[House Report 114-619]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
114th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 114-619
======================================================================
NSF MAJOR RESEARCH FACILITY REFORM ACT OF 2016
_______
June 13, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 5049]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 5049) to provide for improved
management and oversight of major multi-user research
facilities funded by the National Science Foundation, to ensure
transparency and accountability of construction and management
costs, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that
the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Committee Statement and Views.................................... 4
Section-by-Section............................................... 8
Explanation of Amendments........................................ 10
Committee Consideration.......................................... 10
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch..................... 10
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the
Committee...................................................... 10
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 10
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 10
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 11
Federal Advisory Committee Act................................... 11
Unfunded Mandate Statement....................................... 11
Earmark Identification........................................... 11
Committee Estimate............................................... 11
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate... 11
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``NSF Major Research Facility Reform Act
of 2016''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Foundation.
(2) Foundation.--The term ``Foundation'' means the National
Science Foundation established under section 2 of the National
Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861).
(3) Major multi-user research facility.--The term ``major
multi-user research facility'' means a science and engineering
infrastructure construction project that exceeds the lesser of
10 percent of a Directorate's annual budget or $100,000,000 in
total project cost that is funded in the major research
equipment and facilities construction account, or any successor
thereto.
SEC. 3. MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF LARGE FACILITIES.
(a) Large Facilities Office.--The Director shall maintain a Large
Facilities Office. The functions of the Large Facilities Office shall
be to support the research directorates in the development,
implementation, and assessment of major multi-user research facilities,
including by----
(1) serving as the Foundation's primary resource for all
policy or process issues related to the development and
implementation of major multi-user research facilities;
(2) serving as a Foundation-wide resource on project
management, including providing expert assistance on
nonscientific and nontechnical aspects of project planning,
budgeting, implementation, management, and oversight;
(3) coordinating and collaborating with research directorates
to share best management practices and lessons learned from
prior projects; and
(4) assessing projects during preconstruction and
construction phases for cost and schedule risk.
(b) Oversight of Large Facilities.--The Director shall appoint a
senior agency official as head of the Large Facilities Office whose
responsibility is oversight of the development, construction, and
transfer to operations of major multi-user research facilities across
the Foundation.
(c) Policies for Large Facility Costs.----
(1) In general.--The Director shall ensure that the
Foundation's polices for developing and maintaining major
multi-user research facility construction costs are consistent
with the best practices described in the March 2009 Government
Accountability Office Report GAO-09-3SP, or any successor
report thereto, the Uniform Guidance in 2 C.F.R. part 200, and
the Federal Acquisition Regulation as appropriate.
(2) Cost proposal analysis.--
(A) General requirement.--The Director shall ensure
that an external cost proposal analysis is conducted
for any major multi-user research facility.
(B) Resolution of issues found.--The Director, or a
senior agency official within the Office of the
Director designated by the Director, shall certify in
writing that all issues identified during the cost
analysis, including any findings of unjustified or
questionable cost items, are resolved before the
Foundation may execute a construction agreement with
respect to the project.
(C) Transmittal to congress.--The Director shall
transmit each certification made under subparagraph (B)
to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of
the House of Representatives, the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate,
the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Appropriations of
the Senate.
(3) Incurred cost audits.--The Director shall ensure that an
incurred cost audit is conducted at least biennially on any
major multi-user research facility, in accordance with
Government Auditing Standards as established in Government
Accountability Office Report GAO-12-331G, or any successor
report thereto, with the first incurred cost audit to commence
no later than 12 months after execution of the construction
agreement.
(4) Contingencies.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided for in
subparagraph (C)(ii), the Foundation shall--
(i) provide oversight for contingency in
accordance with Cost Principles Uniform
Guidance in 2 C.F.R. part 200.433, or any
successor thereto, and the Federal Acquisition
Regulation as appropriate, except as provided
in this paragraph; and
(ii) not make any award which provides for
contributions to a contingency reserve held or
managed by the awardee, as defined in 2 C.F.R.
part 200.433(c).
(B) Updating policy manual.--The Foundation shall
update its Large Facilities Manual and any other
applicable guidance for contingencies on major multi-
user research facilities with regard to estimating,
monitoring, and accounting for contingency.
(C) Foundation requirements.--The policy updated
under subparagraph (B) shall require that the
Foundation--
(i) may only include contingency amounts in
an award in accordance with Cost Principles
Uniform Guidance in 2 C.F.R. part 200.433, or
any successor thereto, and the Federal
Acquisition Regulation as appropriate; and
(ii) shall retain control over funds budgeted
for contingency, but may disburse budgeted
contingency funds incrementally to the awardee
to ensure project stability and continuity.
(D) Awardee requirements.--The policy updated under
subparagraph (B) shall require that an awardee shall--
(i) provide verifiable documentation to
support any amounts proposed for contingencies;
and
(ii) support requests for the release of
contingency funds with evidence of a bona fide
need and that the amounts allocated to the
performance baseline are reasonable and
allowable.
(E) Current awardees.--The Foundation shall work with
awardees for whom awards with contingency provisions
have been made before the date of enactment of this
Act--
(i) to determine if any of their use of
contingency funds represents out-of-scope
changes for which Foundation's prior written
approval was not obtained; and
(ii) if out-of-scope changes are found, to
identify any financial action that may be
appropriate.
(5) Management fees.--
(A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term
``management fee'' means a portion of an award made by
the Foundation for the purpose of covering ordinary and
legitimate business expenses necessary to maintain
operational stability which are not otherwise allowable
under Cost Principles Uniform Guidance in 2 C.F.R. part
200, Subpart E, or any successor regulation thereto.
(B) Limitation.--The Foundation may provide a
management fee under an award only if the awardee
provides justification as to the need for such funds.
In such cases, the Foundation shall take into account
the awardee's overall financial circumstances when
determining the amount of the fee if justified.
(C) Financial information.--The Foundation shall
require award applicants to provide income and
financial information covering a period of no less than
3 prior years (or in the case of an entity established
less than 3 years prior to the entity's application
date, the period beginning on the date of establishment
and ending on the application date), including cash on
hand and net asset information, in support of a request
for management fees. The Foundation shall also require
awardees to report to the Foundation annually any
sources of non-Federal funds received in excess of
$50,000 during the award period.
(D) Expense reporting.--The Foundation shall require
awardees to track and report to the Foundation annually
all expenses reimbursed or otherwise paid for with
management fee funds, in accordance with Federal
accounting practices as established in Government
Accountability Office Report GAO-12-331G, or any
successor report thereto.
(E) Audits.--The Inspector General of the Foundation
may audit any Foundation award for compliance with this
paragraph.
(F) Prohibited uses.--An awardee may not use
management fees for--
(i) costs allowable under Cost Principles
Uniform Guidance in 2 C.F.R. part 200, Subpart
E, or any successor regulation thereto;
(ii) alcoholic beverages;
(iii) tickets to concerts, sporting, or other
entertainment events;
(iv) vacation or other travel for nonbusiness
purposes;
(v) charitable contributions, except for a
charitable contribution of direct benefit to
the project or activity supported by the
management fee;
(vi) social or sporting club memberships;
(vii) meals or entertainment for nonbusiness
purposes;
(viii) luxury or personal items;
(ix) lobbying, as described in the Uniform
Guidance at 2 C.F.R. 200.450; or
(x) any other purpose the Foundation
determines is inappropriate.
(G) Review.--The Foundation shall review management
fee usage for each Foundation award on at least an
annual basis for compliance with this paragraph and the
Foundation's Large Facilities Manual.
(6) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director shall submit to Congress a
report describing the Foundation's policies for developing and
managing major multi-user research facility construction costs,
including a description of any aspects of the policies that
diverge from the best practices recommended in Government
Accountability Office Report GAO-09-3SP, or any successor
report thereto, and the Uniform Guidance in 2 C.F.R. part 200.
(7) Noncompliance.--The Director shall ensure that the
Foundation shall take the enforcement actions specified in 45
C.F.R. 92.43 for noncompliance with this section.
SEC. 4. WHISTLEBLOWER EDUCATION.
(a) In General.--The Foundation shall be subject to section 4712 of
title 41, United States Code.
(b) Education and Training.--The Foundation shall provide education
and training for Foundation managers and staff on the requirements of
such section 4712, and provide information on such section to all
awardees, contractors, and employees of such awardees and contractors.
Committee Statement and Views
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
H.R. 5049, the NSF Major Research Facility Reform Act of
2016, is sponsored by Representative Barry Loudermilk, Chairman
of the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Science, Space, and
Technology Committee. The purpose of the bill is to provide for
improved management and oversight of major multi-user research
facilities funded by the National Science Foundation to ensure
transparency and accountability of construction and management
costs, and for other purposes.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent
federal agency established in 1950 ``to promote the progress of
science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and
welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other
purposes.'' In support of that mission, the NSF periodically
funds the development and construction of large-scale, multi-
user scientific facilities through awards made under
``cooperative agreements.'' Cooperative agreements are a form
of financial assistance for projects that require substantial
involvement of the awarding agency, beyond routine monitoring
or technical assistance. These 5-10 year construction projects
often range from $300 million to $500 million in total project
cost. NSF provides funding for the development, construction
and operation of these facilities through the Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account. MREFC
projects are both technically demanding and high cost, and have
presented management challenges for NSF.
In 2014, the NSF Inspector General initiated audits of one
MREFC project, the National Ecological Observatory Network
(NEON) project, due to concerns identified with NSF's previous
lack of assessment of several high-risk projects prior to
entering into cooperative agreements and its failure to review
on a regular basis the awardees submitted costs. The audits
found that of the proposed $433.72 million NEON project cost,
approximately $102 million was ``questionable'' and an
additional $52 million was ``unsupportable.''
In May 2015, the NSF and National Science Board (NSB)
commissioned the National Academy of Public Administration
(NAPA) to conduct a study reviewing the NSF's use of
cooperative agreements to support the development, construction
and operation of large-scale research facilities. The NSF and
NSB commissioned the study in response to concerns raised by
Congress, the NSF IG and other stakeholders. On December 17,
2015, NAPA released its final report which found that while
cooperative agreements are an appropriate mechanism for NSF to
support large-scale research facilities, several reforms would
strengthen the oversight of these projects. The report made 13
recommendations.
H.R. 5049 addresses gaps in project oversight and
management through solutions identified by the NSF Inspector
General, auditors, the NAPA study, and the Science Committee's
own oversight.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
During the 113th and 114th Congresses, the House Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology held six hearings relevant to
H.R. 5049.
On December 3, 2014, the full Committee held a hearing
entitled, ``Results of Two Audits of the National Ecological
Observatory Network.'' Witnesses included the Honorable Allison
Lerner, Inspector General, National Science Foundation, and the
Honorable Anita Bales, Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency.
On February 3, 2015, the Subcommittees on Oversight, and
Research and Technology held a joint hearing entitled, ``NSF's
Oversight of the NEON Project and Other Major Research
Facilities Developed Under Cooperative Agreements.'' Witnesses
included Dr. Richard Buckius, Chief Operating Officer, National
Science Foundation; Dr. James P. Collins, Chairman of the
Board, the National Ecological Observatory Network Inc.; and
Ms. Kate Manuel, Legislative Attorney for the Congressional
Research Service.
On February 26, 2015, the Subcommittee on Research and
Technology held a hearing entitled, ``An Overview of the Fiscal
Year 2016 Budget Proposal for the National Science Foundation
and National Institute of Standards and Technology.'' Witnesses
included the Honorable France Cordova, Director of the National
Science Foundation; and Dr. Dan Arvizu, Chairman, National
Science Board.
On May 20, 2015, the House of Representatives passed H.R.
1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 by a
vote of 217-205, which included some provisions of H.R. 5049 in
sections 108 and 109.
On September 18, 2015, the Subcommittees on Oversight and
Research and Technology held a joint hearing entitled, ``NEON
Warning Signs: Examining the Management of the National
Ecological Observatory Network.'' Witnesses included Dr. James
L. Olds, Assistant Director for the Directorate for Biological
Sciences, National Science Foundation; and Dr. James P.
Collins, Chairman of the Board, National Ecological Observatory
Network, Inc.
On February 4, 2016, the Subcommittees on Oversight, and
Research and Technology held a joint hearing entitled, ``A
Review of Recommendations for NSF Project Management Reform.''
Witnesses included Ms. Cynthia Heckmann, Project Director,
National Academy of Public Administration; Dr. Richard Buckius,
Chief Operating Officer, National Science Foundation; and, the
Honorable Allison Lerner, Inspector General, National Science
Foundation.
On March 22, 2016, the Subcommittee on Research and
Technology held a hearing entitled, ``An Overview of the Budget
Proposal for the National Science Foundation for Fiscal Year
2017.'' Witnesses included the Honorable France Cordova,
Director, National Science Foundation; and Dr. Dan E. Arvizu,
Chairman, National Science Board.
On April 26, 2016, H.R. 5049 was introduced by
Representative Barry Loudermilk with Representative Lamar
Smith.
On April 27, 2016, the House Science, Space and Technology
Committee ordered reported H.R. 5049 by voice vote.
COMMITTEE VIEWS
Large Facilities Office
The Committee considers the NSF Large Facilities Office
(LFO) to be an important partner for the NSF research
directorates in the development, assessment, and
implementation, of major multi-user research facility
construction and transfer to operations. The Committee agrees
with recommendations made by the National Academy of Public
Administration that the NSF should develop project management
training and education for LFO and program staff and facilitate
project management knowledge sharing across the agency and with
award recipients.
Cost proposal analysis
It is the Committee's view that in addition to internal
cost proposal reviews carried out by NSF, a review by an
independent, external entity with proven, relevant expertise
will provide a higher level of assurance that a proposed major
multi-user research facility is constructed at the lowest cost
necessary to taxpayers. The Committee believes that an external
total project cost analysis will protect taxpayers, the NSF,
the scientific research community, and NSF's cooperative
agreement partners against significant project delays and cost
overruns. The Committee also believes that this step will more
than pay for itself by identifying budget issues before they
become problematic.
Incurred cost audits
The Committee intends for NSF to ensure that incurred cost
audits are conducted on at least a biennial basis for the
construction of major multi-user research facilities, beginning
one-year after commencement of construction. The Committee does
not intend this requirement to extend to the operations phase
of major multi-user research facilities, but encourages NSF to
consider periodic risk-based audits over the course of funding
the management of large-scale research projects and facilities.
The Committee understands that some awardees may have incurred
cost submission and audit systems in place under FAR 42 or 2
CFR 200, and intends for NSF to leverage existing incurred cost
audits with the governing audit agency to satisfy the
requirements of this provision, and minimize post-award
administrative burdens and costs while ensuring accountability.
The Committee believes that incurred cost auditing is an
established, effective tool for controlling costs and revealing
developing issues during construction of large facilities that
will protect taxpayers, the NSF, the affected scientific
research community, and NSF's cooperative agreement partners
against significant project delays and cost overruns during
construction of NSF major multi-user research facilities. The
results of periodic incurred cost audits can provide early
indications of problems that, if undetected and unresolved,
could turn into more serious ones that could force a project to
be scaled back or cancelled due to cost overruns.
Contingency
The Committee believes that it is important during
construction of major multi-user research facilities that NSF
should control the construction contingency budget. However,
the Committee understands the importance of not needlessly
delaying the release of contingency funds during construction
to assure continuity and stability, and encourages NSF to
develop a system or formula for the approval and release of
contingency funds in a timely manner, based on proper
supporting documentation. The Committee strongly believes that
advancing the entire construction contingency to the
cooperative agreement partner upon execution of the
construction agreement should not be NSF policy.
Management fees
The Committee understands that NSF awardees may incur
necessary and ordinary business expenses during the
construction and management of large facilities and projects
that could not be otherwise reimbursed as either a direct or
indirect cost and that in some cases a management fee or other
payment mechanism may be necessary to ensure that these
business expenses can be covered. However, the Committee
believes it is inappropriate to treat a management fee as a
payment to a non-profit awardee for its discretionary use,
which provides a loophole for federal funds to be abused by
awardees for inappropriate expenses like alcohol, lobbying, and
lavish holiday parties. The Committee recognizes that the NSF
recently instituted new policies for management fees with
prohibitions on certain expenses and the Committee believes the
bill largely mirrors that policy.
The Committee has included an additional prohibition not in
current NSF policy: charitable contributions, except for a
charitable contribution of direct benefit to the project or
activity supported by the management fee. The Committee
understands that an awardee may face circumstances in which a
charitable contribution is a necessary and ordinary business
expense. In most cases, the Committee considers charitable
contributions supporting STEM education and training activities
acceptable to meeting the exemption clause for this
prohibition.
The Committee believes that the overall financial situation
of an organization is an important factor in NSF's
determination if a management fee is necessary and for what
amount. The Committee also recognizes that some awardee
financial information may be considered proprietary or
sensitive and urges NSF, when carrying out the financial
information requirements of this section, to utilize existing
financial reporting or other mechanisms to minimize regulatory
burden and protect sensitive information.
The Committee strongly urges NSF to consider appropriate
alternatives to management fees as recommended by NAPA and
other fee mechanisms used by other federal science agencies.
Whistleblower
The Committee urges the education and training of NSF
managers and staff on Section 4712 in the U.S. Code, the Pilot
Program for Enhancement of Contractor Employee Whistleblower
Protections. The Committee is extremely appreciative of the
contributions made by a whistleblower, J. Kirk McGill, an
auditor with the Defense Contract Audit Agency, who brought
many of the issues with NSF's management of NEON Inc. to the
attention of Congress.
Section-by-Section
Sec. 1. Short title
This section establishes the short title of the bill as the
``NSF Major Research Facility Reform Act of 2016.''
Sec. 2. Definitions
This section defines Director, Foundation and Major Multi-
User Research Facility.
Sec. 3. Management and oversight of Large Facilities
This section requires the NSF Director to maintain a Large
Facilities Office serving as the Foundation's resource for all
policy or process issues related to the development,
assessment, and implementation of major multi-user research
facilities.
Directs the NSF Director to appoint a senior agency
official to be responsible for the Large Facilities Office.
Directs the NSF Director to ensure that the Foundation's
policies for developing and maintaining major multi-user
research facility costs are consistent with the best practices
described in the March 2009 Government Accountability Office
report GAO-09-3SP, or any succeeding report, the Uniform
Guidance in 2 C.F.R. part 200, and the Federal Acquisition
Regulation as appropriate.
Requires NSF to ensure an external total project cost
proposal analysis is conducted for any major multi-user
research facility and certify in writing that all issues
identified during the cost analysis are resolved before the
Foundation may execute a construction agreement with respect to
the audited project.
Requires that an incurred cost audit is conducted at least
biennially on any major multi-user research facility in
accordance with Government Auditing Standards as established in
Government Accountability Office Report GAO-12-331G, or any
successor report thereto, with the first incurred cost audit to
commence no later than 12 months after execution of the
construction agreement.
Requires the Foundation to: Manage contingencies in
accordance with Cost Principles Uniform Guidance in 2 C.F.R.
part 200.433, or any successor thereto, and the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, as appropriate, except as provided in
this paragraph; and not make any award that provides for
contributions to a contingency reserve held or managed by the
awardee.
Directs the Foundation to update its manual and any other
applicable guidance for contingencies on major multi-user
research facilities with regard to estimating, monitoring, and
accounting for contingency expenditures that may only include
amounts in an award in accordance with C.F.R. part 200.433 or
any succeeding report, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation,
as appropriate; and that the Foundation shall retain control
over budgeted-for contingencies, but may disburse budgeted for
contingency funds incrementally to the awardee to ensure
project stability and continuity. The policy must also require
awardees to provide verifiable documentation to support any
amounts proposed for contingency and support requests for the
release of contingency funds with evidence of a bona fide need
and that the amounts sought are reasonable, allocable, and
allowable, and record and report all expenditures to the
Foundation.
Directs the Foundation to work with awardees who have
received awards with contingency provisions made before the
date of the enactment of this Act to determine if any of their
use of contingency funds represent out-of-scope changes for the
Foundation's prior written approval and if these changes are
found, to identify any financial action that may be
appropriate.
States that the Foundation may provide management fees
under an award only if the awardee provides a justification as
to the need for such funds. In such cases, the Foundation shall
take into account the awardee's overall financial
circumstances.
Requires all award applicants to provide income and
financial information dating back no less than three years to
the Foundation. All awardees must also report annually to the
Foundation any sources of non-Federal funds over $50,000.
Requires the awardees to track and report all expenses
reimbursed or paid for with management fee funds to the
Foundation. The Inspector General of the Foundation may audit
any award for compliance.
Prohibits an awardee from using management fees for costs
allowable under Cost Principles Uniform Guidance in 2 C.F.R.
part 14 200, alcoholic beverages, tickets to concerts, sporting
or other entertainment events, vacation or other travel for
non-business purposes, charitable contributions except for a
charitable contribution of direct benefit to the project or
activity supported by the management fee, social or sporting
club memberships, meals or entertainment for non-business
purposes, luxury or personal items, lobbying, or any other
purpose the Foundation determines inappropriate. All management
fee usage will be reviewed by the Foundation for each award on
at least an annual basis for compliance.
Directs that within 12 months of enactment, the Foundation
will submit a report to Congress describing the Foundation's
policies for developing, assessing, and managing major multi-
user research facility costs, including a description of any
aspect of those policies that differ from the best practices
recommended in the GAO Report.
Requires the NSF Director to ensure that the Foundation
will take enforcement actions specified in 2 C.F.R. part 200
for non-compliance.
Section 4. Whistleblower education
This section states that NSF must provide education and
training for Foundation managers and staff on Section 4712 in
the U.S. Code, the Pilot Program for Enhancement of Contractor
Employee Whistleblower Protections. This information must also
be transmitted to all NSF awardees, contractors, and employees
of such awardees and contractors.
Explanation of Amendments
A manager's amendment offered by Representative Barry
Loudermilk was adopted by the Committee. The amendment made
minor and technical changes.
An amendment offered by Representative Eddie Bernie Johnson
was adopted by the Committee. The amendment changed ``cost
proposal audit'' to ``external cost proposal analysis'' in
Section 3.
Committee Consideration
On April 27, 2016, the Committee met in open session and
ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 5049, as amended, by
voice vote, a quorum being present.
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of
employment or access to public services and accommodations.
This bill provides for improved management and oversight of
major multi-user research facilities funded by the National
Science Foundation. As such this bill does not relate to
employment or access to public services and accommodations.
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of
this report.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
H.R. 5049, the NSF Major Research Facility Reform Act of
2016, would provide for improved management and oversight of
major multi-user research facilities funded by the National
Science Foundation.
Duplication of Federal Programs
No provision of H.R. 5049 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings
The Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 5049 does not
direct the completion of any specific rule makings within the
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.
Federal Advisory Committee Act
The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish
or authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within
the definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).
Unfunded Mandate Statement
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded
Mandate Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement as to
whether the provisions of the reported include unfunded
mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has
received a letter from the Congressional Budget Office included
herein.
Earmark Identification
H.R. 5049 does not include any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of Rule XXI.
Committee Estimate
Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the
Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out
H.R. 5049. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides
that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has
included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the
bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received
the following cost estimate for H.R. 5049 from the Director of
Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 31, 2016.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5049, the NSF
Major Research Facility Reform Act of 2016.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Marin
Burnett.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall.
Enclosure.
H.R. 5049--NSF Major Research Facility Reform Act of 2016
H.R. 5049 would direct the National Science Foundation
(NSF) to audit its major multi-user research facilities. Those
facilities are centers for research in various fields including
physics, astronomy, geosciences, engineering, and
nanotechnology. In 2015, $1.1 billion was appropriated to NSF
for the operation, development, construction, and maintenance
of more than 20 such facilities.
The bill also would authorize NSF to pay management fees as
a part of their research awards under certain conditions and
would require the agency to provide additional education and
training for NSF managers and staff regarding employment
protections for persons reporting a possible misuse of
government funds.
Based on information from NSF, CBO estimates that
conducting the audits required by the legislation would cost
about $2 million annually and $10 million over the 2017-2021
period; such spending would be subject to the availability of
appropriated funds. Other provisions would not have a
significant cost.
Enacting H.R. 5049 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5049 would not increase
net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027.
H.R. 5049 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Marin Burnett.
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
[all]