congress has a responsibility to place the 
interest of our future economic and educational growth and our 
global competitiveness in the forefront of our national 
concerns. Congress can accomplish this by passing this 
important piece of legislation.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to praise your leadership for 
making basic IT research a priority for this country. Your 
efforts to provide a long-term plan for increasing and 
sustaining federal IT research into the next century are a 
testament to your commitment to ensure America's continued 
economic growth and your support for scientific and 
technological progress in our nation.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
                                                    John B. Larson.

                XX. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup

                              ----------                              




MARKUP OF H.R. 2086, THE NETWORKING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND 
                        DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1999

                          House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    Next, we get to H.R. 2086, the Networking Information 
Technology Research and Development Act of 1999.
    [The bill H.R. 2086 follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I will recognize myself for five 
minutes.
    There is no dispute that the United States is the global 
leader in computing and communications information technology. 
Maintaining our Nation's lead, however, is not a given. Today's 
global reality is that economic strength is as important as 
military strength and that the $500 billion a year information 
technology industry accounts for \1/3\ of our Nation's economic 
growth. This current growth is predicated on the federal 
research conducted 10, 20, even 30 years ago.
    H.R. 2086, the Networking Information Technology Research 
and Development Act, is bipartisan legislation that 
demonstrates a commitment to upholding our Nation's preeminence 
in information technology. The intent of this bill, which is a 
5-year authorization, is to comprehensively authorize the 
Federal Government's basic IT research effort.
    Among other things, this bill focuses on information 
technology research grants for long-term basic research and 
provides authorizations for terascale computing hardware. The 
bill authorizes a comprehensive, new, federal peer-reviewed 
research program administered by the National Science 
Foundation to ensure that the funding is used for the highest-
quality of basic research.
    The funding will not only ensure that science keeps up with 
the needs of our information-driven economy, but will also help 
produce the next generation of highly skilled IT workers, as 
increased research funding leads to more and better qualified 
research graduates and Ph.D.'s.
    Our future global influence lies in the hands of our young 
people, the education and training they receive, and the new 
scientific breakthroughs they produce. This bill offers 
opportunities for all. The bill also ensures open competition 
that allows diverse groups from 2-year community colleges to 
DOE labs to benefit.
    Thirty-three of the members of this Committee are co-
sponsors of the bill. The bill is also supported by the 
President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, better 
known as PITAC, as well as academia and industry.
    The reason for such widespread support is simple. Everyone 
realizes that information technology research assists all 
fields of science. The research funded under this bill will 
help physicists, mathematicians, engineers, and computer 
scientists alike.

 Statement of Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., House Committee on 
                                Science

   h.r. 2086--the networking and information technology research and 
                            development act
    There is no dispute that the United States is the global leader in 
computing and communications information technology. Maintaining our 
Nation's lead, however, is not given. Today's global reality is that 
economic strength is as important as military strength and the $500 
billion-a-year information technology industry accounts for \1/3\ of 
our Nation's economic growth. This current growth is predicated on 
Federal research conducted 10, 20, and even 30 years ago. H.R. 2086, 
the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act, 
is bipartisan legislation that demonstrates a commitment to upholding 
our Nation's preeminence in information technology. The intent of H.R. 
2086, a five-year authorization bill, is to comprehensively authorize 
the Federal Government's basic information technology research effort.
    Among other things, this bill focuses on information technology 
research grants for long-term basic research and provides 
authorizations for terascale computing hardware. The bill authorizes a 
comprehensive new federal peer-reviewed research program administered 
by the National Science Foundation to ensure that the funding is used 
for the highest quality of basic research.
    This funding will not only ensure that science keeps up with the 
needs of our information-driven economy but also will help produce the 
next generation of highly skilled IT workers--as increased research 
funding leads to more and better qualified research graduate students 
and Ph.d's. Our future global influence lies in the hands of our young 
people, the education and training they receive, and the new scientific 
breakthroughs they produce. This bill offers opportunities for all.
    The bill also ensures open competition that allows, diverse groups 
from two year community colleges to DOE labs to benefit. Thirty-three 
of the Members of this Committee are cosponsors of the bill. The bill 
is also supported by the President's Information Technology Advisory 
Committee (PITAC) as well as academia and industry. The reason for such 
widespread support is simple--everyone realizes that information 
technology research assist all fields of science. The research funded 
under this bill will help physicists, mathematicians, engineers, and 
computer scientists a like.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And I will now yield to the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, whom I welcome as our new 
Ranking Democratic Member, for the opening statement on the 
Democratic side.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, you are exactly right that this 
bill enjoys the broad support of the members of this Committee, 
and I congratulate you for--in your efforts to bring it before 
the Committee.
    Actually, information technology is transforming the way 
people live, the way people learn, the way that people work, 
and the way people play. And it will constitute an ever-growing 
portion of the economy in the 21st century.
    This bill will support the research that's needed to 
underpin the advances in information technology that are going 
to create new infrastructure for business, scientific research, 
and personal communication.
    It's a good bill; we support it, and, at this time, Mr. 
Chairman, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the 
record a statement made--to be made by Congresswoman Johnson, 
the Ranking Member of the Basic Research Subcommittee, to have 
her comments seen on the bill.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

                Opening Statement Eddie Bernice Johnson

    Mr. Chairman, I am pleased you have brought H.R. 2086 before the 
Committee for its consideration. The bill has received the bipartisan 
co-sponsorship of many Members. It authorizes a major new research 
investment in information technology, which is largely consistent with 
the Present's Information Technology for the 21st Century initiative, 
as proposed in the fiscal year 2000 budget request. This is a very 
important research initiative, and it is appropriate that the Committee 
is moving expeditiously to authorize it.
    H.R. 2086 will establish a mult-agency research initiative that 
responds to findings and recommendations reported by the President's 
Information Technology Advisory Committee. The report documents the 
results of a comprehensive assessment of federally funded information 
technology research conducted by the advisory committee. The Committee 
reviewed this report in a hearing last October.
    The President's advisory committee found that federal funding for 
information technology research has tilted too much toward support for 
near-term, mission-focused objectives. They discovered a growing gap 
between the power of high performance computers available to support 
agency mission requirements versus support for the general academic 
research community. They identified the need for socioeconomic research 
on the impact on society of the rapid evolution of information 
technology. And, they judged that the annual federal research 
investment is inadequate by more than $1 billion.
    I believe that in most respects H.R. 2086 will adequately implement 
the advisory committee's recommendations. There are a few changes that 
will be offered by myself and some of my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle, which will strengthen the bill and which I hope the Chairman 
will support.
    The Science Committee has a long history of support for information 
technology research. We have seen ample evidence of the value of past 
research programs. The example of the internet along makes the case for 
the unexpected, and often spectacular, outcomes from federal long-term 
research investments in information technologies. H.R. 2086 will 
provide for the basis research needed to underpin the technologies 
advances of the future.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your leadership on this bill, 
and I look forward to assisting you in moving the bill forward.

Opening Statement of Congresswoman Debbie Stabenow of the 8th District, 
                           State of Michigan

    Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Hall, I appreciate 
the Committee convening today to address the legislation before 
us. As this is our first meeting after the August recess, I 
would like to again note the contributions that our colleague 
George Brown made to this Committee, to the Congress, and to 
our nation. I am sure that I speak for all of my colleagues 
when I say it was a tremendous honor to serve with him.
    We have some important bills to consider this afternoon and 
I would like to comment generally on a few of them. I am a 
cosponsor of H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information 
Technology Research and Development Act, and believe that our 
commitment to funding federal research must remain strong. 
President Clinton has provided a great deal of leadership on 
these issues and this bill endorses many of the recommendations 
of the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee. 
However, I am concerned that despite Republicans rhetoric on 
funding this important work, they have failed to commit dollars 
during our current appropriations process. As White House Chief 
of Staff John Podesta recently described the Republican budget 
for Fiscal Year 2000 cuts the President's long-term Information 
Technology Initiative by 70%. This includes the Republican tax 
cut proposal. The centerpiece initiative of the high tech 
research effort is the permanent extension of the Research & 
Experimentation tax credit, which is part of H.R. 2086. The 
Republican tax package includes only a five-year extension of 
this credit. By contract, the Democratic tax proposal made it 
permanent. Words are not enough. Technology and research have 
fueled our economic prosperity, and are the keys to prolonging 
it. We must appropriate dollars for this purpose.
    I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 1883, the Iran 
Nonproliferation Act of 1999. I am pleased that the 
Subcommittee brought this bill forward and share the concern of 
all of my colleagues regarding the need to address the issue of 
nuclear proliferation. I look forward to a discussion 
concerning the role of the International Space Station in this 
bill, and to the bill's eventual passage out of the Committee. 
Also of importance is H.R. 2607, the Commercial Space 
Transportation Competitiveness Act of 1999. It would extent the 
Commercial Space Indemnification Extension for five years, 
providing a needed boost to the commercial space industry. I 
support an amendment to be offered by Mr. Capuano which would 
require a study of the effect current proposed cuts in NASA 
appropriations will have on this industry. The NASA cuts are 
another example of a decreased Republican commitment to 
research.
    Of particular concern to me is the consideration of H.R. 
1744, the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
Authorization Act of 1999. It is unfortunate that we have not 
been able to complete our consideration of this legislation 
that we first attempted to markup in May. Given that the 
Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 
2000 has already passed the House, with gratuitions cuts to 
many of the programs contained in this bill, our work today is 
largely moot. But it does provide an important opportunity to 
speak out against those cuts, particularly to the Advanced 
Technology Program (ATP). This is a battle we have fought 
before, and I am confident we will ultimately win again, but I 
believe it is indicative of Republican doublespeak on the 
question of research funding. The ATP program provides federal 
funding in tandem with private funding for research into 
cutting edge technologies-work that otherwise would not occur. 
55% of all ATP projects are led by small businesses, and 70% of 
projects include small businesses. Hence, the impact on our 
economy is significant. Over 100 universities take part in this 
important program. If funding is zeroed out, 240 projects in 30 
states will be terminated. In Michigan, the technologies 
developed through the ATP program have greatly benefitted the 
auto industry, leading to improvements in products as diverse 
as light-weight components for cars and high-performance 
spindles for machine tools. I will be offering an amendment 
with Congresswoman Rivers to increase the amount of money 
available for new awards over the next two fiscal years, and 
urge my colleagues to support it. This is an important program 
that is part of our federal commitment to research and 
development.
    Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, I hope we are able to 
complete the entirety of our agenda today. And I sincerely hope 
that we will work together to ensure that the federal 
government continues to take a leadership role in not only 
advocating for, but funding, critical research initiatives.

    Mr. Hall. I yield back my time, sir.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay, the gentleman yields back the 
balance of his time.
    We have a number of amendments and report language 
suggestions that are on the roster.
    The first amendment on the roster is one by the gentlewoman 
from Illinois, Ms. Biggert. For what purpose does she seek 
recognition?
    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 2086, offered by Mrs. 
Biggert.''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, open for amendment at any point, and the 
gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mrs. Biggert follows:]
    
    
    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend 
you for recognizing and responding to the need to increase 
support for basic information technology research here in the 
United States.
    H.R. 2086 is an important step in that direction, and the 
amendment I'm offering today seeks to ensure that the 
Department of Energy and the federally funded research and 
development centers will keep us moving in that direction.
    There are two parts to my amendment, the first of which 
corrects an error that the Department of Energy made in the 
budget it submitted to Congress. My amendment replaces $6 
million that was inadvertently removed in base funding for 
information technology research at the Department of Energy.
    The budget submitted by DOE for Fiscal Year 2000 mistakenly 
identified $6 million of its base funding as new funding. While 
this legislation, H.R. 2086--when this legislation was drafted, 
no new funding was provided for DOE. As a result, $6 million 
was removed from DOE's Fiscal Year 1999 funding. It is my 
understanding, Mr. Chairman, that it was not your intention to 
cut DOE's base funding. With this $6 million, H.R. 2086 would 
authorize a decrease of approximately $10 million below levels 
enacted in Fiscal Year 1999 for DOE.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentlewoman yield?
    Mrs. Biggert. Yes, I yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman accurately states 
my intent which resulted from wrong information being given to 
us by DOE. First, this corrects an error, which is good, but 
even better, the correction is offset by reductions in other 
areas. So, there is a no net increase cost in the bill, and I 
am pleased to support the amendment.
    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would then thank 
the Chairman for working with me on this amendment, and I would 
ask my colleagues for their support with passage of this 
amendment. I look forward to adding my name as a co-sponsor of 
this legislation.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Is there further discussion on the Biggert amendment?
    Hearing none, all those in favor of the amendment will 
signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Amendments number two and three by the gentlewoman from 
Texas, Ms. Johnson. In her absence, I would recognize the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall. For what purpose do you seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to explain the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Well, will the gentleman 
offer----
    Mr. Hall. I offer the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. OK.
    Mr. Hall. The first part of the amendment----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well----
    Mr. Hall. Go ahead, sir.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendments to H.R. 2086, offered by Ms. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson of Texas.
    [The amendments of Ms. Johnson follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. OK. First of all, is it the 
gentleman's intention to offer amendment two and amendment 
three and ask that they be considered en bloc?
    Mr. Hall. It is.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. OK. Without objection, amendments 
two and three will be considered en bloc. Without objection, 
the amendment will be considered as read and open for amendment 
at any point, and the gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Hall. Can I go now? [Laughter.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For all of 5 minutes.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    The gentlelady who knows much more about the amendment than 
I could read to you from this printed page is here and present, 
and, at this time, I'd like to yield to her the remaining time 
I have on the 5 minutes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And, without objection, we'll start 
the clock again in order to allow the gentlewoman from Texas to 
catch her breath.
    The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized in support of 
amendments two and three, which are being considered en bloc.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me apologize to both you and 
Mr. Hall and the rest of the members for being held up a little 
at the last meeting--I'm trying to get my breath. And thank you 
for accepting my two amendments into the manager's amendment.
    Both of these amendments make a very good bill even better. 
My first amendment attempts to take some of the future shock 
out of the information age. We all recognize that new 
developing technology has been creating a rash of unintended 
consequences. For example, doctors are now able to treat 
patients in far places because of the advent of Internet and 
other technological inventions that have helped to coin the 
phrase ``telemedicine.'' However, for telemedicine to be fully 
integrated into the health care delivery system, we have to 
develop standards and practices for privacy and security of 
patient records.
    How do we address state-by-state licensing of doctors, and, 
finally, how do we establish trust between patients and doctors 
in an on-line environment?
    While the bill before us authorizes long-term research 
related to computing and networking technology, it does not 
address socioeconomic research that can be helpful in dealing 
with the unintended consequences of the information age. This 
recommendation is in keeping with the President's Information 
Technology Committee's report entitled ``Information Technology 
Research: Investing in our Future.'' My amendment would include 
the use of socioeconomic research under section four in the 
bill.
    My second amendment focuses on ensuring workplace 
readiness. We know that there is a 10 percent job vacancy in 
high-technology fields, that a lack of qualified applicants 
contribute to the vacancy rate. My amendment authorizes the use 
of funds to provide grants to 2-year institutions of higher 
education that are now eligible for the NSF Advanced Technology 
Education Program.
    The ATE Program, as authorized by this Committee, provides 
grants to 2-year colleges for developing, in consultation with 
industry, course instruction in high technology areas, 
development of faculty and student recruitment, and retention 
through internships and other work related activities.
    The amendment leaves in place the general authorization for 
the National Science Foundation to provide information 
technology related internships grants separate from the ATE 
Program and also authorizes NSF to provide supplementary awards 
for such internships to institutions supported under the Louis 
Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation Program.
    The Stokes Program does not--does support internships, but 
they are not currently directed to the information technology 
field. The inclusion of the ATE Program and the Stokes Program 
into the mix will strengthen the bill's provision dealing with 
the workplace training.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I believe that the gentlewoman's 
amendments make constructive additions to the bill, and I am 
pleased to support them.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Is there further discussion on the Johnson amendments en 
bloc?
    If not, all those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendments are agreed to.
    The next amendment on the roster is by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle. For what purpose does he seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2086, offered by Mr. Doyle.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendments 
will be considered en bloc, considered as read, open for 
amendment at any point, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Mr. Doyle, will be recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mr. Doyle follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to have been able to work with 
you and your staff on this amendment and accompanying report 
language, which addresses some of the concerns that have been 
brought to our attention by representatives of the Pittsburgh 
Supercomputer Center and other centers with an interest in the 
competition for terascale supercomputing equipment.
    The first part of the amendment would clarify that for any 
terascale facilities funded by NSF, NSF would support their 
regular operating expenses. This change was made to conform 
with the current grants practices in supercomputing where a 
portion of the grants typically goes to cover the indirect 
operating cost.
    The second major part of the amendment would clarify that 
consortia are welcome to join together in the competition to 
build the terascale supercomputing facilities.
    The report language states that partnerships are to be 
encouraged among centers that are both members and non-members 
in the NSF Partnership for Advanced Computing Infrastructure 
Program. I think I can speak for all of us on the Committee in 
stating that we would like to see major members of the 
supercomputing community come together when this work goes 
forward.
    I would think that the major centers could join together as 
equal partners in an effort to tap some of the personnel and 
knowledge resources that have been underutilized since NSF 
decreased its support for supercomputing centers in 1996.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I'll yield back 
the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Doyle. Yes, I will.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. These amendments are also very 
constructive in that they clarify and make sure that the 
consortia are able to bid on the money through the NSF, and I 
think the more competition we get, the better science we get, 
and I think the consortia ought to be able to compete and to 
win. So, I'm happy to support the amendment.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Further discussion on Doyle amendment number four?
    Hearing none, all those in favor will signify by saying 
aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendments en bloc are agreed to.
    Amendment number five is by the gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Woolsey. For what purpose does she seek 
recognition?
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2086, offered by Ms. Woolsey.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, open for amendment at any point, and the 
gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
    
    
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As we enter the 21st century, we must give our children 
every single advantage possible to compete in the global 
marketplace. My amendment establishes a research program at the 
National Science Foundation to develop, evaluate, and 
disseminate effective applications of computer and other 
information technology for elementary and secondary education.
    The purpose of this proposed program is to link academic 
researchers to teachers to--well, in developing effective 
materials and teaching methods that will be used in information 
technologies. This program requires that demonstrations be 
conducted in a broad range of educational settings to assess 
the real effectiveness of such materials and methods in order 
to gain quantitative evidence about what works and what does 
not work.
    Finally, the program includes provisions to establish 
electronic libraries with ready access to this information in 
order to disseminate best practices and materials.
    Mr. Chairman, for this program, $10 million is authorized 
in the first year. The authorizations are from amounts already 
provided in the bill for NSF activities. It is a modest 
beginning to bring our children and our primary and secondary 
education into the 21st century, and I would hope that my 
colleagues will support this.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. This amendment establishes a new 
research program on how best to utilize the technology in the 
classroom. It is funded from existing authorizations, and thus 
does not add to the cost of the bill. It's a good amendment, 
and I am prepared to accept it.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman yields back the 
balance of her time.
    Is there further discussion on the Woolsey amendment?
    Hearing none, all those in favor will signify by saying 
aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Amendment number six is by the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 
Wu. For what purpose does he seek recognition?
    Mr. Wu. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2086----
    Mr. Wu. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection. The gentleman is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mr. Wu follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Wu. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would lay the groundwork 
for the National Science Foundation to enter into an agreement 
with the National Research Council of the National Academy of 
Sciences to carry out a study of privacy issues associated with 
the Internet.
    Internet privacy is a concern for both computer users and 
the information technology industry. A 1997 survey found that 
54 percent of Internet users report that they are concerned 
that information about sites they visit will be linked to their 
e-mail address and disclosed without their consent or 
knowledge. The survey also found lower trust generally in on-
line institutions and communication.
    Mr. Chairman E-Commerce is an important part of America's 
growing economy to help ensure the continued growth of this 
industry. Congress needs to get the possible information on 
this crucial issue to ensure that any legislation we consider 
does not either unduly burden industry or leave consumer rights 
unprotected in the on-line world.
    I believe our ultimate goal should be to offer the same 
degree of protection and anonymity that people hope to enjoy 
when they travel; that is, they can either choose to interact 
and share information with those that they meet or not, as the 
case may be.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Wu. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. This amendment proposes a $900,000 
National Academy of Science study of privacy issues on the 
Internet. The bill already funds privacy research through NSF 
grants. I believe that the NSF can best determine if it feels 
an NRC study is needed. Since the amendment's language is 
discretionary, allowing the NSF to decide whether it wants to 
spend almost a million dollars on the study, I have no 
objection to the amendment and hope that it is supported.
    The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
    Is there further discussion on the Wu amendment?
    Hearing none, all those in favor of the amendment will 
signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the Wu 
amendment is agreed to.
    The next amendment, number seven, is by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle. For what purpose does he seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2086, offered by Mr. Doyle.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, open for amendment at any point, and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mr. Doyle follows:]
    
    
     Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I understand our time is 
limited today, so I'll be brief.
    My amendment was drafted to restore to DOE a baseline of 
funds starting at $40.6 million to be used only for basic 
research into networking and information technology. The point 
is to restore to DOE a portion of the program funds it was 
proposed to manage under the Clinton Administration IT-squared 
proposal, but that the Chairman's mark moved to NSF to 
administer.
    I intend to withdraw my amendment, but I do think the 
question of the involvement of the Department of Energy in 
managing IT research bears some discussion. As a result of 
decades of work in high performance computing, most recently 
with the Advanced Strategic Computing Initiative Program, DOE 
possesses a range of core competencies in IT and 
supercomputing. The advanced challenges we hope to address 
through the passage of H.R. 2086 are sufficiently complex that 
we need to bring the whole compliment of federal agencies to 
bear on them.
    I know that with this year's very disturbing spy scandal 
and with the other difficulties that some of us have 
experienced in dealing with the very complex organization that 
DOE is, it may not be very popular to stand up for them. But 
the Department's strengths in information technology and 
supercomputing are too significant for us to ignore.
    With DOE as a client agency competing for funds, rather 
than managing program dollars, we run a strong risk of wasting 
important resources the Government already possesses.
    And, finally, an additional argument in favor of DOE's 
participation in supercomputing is the agency's very near 
proximity to missions that federal IT research must address. 
Challenges like combustion modeling and climate research lie 
squarely within DOE's agency mission.
    Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit for the record a letter 
written by Rita Colwell, Director of NSF, Neal Lane, the 
President's Science and Technology Policy Advisor, and Energy 
Secretary Bill Richardson, outlining some of the reasons DOE 
was originally proposed to play a very strong role in the 
Administration's IT research bill.
    And I would urge you to consider----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment 
will be included in the record.
    [The information follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I'd urge you to consider these points and whatever 
conference we might enter into with the other body regarding 
this important legislation.
    Mr. Chairman, with that, I withdraw my amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay, the amendment is withdrawn.
    The next amendment is by the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Capuano. For what purpose does he seek recognition?
    Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2086, offered by Mr. Capuano.
    Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman, I ask for consent that the 
amendment be considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, and the 
gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mr. Capuano follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This is an issue that we discussed in general the last time 
we had some of these bills before us.
    And basically what it does is--I believe that there is an 
appropriate role for Government to invest in our future, both 
as a society and as an economy. And I believe that these 
particular programs are a great public-private partnership that 
we should invest in. However, I have concerns that these 
investments are not enough. At the same time, there are--
sometimes these programs, though well-intended and well-funded, 
don't work out.
    All this is is a request for a report from the Comptroller 
General in consultation with the National Science and 
Technology Council and PITAC on the impact on information 
technology research of the appropriations that we are 
considering now and will have done for the Fiscal Year 2000.
    And, simply put, I want to see if the amounts of money we 
are appropriating are sufficient, that they are sufficient and 
whether they are being used properly.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back the 
balance of his time?
    Mr. Capuano. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    First of all, let me say that I share the gentleman from 
Massachusetts concern about the meager level of appropriations 
for IT funding in the bill that is currently being debated on 
the Floor of the House of Representatives, as well as 
unacceptably low levels of appropriations for other science 
accounts.
    I am concerned, however, about us trying to involve the GAO 
in what is essentially a political decision that will have to 
be made by the appropriations process with votes on the Floor 
of the House and on the Floor of the Senate.
    In the interest of saving time, I will accept the amendment 
by the gentleman from Massachusetts, but I think it is largely 
a waste of GAO's time and limited resources particularly since 
the fiscal year ends in 2\1/2\ weeks time. And by the time the 
GAO comes with the report that the gentleman from Massachusetts 
has requested, the entire budget imbroglio will, hopefully, be 
solved with some kind of an agreement which will command a 
majority of votes in the Congress and a signature of the 
President of the United States.
    We're all committed to increasing IT funding at the NSF and 
elsewhere, and that's what this bill is all about that 33 of 
the members of the Committee have co-sponsored.
    So, in the interest of passing the bill quickly, I'm 
willing to accept your amendment, but I really don't think we 
should make a practice of drawing the GAO into political 
disputes, because then their resources will be taken away from 
doing the type of professional management analyses of these 
programs that I think is an essential element of oversight of 
federal agencies, regardless of whose administration it is and 
who has the majority in the Congress.
    So, having said that, I'll yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Is there further discussion on the Capuano amendment?
    If not, all those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further amendments to the 
bill?
    The gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to note at 
this time that there is an agency other than those recognized 
in this bill that is a valuable stakeholder in this research, 
and that's the United States Geological Survey.
    I understand the jurisdictional issues that necessitated 
not including them in this bill and also their role, but I 
believe the USGS, by virtue of the work it does with 
exceptionally large datasets and computer processing, has much 
to offer in the area of research and development.
    And what we're dealing with is huge volumes of data--how we 
collect that data, how we store that data, how we make that 
data available to other governmental agencies and to the 
public. And it's a situation I will look to resolve, either in 
coordination with its oversight committee Resources, either as 
a Floor amendment or as a separate bill for this tremendous job 
and challenge that the USGS has undertaken.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. And certainly I would yield to you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The only reason the authorization 
for the research by the U.S. Geological Survey is not included 
in this bill is for jurisdictional purposes, because we don't 
authorize the USGS. The Resource Committee did. And as a result 
of my desire to avoid sequential referrals, which will only 
slow down this important legislation, the agencies where there 
are authorizations in this bill are exclusively under the 
jurisdiction of this Committee.
    I would hope that the Committee on Resources would get on 
board and approve some type of an amendment which we could add 
to this bill with a waiver from the Rules Committee when it 
reaches the Floor, but I don't want them or anybody else 
derailing this train, because it is a necessary train to get 
out of the station.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Concurring with your wish that 
nobody else mess around with our good bill, Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I thank the gentleman.
    Are there further amendments to the bill?
    If not, all those in favor of the bill, please signify by 
saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it.
    Now, we get to report language. The first on the roster is 
proposed language by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Doyle. For what purpose does he seek recognition?
    Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, I have report language at the 
desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Clerk will report the language.
    The Clerk. Report language by Congressman Doyle to H.R. 
2086.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the report 
language is considered as read, and the gentleman's recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    [The information follows:]

           Report Language by Congressman Doyle to H.R. 2086

                 terascale supercomputing capabilities
    The Committee supports the goal of sustaining and increasing 
federal participation and support for high-end supercomputing research, 
including the procurement of major research equipment. The intent of 
the Committee is to encourage high-end supercomputing that is national 
in impact, respects the existing diversity in supercomputing 
architectures, and efficiently mobilizes resources across the U.S. 
supercomputing community. The Committee expects the National Science 
Foundation to encourage collaborations and consortia among existing 
major supercomputer centers in the competition for terascale computing 
equipment. Partnerships are to be encouraged among centers, both 
members and non-members in NSF's Partnership for Advanced Computing 
Infrastructure (PACI), in an effort to mobilize resources that have 
been underutilized.

    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief.
    As I stated earlier, that this report language states that 
partnerships are to be encouraged among centers that are both 
members and non-members in the NSF Partnership for Advanced 
Computing Program, and I think that this is some language----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Doyle. Yes, I will.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Very good idea. I support it.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Let's move on then.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the 
balance of his time.
    Further discussion on the Doyle report language?
    If there's none, all those in favor of agreeing to the 
language will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes have it, and the language is agreed to.
    Next on the list is proposed report language by the 
gentleman from Washington, Mr. Baird. For what purpose does he 
seek recognition?
    Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, I have report language at the 
desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Clerk will report the language.
    The Clerk. Report language offered by Congressman Baird to 
H.R. 2086.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the language is 
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    [The information follows:]

  High Performance Computing, the Value of Multi-Thread Architecture 
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act (HR 
    2086) Suggested Report Language Offered by Representative Baird

    The Committee acknowledges the critical role of high performance 
computers to Federal Government missions such as cryptology, nuclear 
weapons testing and monitoring, data mining, etc. The Committee 
recognizes that the Massively Parallel (MP) approach to high 
performance computing, used in many areas of the federal government, 
has been an effective architecture for many mission areas.
    However, the Committee remains concerned over performance 
limitations inherent in the MP approach and agrees with the Presidents' 
Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) assessment that 
alternative architectures must be pursued with federal funding in order 
to meet current and future computationally-intensive challenges.
    Accordingly, the Committee included in section 4 of the bill a 
requirement for the National Science Foundation to promote diverse 
computing architectures in developing terascale computing capabilities. 
The Committee is aware of recent breakthroughs in the Multi-Thread 
Architecture (MTA) and encourages that the most promising high 
performance computing architectures be explored for providing the 
terascale computing capability required to address the most challenging 
computational problems in science and engineering.

    Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief.
    Essentially, this language deals with the issue of the 
architecture that's used in supercomputing, essentially a model 
involving what is a massively parallel design has been used to 
date. It's coming under limitations on software design and 
other capacity limitations.
    This language would just encourage the exploration of 
alternative architectures, particularly one known as 
multithread architecture, which is showing great promise and 
recently has shown the possibility of breaking some speed 
records.
    I encourage the Committee to approve the----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Baird. Yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Another good idea, and I support 
it.
    The gentleman yields back the balance of his time?
    Mr. Baird. Yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. OK.
    Further discussion on the Baird report language?
    Hearing none, all those in favor will signify by saying 
aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes have it, and the language is agreed to.
    Next suggestion for report language is by the gentleman 
from Colorado, Mr. Udall. For what purpose does he seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I have report language at the 
desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the language.
    The Clerk. Report language to H.R. 2068, offered by 
Congressman Mark Udall.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the language is 
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    [The information follows:]

     Report Language to H.R. 2086 Offered by Congressman Mark Udall

    Advances at the cutting edge in information technology are in turn 
dependent on new developments in various fields of science, 
mathematics, and engineering. This is especially true for terascale 
computing which is pushing the limits of our knowledge in various 
aspects of physics, mathematics, chemistry, and engineering. Basic and 
applied research in each of these disciplines will be required if the 
goals of this legislation are to be met. Therefore, it is imperative 
that the research program anticipated under this legislation include 
support for fundamental research in pertinent areas of science, 
mathematics, and engineering which are related to the goals of the 
information technology initiative.

    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will also attempt to 
be as a brief as my colleague from the State of Washington.
    This language would ensure that the NSF and the other 
agencies that participate in the research initiative authorized 
by the bill tap into the expertise and capabilities of other 
disciplines in addition to computer science and engineering. It 
also would send a message that the planning processes in these 
agencies should have an inclusive approach in order to 
encourage ideas in long-term thinking.
    If you look at the bill, really the goal is to ensure that 
research undertaken under the initiative helps inform and build 
the information technologies of the next 20 years. And, to that 
end, we ought to be making sure that basic research plays a key 
role. So, mathematicians, physicists, social scientists, and 
representatives from other disciplines should all be at the 
table.
    I would point out that this is consistent with the views of 
the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee.
    I would also remind the Committee that the report 
encouraged and recommended that the agencies encourage research 
that is visionary and high-risk, and it anticipated supporting 
researchers at many institutions in large-scale projects that 
will explore future technologies with multidisciplinary teams.
    So, this language is intended to remind the agencies that 
multidisciplinary research is at the heart of the initiative 
established by H.R. 2086, and I urge its adoption.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Udall. I will yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A third good idea.
    Gentleman yield back the balance of his time?
    Mr. Udall. I certainly do.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on the Udall 
report language?
    Hearing none, all those in favor will signify by saying 
aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
language is agreed to.
    Next report language proposal is by the gentleman from 
Michigan, Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have report language 
at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the language.
    The Clerk. Report language to H.R. 2086, offered by Mr. 
Smith of Michigan.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the language is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from Michigan is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The information follows:]

  Report Language Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan to H.R. 2086, the 
    Network and Information Technology Research and Development Act

    H.R. 2086 recognizes the importance of basic IT research as a 
catalyst for economic growth and prosperity. IT represents one of the 
fastest growing sectors of the U.S. economy and provides millions of 
good, high-paying jobs. The Nation's future economic success will 
depend in part on our ability to stay at the cutting edge of 
technology. Transferring the knowledge gained through H.R. 2086 to the 
private sector is, therefore, vitally important. To ensure that the 
fruits of this research are available to the private sector and to 
other researchers, the Committee expects the National Science 
Foundation to make accessible through its Internet home page, to the 
greatest extent possible, the results of the research funded through 
the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development 
program authorized under this Act.

    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Looking for 
the key statements before I yield to you.
    As H.R. 2086 makes clear, information technology plays a 
crucial role in the Nation's prosperity. It represents one of 
the fastest growing sectors of our economy, accounting for \1/
3\ of our growth since 1992. It's created new industries, new 
high paying jobs.
    This report language says that--let's make sure we make the 
new knowledge available and we make it available on the 
Internet, that we maximize the encouragement to the private 
sector that they can do the kind of research and development to 
further implement what we discover in this effort.
    I would yield to the Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A fourth good idea.
    The gentleman yield back the balance of his time?
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is there further discussion on the 
proposed Smith report language?
    Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying 
aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
language is agreed to.
    Are there any further good ideas for report language?
    Are there any bad ideas for report language? [Laughter.]
    If not, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Texas, 
Mr. Hall, to make the reporting motion.
    Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman----
    Mr. Hall. The gentleman will yield to Mrs. Johnson.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman, Ms. Johnson, seek recognition?
    Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer a motion.
    Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee seek----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay, well, the other gentlewoman 
from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, wants to say something. Can you 
just hold for a second?
    For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Jackson Lee, seek recognition?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. To strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman. I will not use it 
and would like to acknowledge that there have been a lot of 
good report language and other amendments offered, and so I 
will not add that.
    But I do want to add my support for the legislation as a 
co-sponsor, particularly on the precipice of the 21st century 
to emphasize information technology and also the outreach into 
vast, diverse communities. Far too often, the private sector 
focuses on the short-term. That's why I've always said the 
Federal Government is a risk-taker, giving opportunity for new 
types of research on technology that will then expand 
opportunities for business.
    And I think this legislation, Mr. Chairman, is an excellent 
vehicle for that and would offer and hope that this legislation 
will ultimately pass on the Floor of the House.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman yields back the 
balance of her time.
    Now, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I move that the Committee favorably report H.R. 2086, as 
amended, to the House with a recommendation that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
    And, further, I move that staff be instructed to prepare 
the legislative report and make necessary and conforming 
amendments and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to 
bring this bill before the House for consideration.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair--you've heard the motion. 
The question is on reporting the bill favorably.
    The Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum and 
feels that it is important that this bill be reported by a 
recorded vote.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    Those in favor of reporting the bill favorably will signify 
by saying aye.
    Those opposed, by saying no.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye. Mr. Boehlert.
    Mr. Boehlert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boehlert votes yes. Mr. Smith of Texas.
    Mr. Smith of Texas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mrs. Morella.
    Mrs. Morella. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella votes yes. Mr. Weldon of 
Pennsylvania.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Barton.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes yes. Mr. Smith of Michigan.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes yes. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes yes. Mr. Weldon of Florida.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes yes. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht votes yes. Mr. Ewing.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes yes. Mr. Brady.
    Mr. Brady. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brady votes yes. Mr. Cook.
    Mr. Cook. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cook votes yes. Mr. Nethercutt.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes yes. Mr. Green.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Kuykendall.
    Mr. Kuykendall. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kuykendall votes yes. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mrs. Biggert.
    Mrs. Biggert. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes yes. Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Metcalf.
    Mr. Metcalf. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Metcalf votes yes. Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes yes. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes yes. Mr. Barcia.
    Mr. Barcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barcia votes yes. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes yes. Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rivers votes yes. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes yes. Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes. Ms. Stabenow.
    Ms. Stabenow. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow votes yes. Mr. Etheridge.
    Mr. Etheridge. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Etheridge votes yes. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lampson votes yes. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner votes yes. Mr. Capuano.
    Mr. Capuano. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Capuano votes yes. Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Baird votes yes. Mr. Hoeffel.
    Mr. Hoeffel. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hoeffel votes yes. Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moore votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional members who 
desire to cast their vote or to change their vote?
    The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Ewing.
    Mr. Ewing. I vote yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ewing votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Any other members who wish to cast 
their vote or change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 41 yes votes and no no 
votes.


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the motion is agreed to.
    Without objection, the bill will be reported in the form of 
a single amendment in the nature of a substitute reflecting the 
amendments that are adopted today.
    Without objection, members will have two days in which to 
file additional supplemental minority or dissenting views, and, 
without objection, the Chair is given permission to make 
whatever motions are necessary in the House of Representatives 
to go to conference with the other body on this bill.