PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jun 14, 2016
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on June 13, 2016. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
NSF Major Research Facility Reform Act of 2016
(Sec. 3) This bill directs the National Science Foundation (NSF) to maintain a Large Facilities Office to support its research directorates in the development, implementation, and assessment of major multi-user research facilities.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The NSF shall appoint a senior agency official to head the Office, whose responsibility shall be to oversee development, construction, and transfer to operations of major multi-user facilities across the NSF.
The bill requires:
an external cost proposal analysis for any major multi-user research facility;
the resolution of all issues identified, including any unjustified or questionable cost items; and
biennial incurred cost audits of any such facility.
The NSF shall not make any award which arranges for contributions to an awardee's contingency reserve.
(Contingency is the part of a budget estimate of future costs associated with possible events or conditions arising from causes whose precise outcome is indeterminable at the time of estimate, and that experience shows will likely result, in aggregate, in additional costs for the approved activity or project.) The NSF shall update its Large Facilities Manual and any other applicable guidance for estimating, monitoring, and accounting for contingencies on major multi-user research facilities.
The updated policy shall state that the NSF: (1) may only include contingency amounts in an award meeting specified criteria; and (2) shall retain control over funds budgeted for contingency, but may disburse budgeted contingency funds incrementally to an awardee to ensure project stability and continuity.
An awardee shall: (1) furnish verifiable documentation to support proposed contingency amounts, and (2) support requests for the release of contingency funds with evidence of a bona fide need and reasonable and allowable allocations to the performance baseline.
The NSF shall work with current awardees to: (1) determine if any of their use of contingency funds represents out-of-scope changes for which prior NSF written approval was not obtained, and (2) identify appropriate financial action regarding any out-of-scope changes found.
The NSF may include management fees under an award for ordinary and legitimate business expenses, not otherwise allowable, only if the awardee furnishes a justification of need.
The NSF shall require award applicants to report:
income and financial information covering at least three prior years, including cash on hand and net asset information, in support of a request for management fees; and
any sources of nonfederal funds received in excess of $50,000 during the award period.
The NSF shall require awardees to track and report annually all expenses reimbursed or otherwise paid for with management fee funds.
The bill specifies prohibited uses for management fees.
(Sec. 4) The bill subjects the NSF to the pilot program for enhancement of contractor protection from reprisal for (whistleblower) disclosure of certain information.
The NSF shall arrange for education and training for NSF managers and staff on the pilot program and furnish information on it to all awardees and contractors and their employees.
People & committees
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA-11] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 412 - 9 (Roll no. 301). (text: CR 6/14/2016 H3732-3733)
House roll call 301 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 412 - 9 (Roll no. 301).(text: CR 6/14/2016 H3732-3733)
House roll call 301 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3776-3777)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5049.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3732-3735)
Mr. Loudermilk moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 481.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. H. Rept. 114-619.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. H. Rept. 114-619.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5049 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5049 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5049 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5049 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.