[Senate Hearing 107-1055]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-1055
NOMINATION OF PHILLIP BOND TO BE UNDER
SECRETARY FOR TECHNOLOGY AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND JOHN
MARBURGER TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE
OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 9, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
89-445 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska
Virginia CONRAD BURNS, Montana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
RON WYDEN, Oregon SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MAX CLELAND, Georgia GORDON SMITH, Oregon
BARBARA BOXER, California PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
Mark Buse, Republican Staff Director
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 9, 2001.................................. 1
Statement of Senator Allen....................................... 6
Statement of Senator Brownback................................... 3
Statement of Senator McCain, Prepared statement.................. 38
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 4
Statement of Senator Wyden....................................... 1
Witnesses
Boehlert, Hon. Sherwood, U.S. Representative from New York....... 7
Bond, Phillip J., Nominee to be Under Secretary for the
Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce......... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Grucci, Felix, Jr., U.S. Representative from New York............ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Marburger III, John H., Nominee to be Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy.................................. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Appendix
McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arizona, prepared statement. 59
Murray, Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington State, prepared
statement...................................................... 59
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to:
Phillip Bond................................................. 60
John H. Marburger III........................................ 67
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John McCain to:
John H. Marburger III........................................ 61
Phillip Bond................................................. 68
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Fritz Hollings to
John H. Marburger III.......................................... 68
Letter:..........................................................
To Hon. Ron Wyden from Charles Schumer....................... 73
To Hon. Ernest F. Hollings from the Science Coalition........ 75
From the Association of American Universities................ 80
NOMINATION OF PHILLIP BOND
TO BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR TECHNOLOGY
AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
JOHN MARBURGER TO BE DIRECTOR
OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden,
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. The Committee will come to order. Today the
Committee considers the nomination of Dr. John Marburger for
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and to
serve as the President's Science Advisor, and the nomination of
Mr. Phillip Bond to be the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Technology. We will give these two distinguished individuals a
more formal introduction in just a few moments, and we are also
pleased to have a number of our colleagues from the House,
particularly my old friend Chairman Sherwood Boehlert here with
us today, and Sherry, we are very pleased that you are here as
well.
Since the attacks of September 11, the role of science and
technology has become even more important than ever before.
Just yesterday, some news organizations were reporting that
anthrax from American labs was sent to Iraq in the 1980's as
part of a scientific effort. While the report did not mention
Government involvement in this effort, the inherent risk of
such action is unmistakable.
I am of the view that it is important that intellectual
security be seen as an integral part of any national security
approach. Given the possibilities for the misuse of science, I
also see tremendous potential in harnessing science and
technology in a protective effort, from developing the
technology to direct airplanes from a control tower instead of
a cockpit, to using science to quickly develop antidotes and
vaccines to potential bioterrorism agents, taxpayer money can
be smartly invested in advances that ultimately reward and
benefit the safety and peace of mind of all Americans. We
intend to look very closely at what happened on September 11
with a mind toward making sure the preventive steps are in
place so as to do everything possible to eliminate the prospect
of such tragedies again, and also to take those steps to try to
repair and recreate a damaged technology infrastructure.
I proposed in recent days what I have called the technology
equivalent of the National Guard, made up of the brains and
talent in this country's leading technology companies, that
have indicated to me and other Members of Congress that they
would be happy on essentially a volunteer basis to step in and
try to both prevent such tragedies and to repair and recreate
damaged communication systems.
Suffice it to say that while these companies made Herculean
efforts after September 11 to help, sending people and
equipment and resources to New York City, it is now quite clear
that there are many significant gaps in the way these matters
are handled.
For example, yesterday, in meetings that I held at home in
Portland, Oregon, I was advised by many of the leaders in our
technology companies that they and others had tried to donate
people and equipment in New York City to try to respond to the
problems, and New York City just was not set up to handle it.
They were not in a position to try to use those resources.
I came away with a feeling that if nothing else was done in
this country but to set up a clearinghouse where you could
readily get the information about the brains and the equipment
and the companies and the people who could assist in the event
of such tragedies, that that alone would be a very valuable
contribution.
This Subcommittee intends to hold hearings on the situation
in New York City in terms of the response on the technology
side very soon, perhaps as soon as next week, and we are
looking forward to exploring a variety of the proposals that
have been made with respect to both the private and the public
sector.
While we work to coordinate with the private sector to
respond to threats, coordination in the public sector is also
required to prevent terrorist threats from becoming a reality.
The General Accounting Office recently released a troubling new
report entitled, ``Combatting Terrorism''. One of the sections
of the General Accounting Office report dealt with a lack of
coordination among science agencies in conducting
counterterrorism research. For example, it found that the Coast
Guard was conducting research on detection of chemical attacks
on cruise ships, and was unaware of similar research being
conducted by the Defense Department.
The General Accounting Office recommended development of a
strategic plan for research and development on the counterterr-
orism front that would prevent duplication and leverage our
resources, and so we intend to ask you, Dr. Marburger, about
how you would participate in the development and execution of
such a plan. Obviously, to put such a plan together, it will
have to be closely coordinated with new Office of Homeland
Security.
I am very pleased that Governor Ridge is going to head up
that office. Sherry Boehlert, Tom Ridge and I teamed up quite
often over the years on these kinds of issues involving science
and technology policy, and I think he is going to do a superb
job in that position, but one of the keys to his success will
be to coordinate the 40 or so agencies involved in
antiterrorist activity, and one of the things we intend on this
Subcommittee to look at is the possibility of convening a
meeting among the technology officers of the pertinent
intelligence divisions, Tom Ridge's Office of Homeland Security
and congressional leaders to look at ways for technology to
assist in coordinating and sharing intelligence in a safe and
secure way, and determine how the Congress can be most helpful
to the administration in achieving that outcome.
Finally, one last area that I have had a special interest
in over the years is to ensure that science policy and science
and technology issues are addressed so as to promote sound
science, real science as apart from junk science, and one of
the things that we intend to do is to try to look and see
whether it may be possible to define a set of core principles
that would be used to try to best identify what constitutes
sound science. I have begun such discussions already.
There are obviously some ideas that already come to mind,
such as ensuring, for example, that there is thorough peer
review of scientific judgments. Dr. Marburger, I intend to
explore with you, as well, some of your ideas about how, at a
time when science is more important than ever before, we can
see if we can come up with some principles that will help to
guide us and keep us away from junk science that is dictated
perhaps more by parochial or boardroom decisions than real
scientific merit. I will have some questions for you this
afternoon about that as well.
We are anxious to hear from our colleagues in the House,
but first I am very pleased that Senator Brownback is here. He
has had a great interest in these issues over the years as
well, and we would be happy to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding the hearing. I appreciate the comments, and appreciate
that you are doing this and putting this hearing in front of
the rest of the Senate. We are considering two of the
President's nominations, and very important I consider science
and technology positions, Phillip Bond to be Under Secretary of
Commerce for Technology, and John Marburger to be Director of
the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Both Mr. Bond and Mr. Marburger are clearly qualified to
fulfill the responsibilities of these positions, and I look
forward to getting them into office just as soon as possible.
Certainly, with everything that has transpired since September
11, I think it is safe to say that the importance of these
positions will be underscored as Congress seeks to address
matters of an urgent nature and square away the budget.
Working in conjunction with the Federal Communications
Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, both of these positions will play an important
role in certain areas where Congress is perhaps not as disposed
to act, for obvious reasons, and I say that in reference to the
telecommunications industry we have had some difficulties in
deploying certain technologies in telcom. Deployment of
broadband infrastructure seems to be slowing. This, in turn, is
having a drastic impact on other parts of the technology
sector. It is bad for consumers, and it is bad for the economy,
and we are going to need to right that ship, and you are going
to be in positions to help influence that policy creation and
implementation. In my view, the state of the industry today
indicates that the creation of a national broadband policy is
important and long overdue.
As we in Congress continue to address the budget, and the
immediate priorities associated with the war on terrorism, I
urge you gentlemen to engage your colleagues in Government and
to seek to create a broader national dialog on spurring
technology, technology development--particularly the broadband
deployment that I think can be a very important part of our
technology growth and our communication--and our infrastructure
for security in this country.
Sometimes simple discussion can be as productive as
rulemaking authority. I urge both of you to be involved in that
task. I welcome both of you. I do not anticipate there will be
any problem in getting you cleared on through and into these
positions. It is important that you get there and you get there
soon to engage the battle front, and I welcome you here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Brownback.
Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I just want to say
to my old friend Sherry Boehlert that I am delighted to see
him, and you have got such an important position now in the
House as Chairman of the Science Committee. I am glad you are
here on behalf of these gentlemen, and just by way of
introduction I would say that OSTP is one of the most important
appointments in the Federal Government.
For example, one thing that you would have some influence
over is the conundrum that is now faced by NASA, where the
Chairman has a hearing on this in all of the cost overruns on
the space station, the starvation diet that NASA is being put
on, actually delaying or canceling the safety upgrades for the
space shuttle, and his hearing on this was the first week of
September. Well, now after September 11, we do not have a
choice, because we have to have assured access to space, and
your risk factor for catastrophic failure on something like the
Titan is 1 in 20.
I do not have to tell you what happens if a Titan pad was
knocked out. Your only assured access to space then would be
the shuttle, until they could get the EELV's, but none of them
have been flown, so the assured access to space now takes a
whole new importance, and a dimension, and OSTP is clearly in a
position to influence that.
Now, I have spoken directly with Chairman Boehlert and my
old friend, now the Vice President, about this, but he needs,
and others in the administration--and this is just one thing we
are talking about, Mr. Bond. In the area of space
commercialization, you know, there was at one point this rush
to say that people were going to put platforms at sea, right on
the equator, and we were going to launch so we did not have to
pay the fuel penalty.
Well now, look at the vulnerability of those platforms to
terrorist activity, when you have to have assured access to
space with regard to commercial ventures, which now become so
important to us from the standpoint of national and
international security. So there again, you have a very
important position with regard to making sure that all of this
commercial activity of getting to space does not leave the
United States.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me join in and
giving my 2 cents, and to say also hello to Chairman Boehlert.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Nelson, and obviously we
are very pleased you are on this Subcommittee as a passionate
advocate for these space issues, and you raise the critical
concerns for the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
We have a plethora of people who want to introduce our two
distinguished nominees. We could probably chew up the afternoon
with just the introductions. I am going to offer a brief
introduction and then turn it over to Senator Allen, who, like
myself, has a special relationship with Phil Bond, and then we
are going to turn it over to our colleagues from the House as
well.
Dr. John Marburger is the nominee for the Office of Science
and Technology Policy and the President's Science Advisor. He
is joined today by his wife, Carol, his sister, Mary Hoffman,
and her husband, Robert, their sons Robert and Daniel, as well
as other friends and colleagues.
Dr. Marburger, maybe we could persuade your family to stand
and let us recognize them at this time.
[Applause.]
Senator Wyden. Welcome, and we are very pleased that you
are with us here today. Dr. Marburger is a physicist by
training and has had a long and distinguished career in
science, most recently as Director of the Department of
Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory. Dr. Marburger came and
met with me early on, and we expect him to play a major role in
the Office of Science and Technology Policy with the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology,
known as PCAST, and with the council's president, Floyd Kvamme,
who I respect very much, and so we welcome you as well.
We also have Mr. Phillip Bond, who is nominated to be the
Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology. He is joined today
by his wife, Dianne, and his daughters Jacqueline and Jessica,
and hopefully we can get the Bond delegation to stand.
[Applause.]
Senator Wyden. Welcome, and Mr. Bond is a distinguished
graduate of Linfield College, in my home State of Oregon.
Northwest members of the congressional delegation I think have
been tripping over themselves to introduce Phil Bond. Senator
Murray wanted very much to be here as well. We are going to
make her statement of support a part of the hearing record in
its entirety, and we expect Phil Bond to play a major role on
technology questions, be it Internet taxes, some of the issues
we are going to be looking at with respect to responding to
what happened in New York City, and we sort of consider Phil
Bond an honorary Oregonian, and we are very glad you are here.
My friend and colleague George Allen also goes way back
with Mr. Bond. Before we turn to House Members, I want to
recognize Senator Allen for his comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this very important nominations hearing today. The
Department of Commerce, technology and particularly the
administration thereof, is obviously very important for our
scientific and technological advancements, and that analysis is
vitally needed in our Federal Government, not just for the
Government but for our economy, and we have two very highly
qualified individuals, capable individuals today, seeking our
confirmation, which I am sure they will receive, and I do want
to welcome Dr. Marburger. Thank you for coming, and your
willingness to serve. I also want to spend a bit of my time to
introduce Mr. Bond.
Phil Bond is the President's nominee for the post of Under
Secretary of Commerce for Technology. I know Secretary Evans is
very interested in our competitiveness as a country, and I find
technology--and I know the Chairman shares my view--I find
technology to be a key for success as a Nation, and Phil Bond
has the capabilities, the background, and experience to give
good advice to the White House as well as to us in the House
and the Senate.
I will say that he is very qualified. You say he started in
California. I started in California as well. That is where I
was dropped, and then we moved around the country, but never
through Oregon. I was educated, my higher education was in
Virginia, but Phil Bond also for the last 15 years has resided
in the Commonwealth of Virginia with his wonderful wife Dianne,
and I suspect that Jacqueline and Jessica were born in
Virginia, is that correct?
Mr. Bond. That is correct.
Senator Allen. Good.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. Mr. Bond served several times on Capitol
Hill, serving as chief of staff for both Congresswoman Jennifer
Dunn of Washington, and Congressman Rob McKuen of Oregon. He
served also in the Department of Defense in the Reagan
administration and in the first Bush administration. In the
latter case, Mr. Bond served as a Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs with then-
Secretary Dick Cheney.
Phil's work in the public sector is well-known, also the
private sector, having worked for Hewlett-Packard, the
Information Technology Industry Council, which represents all
of the leaders in the technology community, and that is
important, and makes him an ideal choice to be the President's
principal voice on domestic and international technology
issues.
He will also oversee the Office of Technology Policy, the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, otherwise
referred to as NIST, the National Technical Information
Service, and the Office of Space Commercialization, which I
know our colleague Senator Nelson of Florida has a great deal
of knowledge and interest in.
This position, Phil, as you well know, is going to take
extensive coordination between the Government or public sector,
as well as the private sector. I know that you will bring your
many years of private experience, your knowledge beyond your
years, because you are still young, but nevertheless you have
that energy, you have that knowledge, you have the experience,
and thank you for coming back to service for your country and,
indeed, for our economy and our quality of life in this
country.
So Mr. Chairman, it is my great pleasure to present Mr.
Phil Bond to this Committee for favorable consideration, and I
thank Mr. Bond for his service.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Allen. I very much
appreciate all of your interest and involvement. You made it
clear with respect to aviation technology that there are a
number of areas where this Subcommittee could team up with the
administration, and we are going to do that, and we appreciate
that.
All right, let us wrap up our introductions by having the
distinguished chairman of the Science Committee, Mr. Boehlert
and Mr. Grucci, make their comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK
Mr. Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure to appear before the Committee and three valued
friends regarding the nomination of Dr. John Marburger as
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. As a
New Yorker and as chairman of the Science Committee, I can
attest to Dr. Marburger's outstanding qualifications for this
very important post, that I think it is evident to all who have
examined those qualifications that he deserves prompt
confirmation by the Senate.
I have had the opportunity to spend a fair amount of time
in New York since the President announced his intention to
nominate Dr. Marburger as Science Advisor, and I can tell you
this, no one can spend any amount of time with him without
walking away just very favorably impressed. He is thoughtful,
he is articulate, he is straightforward, traits that are all
too rare around this town. He is an excellent manager, someone
who inspires confidence, someone who is a natural leader,
someone who is able to rally people around him while still
being self-deprecating. These, too, are rare abilities, and
ones that frankly he will need to work very hard with the turf-
conscious R&D agencies and the Office of Management and Budget.
Dr. Marburger has an exemplary career as a scientist and an
educator. He holds a B.A. in physics from Princeton, and a Ph.D
in applied physics from Stanford University, where he developed
an expertise in nonlinear optics. His teaching activities
included Frontiers of Electronics, a series of educational
programs broadcast Nation-wide by CBS.
In 1980, he assumed the presidency of SUNY Stony Brook.
During his 14-year tenure the university opened University
Hospital, established a national reputation for work in the
biological sciences, and increased its Federal research
portfolio until it exceeded that of any other public university
in the Northeast. Recognizing the importance of technology
transfer, he also established the Long Island technology
incubator.
In 1997, Dr. Marburger became president of Brookhaven
Science Associates, a partnership between SUNY Stony Brook and
Batelle, which was awarded the contract to manage Brookhaven
Laboratory for the Department of Energy. Brookhaven continues
to thrive under his leadership, and is doing important work in
particle physics imaging and neuroscience and genomics.
I would also note that the lab has been recommended for an
ISO 14001, the international standard of excellence for
environmental management, something that is near and dear to my
heart. Dr. Marburger must draw upon all of these experiences in
order to meet the challenges that will face the Science Advisor
over the next several months and years.
What must we do to better integrate research and education
so that our children remain international leaders in math and
science? How do we ensure that policy decisions regarding
health and safety and energy and the environment, are based
upon, Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out, on good science and not
junk science?
Finally, in the wake of the terrorist attacks waged against
this country on September 11, how do we marshall our public and
private research resources in service of the effort to protect
our citizens and prosecute the war against terrorism?
These questions are not easy to answer. They require a
lasting commitment, and are demonstrably not amenable to short-
term solutions. They will require careful thought and a steely
resolve to persevere when public attention shifts, as, in time,
it will, to other seemingly more pressing problems.
I am confident Dr. Marburger is up to this challenge, that
he will work to build consensus around these and other
difficult matters. It is my pleasure to present Dr. Marburger
for nomination to this Committee with the hope and expectation
that there will be prompt approval and confirmation by the
Senate.
Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Sherry, thank you for an excellent
presentation, and Dr. Marburger is lucky to have a passionate
advocate like you, and we will continue, as you know, to work
closely with you.
Congressman Grucci.
STATEMENT OF FELIX GRUCCI, JR.,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK
Mr. Grucci. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to see Dr.
John Marburger, Director of the Brookhaven National Laboratory,
in my congressional district, as President Bush's nominee as
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the
Nation's highest-ranking science position. Dr. Marburger will
be a tremendous asset to the Bush White House and to the
Nation. He brings sterling credentials, firmly grounded in some
of our Nation's finest educational and scientific facilities.
After a distinguished career as the President of State
University of New York at Stony Brook from 1980 to 1994, Dr.
Marburger
became Director of Brookhaven National Laboratory in March
1998. I have had the distinct pleasure to work closely with Dr.
Marburger in my former position as supervisor of the town of
Brookhaven, a town of 450,000 people, and he has proven to be
the utmost professional and good friend. I look forward to
working with him in his new position at the White House Office
of Science and Technology Policy.
Dr. Marburger has overseen an era of exciting scientific
advances at Brookhaven National Laboratory, as well as playing
a significant role in the environmental restoration at the
laboratory.
Dr. Marburger is a great communicator of science. Using his
skills as an educator, Dr. Marburger has restored the
community's trust in the Brookhaven National Laboratory by
affirming their faith in the Federal Government scientific
programs, and by showing them how it helps them, their
families, and their children.
Dr. Marburger is exactly the type of person we need at the
White House as the White House Science Advisor. A gifted
scientist, a highly regarded educator, and a concerned citizen,
he will bring new ideas to get the job done. Science research
and discovery know no boundaries or political affiliations, and
I say these words not as a Congressman who represents the
district and represented the Marburger family, but someone who
has known Dr. Marburger now for the better part of 20 years.
Working with him when he was the president of Stony Brook
University, I watched as he laid the foundation for that
learning institution to become one of the country's more
predominant and more premier learning facilities. It has now
garnered some of the attentions of some of the highest
educators from around the country.
I watched as he took the Brookhaven National Laboratory
during some turbulent times, when there was some real concern
about things happening at the laboratory that might have grave
environmental concerns to the community, and impacts to our
drinking water. I saw Dr. Marburger take the helm of that
facility and turn around the fears of the community, restore
that facility back to its greatness, and march forward to where
it is today, as one of the leading laboratories in the country,
when at a time it could have fallen apart and become something
less than what it is today.
I can think of no greater person, no man of moral
character, no one of a higher education, no one more committed
to not only the sciences but to this great country, than to ask
you to seriously consider the name of Dr. John Marburger for
this position.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grucci follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Felix Grucci, U.S. Representative
from New York
I am proud to see Dr. John Marburger, Director of Brookhaven
National Laboratory in my Congressional District, as President Bush's
nominee as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy--the
nation's highest ranking science position.
Dr. Marburger will be a tremendous asset to the Bush White House
and the nation. He brings sterling credentials firmly based in some of
our nation's finest educational and scientific facilities.
After a distinguished career as the President of State University
of New York at Stony Brook from 1980-1994, Dr. Marburger became
Director of Brookhaven National Laboratory in March 1998. I have had
the distinct pleasure to work closely with John Marburger in my former
position in Brookhaven, NY and he has proven to be the utmost
professional and good friend. I look forward to working with him in his
new position at the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy.
Dr. Marburger has overseen an era of exciting scientific advances
at BNL, as well as playing a significant role in the environmental
restoration at the Laboratory.
Dr. Marburger is a great communicator of science. Using his skills
as an educator, Dr. Marburger has restored the community's trust in the
Brookhaven National Laboratory by firming their faith in the Federal
Government's science programs and by showing them how it helped them,
their families, and their children.
Dr. Marburger is exactly the type of person we need as the White
House's Science Advisor: a gifted scientist, a highly regarded
educator, and a concerned citizen, he will bring new ideas to get the
job done. Science, research, and discovery know no boundaries or
political affiliations.
Senator Wyden. Congressman, thank you for your
presentation. You go way back with Dr. Marburger. Thank you for
your presentation, Chairman Boehlert. For you and your
colleague I do not think we have any questions. We thank you
both for your excellent presentation and for coming over this
afternoon. We will be working with you.
Gentlemen, I think we are at the point where you finally
get to say your piece, and I am sure you are anxious to do it.
We will begin with you, Dr. Marburger, and my inclination is
that we will have Dr. Marburger first, and then Mr. Bond next,
and then we will start in with questions for both of them after
the presentations.
Dr. Marburger.
STATEMENT OF JOHN MARBURGER III, NOMINEE TO BE
DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Dr. Marburger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a short
written statement I would like to make. It is an honor for me
to appear before this Committee as President Bush's nominee for
the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
I approach this opportunity and the profound
responsibilities it carries with a mixture of humility and
pride, humility in view of the distinguished scientists who
have gone before me, and pride in this Nation's unmatched
scientific establishment. Science and technology have long
provided us with increased security, better health, and greater
economic opportunity, and will continue to do so for many
generations to come.
At this point, I would like to congratulate Mr. Bond on the
success of the Department of Commerce. They have recently been
informed that they own two-thirds of the Nobel prize in physics
that was announced this morning, just a tremendous advance in
applied physics, for which this country ought to take great
pride. All three recipients of the prize were working in
America at the time.
I believe my professional career over the past three
decades as a professor of physics and electrical engineering,
as a university dean and president, and as the director of the
Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory, has
provided me with the knowledge and experience to meet the needs
and expectations of this office. Should I be confirmed, I look
forward to a close and productive relationship with Congress
and particularly with this Committee, which has long provided
bipartisan and enduring support of our world leading science
and engineering enterprise.
The counsel and support of Members of Congress is essential
for continued U.S. leadership in science and the science-based
technology. We must make important choices together, because we
have neither unlimited resources nor monopoly of the world's
scientific talent. While I believe we should seek to excel in
all scientific disciplines, we must still choose among the
multitudes of possible research programs. We must decide which
ones to launch, encourage and enhance, and which ones to
modify, reevaluate, or redirect in keeping with our national
needs and capabilities.
Today, the most pressing of these needs is an adequate and
coordinated response to the vicious and destructive terrorist
attacks of September 11, a response in which science and
technology are already playing an important role. America's
scientific and technical communities have signaled their
commitment to this urgent national need, and now coordination
and evaluations of programs that are being proposed are
increasingly important to realize their full potential.
The struggle against terrorism has many fronts, and science
and technology pervade them all, from instruments of
surveillance that are consistent with our Nation's love of
individual freedom, to basic advances in science that feed
technologies important for long-term economic strength, and the
international collaborations that awaken in other cultures the
spirit of objectivity and the quest for truth. The security of
our Nation depends upon management of our scientific and
technical resources. It is our joint responsibility to ensure
that our science and technology portfolio is responsive to
Presidential and congressional intent, that our cross-cutting
programs are well-coordinated, and that our research and
development funds are efficiently used.
Since its inception, the Office of Science and Technology
Policy has played an important national role not only in
enhancing the connections between fundamental research and
their overarching national goals, but also in sustaining and
nurturing America's unmatched scientific enterprise. If I am
confirmed as the President's Science Advisor, I will seek the
counsel and wisdom of the best minds in the science and
engineering communities in both the public and private sectors,
and provide the most knowledgeable advice to the President for
his deliberations and decisions.
I also would hope to organize the office in a way that
builds upon the impressive progress made by my distinguished
predecessors. As part of the Executive Office of the President,
OSTP has the unique position and perspective that enables it to
assess the vast sweep of scientific endeavors of our various
Federal agencies and Departments.
The complexity of this activity, the diversity of its
impacts, and the intensity of its many advocates, mask an
underlying machinery of the scientific enterprise whose parts
must work in balance to effect the smooth functioning of the
whole. Our joint responsibility is to identify the crucial
parts, evaluate their effectiveness, and ensure their
continuing strength through all the mechanisms available to
National Government.
The roots of this governmental role go deep in science.
More than any other Nation, we have used science and
technology, and science to drive technology wisely to create
peace, advance democracy, and provide for the well-being of our
citizens. I know these are also President Bush's goals as he
seeks to support and encourage diverse scientific research and
development in our Nation's universities, national
laboratories, and industries, and I look forward, with your
help, to achieving these goals.
The written version of my statement contains more details
about specific science and technology areas of current
importance, and I will be pleased to answer any questions that
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Marburger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. John H. Marburger III, Nominee to be Director
of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
It is a great honor and privilege to come before you as President
Bush's nominee for Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy within the Executive Office of the President.
I approach this opportunity and profound responsibility with a
mixture of humility and immense pride--humility in the wake of the
distinguished American scientists who have gone before me, pride in
this nation's unmatched scientific establishment. Science and
technology have long provided us with increased security, better
health, and greater economic opportunity and will continue to do so for
many generations to come.
I believe my professional career over the last three decades--as a
Professor of physics and electrical engineering, as a university Dean
and President, and as the Director of the Department of Energy's
Brookhaven National Laboratory--has provided me with the knowledge and
experience to meet the needs and expectations of this office.
Should I be confirmed, I look forward to a close and productive
relationship with the Congress and particularly with this Committee,
which has long provided bipartisan and enduring support of our world-
leading science and engineering enterprise. The counsel and support of
Members of Congress is an essential element of continued U.S.
leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge.
We must make important choices together because we have neither
unlimited resources, nor a monopoly of the world's scientific talent.
While I believe we should seek to excel in all scientific disciplines,
we must still choose among the multitudes of possible research--
programs. We must decide which ones to launch, encourage, and enhance
and which ones to modify, reevaluate, or redirect in keeping with our
national needs and capabilities.
Today the most pressing of these needs is an adequate and
coordinated response to the vicious and destructive terrorist attacks
on September 11, a response in which science and technology are already
playing an important role. The scientific and technical communities
have signaled their commitment to this urgent national need, and
functions of coordination and evaluation of proposed programs are
increasingly important to realize their full potential.
The struggle against terrorism has many fronts, and science and
technology pervade them all. From instruments of surveillance that are
consistent with our nation's love of individual freedom, to basic
advances in science that feed technologies important for long term
economic strength, and the international collaborations that awaken in
other cultures the spirit of objectivity and the quest for truth, the
security of our Nation depends upon thoughtful management of our
scientific and technical resources.
It is our joint responsibility to ensure that our science and
technology portfolio is responsive to Presidential and Congressional
intent, that our cross-cutting programs are well-coordinated, and that
our research and development (R&D) funds are efficiently used.
Since its inception, the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) has played an important national role not only in enhancing the
connections between fundamental research and our overarching national
goals, but also in sustaining and nurturing America's unmatched
scientific enterprise.
If confirmed as the President's science advisor, I will seek the
counsel and wisdom of the best minds in the science and engineering
community in both the public and private sectors and provide the most
knowledgeable advice directly to the President for his deliberations
and decisions. I also would hope to organize the office in a way that
builds upon the impressive progress made by my distinguished
predecessors.
As part of the Executive Office of the President, OSTP has a unique
position and perspective that enables us to assess the vast sweep of
scientific endeavors of our various Federal agencies and departments.
The complexity of this activity, the diversity of its impacts, and the
intensity of its many advocates mask an underlying machinery of the
scientific enterprise whose parts must work in balance to effect the
smooth functioning of the whole. Our joint responsibility is to
identify the crucial parts, evaluate their effectiveness, and ensure
their continuing strength through all the mechanisms available to
national government.
The roots of this governmental role in science go deep. More than
any other nation, we have used science and technology wisely to create
peace, advance democracy, and provide for the well being of our
citizens. I know these are also President Bush's goals as he seeks to
support and encourage diverse scientific research and development in
our nation's universities, national laboratories, and industries.
Economists tell us that fully half of our economic growth'in the
last half-century has come from technological innovation and the
science that supported it. It is no accident that our country's most
productive and competitive industries are those that benefited from
sustained Federal investments in R&D--computers and communications,
semiconductors, biotechnology, aerospace, environmental technologies,
energy efficiency.
The Federal role is crucial. Economists estimate that rates of
return on private sector R&D spending average about 30 percent. But
societal rates of return on public R&D investments--the economic
benefits that accrue to our entire society--are twice as large. As much
as half the return on a particular firm's R&D investment goes to other
companies and competitors--not to the investing company. This
``spillover'' effect means that private industry cannot and will not
commit the level of resources to R&D that is best for society.
From satellites to software to superconductivity, the Federal
Government has supported--and must continue to support--exploratory
research, experimentation, and innovation that would be impossible for
individual companies or even whole industries to afford. These
partnerships in pursuit of innovation enable the private sector to
generate new knowledge and develop novel technologies that ultimately
lead to commercial success, increased jobs, and healthier and more
productive lives for all Americans.
Balance in this broad research portfolio recognizes that advances
in one field, such as medicine, are often dependent on gains in other
disciplines. Diversified investments across the full spectrum maximize
our returns, both financial and technical.
Medical diagnosis, treatment and research are continuously
transformed by new methods and insights derived from fields as
seemingly disconnected from health as physics, chemistry, engineering,
computing, and mathematics. In the years ahead, networked
supercomputers, linked with the life sciences, that operate at speeds
of over one thousand trillion operations per second will have
implications as profound as the industrial revolution's spread of
technology.
Two immense forces have emerged in recent decades to transform the
way all science is performed, just as they have altered the conditions
of our daily lives: access to powerful computing, and the technology of
instrumentation which provides inexpensive means of sensing and
analyzing our environment. These have opened entirely new horizons in
every field of science from particle physics to medicine.
Nanotechnology, for example--the ability to manipulate matter at the
atomic and molecular level--and molecular medicine--the ability to
tailor life essential substances atom by atom--both owe their
capabilities to advances in computing and instrumentation.
These forces are influencing ourapproach to each of the grand
challenges we face in the national missions of security, environmental
protection, healthcare, and education:
National Security. Many factors have changed the face of war over
the past decade. And our expectations about terrorist attacks on U.S.
soil have been dramatically altered since September 11. Science and
technology can help the country through innovations in detection
technology, newly developed vaccines, and advances in weaponry for our
warfighters. Defense technologies today depend increasingly on the
commercial sector, not only to make cutting edge technologies
available, but also to reduce the cost of defense procurements. For the
last half century, possession of superior technology has been the
cornerstone of our military preparedness. Such a strategy requires a
sustained investment in science and technology to enable us to succeed
in high priority missions, to minimize casualties, and to mobilize all
of our military services in coordinated action. New technologies are
necessary to strengthen our efforts in counterproliferation,
counterterrorism, peacekeeping, and the stewardship of a safe and
reliable nuclear weapons stockpile.
Environment. Creating new scientific knowledge and technology to
help us avoid environmental damage and its consequences is one of the
great challenges facing our research enterprise. Recent advances in
environmental science and technology hold enormous promise for the
creation of a sustainable future in which our environmental health, our
economic prosperity, and our quality of life are mutually reinforcing.
At the same time, our growing knowledge has revealed vast gaps in our
understanding of many environmental issues, particularly the human
influence on the global climate. In the next 30 years, our population
will grow by 60 million people, almost 40,000 individuals per week.
During that same time, our economy is expected to double. Given such
trends, we must develop a new generation of technologies that can
supply the goods and services our society needs with less energy, fewer
materials, and far less environmental damage.
Health Care. Medical advances have lengthened our average life
expectancy more than 60 percent beyond what it was nearly a century
ago. Scientific and technological breakthroughs are providing new
approaches to solving many of the long-standing mysteries of life and
its damaging diseases. Genetic medicine offers us the greatest hope,
but the ethical, legal, and social implications of human genome
research must also be addressed in parallel with the scientific
exploration and in a manner that encourages maximum public involvement.
The public sector has a dual role--to facilitate the advances and to
protect the interests of the public, and in both ways serve as an
advocate of the public good. Our newest technologies must always
incorporate our oldest and most cherished human values. We will need to
reassess our public investments and adjust our science and technology
portfolio to reflect the new realities.
Education. Our children carry our hopes for the future, and
preparing them for the twenty-first century is one of our most
important national priorities. More than half of our basic research
support has a dual benefit in that it is invested in our universities
where, in addition to generating new knowledge, new talent is being
trained for the future. In grades K-12, new research can determine
which educational technologies actually work and how they can be
improved. The degree to which our Nation flourishes in the twenty-first
century will rest upon our success in developing a well-educated
citizenry and workforce able to embrace the rapid pace of technological
change. Quality of education and equality of educational opportunity
are central to our political future. Yet as we work to develop the
finest scientific and engineering workforce, we must also address its
composition. Achieving diversity throughout the ranks presents a
formidable challenge; women and minorities are grossly underrepresented
in science and technology even though we are becoming a more diverse
society. If our scientific workforce is to truly reflect the face of
America, we must draw upon our full talent pool.
These scientific and technological challenges along with so many
others that' we face in the years ahead are enormous--but so are the
combined strengths and resources of the American people. If we sustain
our investments in basic research, we can ensure that the United States
remains at the forefront of scientific capability, thereby enhancing
our ability to shape and improve the world's future.
I am grateful for the opportunity to serve this Administration and
my nation. I recognize the responsibilities and challenges of this high
office as Congress has prescribed them, and I resolve to work as hard
as I can to strengthen our scientific enterprise to help our country
reach its full potential.
I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______
A. Biographical Information
1. Name: Arden L. Bement, Jr.
2. Position to which nominated: Director, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
3. Date of nomination: N/A.
4. Address: Not released to the public.
5. Date and place of birth: May 22, 1932, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
6. Marital status: Married to Louise C. (nee: Capestrain) Bement.
7. Names and ages of children: Kristine Marie Clayton (DOB: 6/15/
53) 48 years old; Kenneth James Bement (DOB: 10/2/54) 46 years old;
Vincent Lloyd Bement (DOB: 9/4/56) 45 years old; Cynthia Ann Smart
(DOB: 3/19/58) 43 years old; Mark Francis Bement (DOB: 9/17/59) 42
years old; David Alan Bement (DOB: 5/7/61) 40 years old; Paul Andre
Bement (DOB: 8/19/63) 38 years old; Mary Loretta Swope (DOB: 2/1/65) 36
years old; Kim Kellogg Smiley (DOB: 9/24/49) 52 years old; Robert Kevin
Smiley (DOB: 5/18/54) 47 years old; and Susanne Courtland Smiley (DOB:
2/27/59) 42 years old.
8. Education: Washington Junior High School, New Castle, PA, 1944-
1947, Diploma May 1947; New Castle High School, New Castle, PA, 1947-
1949, Diploma May 1949; Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 1950-1954,
E. Met. May 1954; University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, 1956-1959, M.S., May
1959; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1959-1963, Ph.D., May
1963.
9. Employment Record: 1954-1955 Research Metallurgist, Fuels
Development Operation, Hanford Laboratory, Hanford Atomic Products
Operation, General Electric Company, Richland, WA.; Responsible for
nuclear reactor fuel characterization and process design for the
Hanford production reactors.
1955-1957 Reactor Project Engineer, Hanford Irradiation Processing
Department, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, General Electric
Company, Richland, WA.; Responsible for the successful design,
installation, and acceptance testing of reactor process instrumentation
and process water chemical addition facilities.
1957-1965 Senior Research Fellow, Metallurgy Research Operation,
Hanford Laboratories, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, General
Electric Company, Richland, WA.; Responsible for basic investigations
on the effects of nuclear radiation on the fundamental properties of
reactor fuels and reactor structural materials.
1965-1968 Manager, Metallurgy Research Department, Battelle
Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA.; Responsible for direction of the
research and development activities of approximately 50 scientists,
engineers and technicians in programs in metallurgy research and the
effects of irradiation on the mechanical and physical properties of
nuclear reactor fuels and structural materials. Coordinated the
national USAEC program in Irradiation Effects in Reactor Structural
Materials involving ten participating laboratories. Member of the U.S.
Libby-Cockcroft Exchange on the Effects of Irradiation on Structural
Materials and the USAEC Heavy Section Steel Technology Program.
1968-1970 Manager, Fuels and Materials Department, Battelle
Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA.; Responsible for direction of the
research and development activities of approximately 100 scientists,
engineers and technicians in programs in metallurgical research,
nuclear structural materials, defense weapons technologies,
biomaterials, manufacturing technology, isotope power sources, and the
design, fabrication, and irradiation testing of advanced nuclear fuel
elements. Member of USAEC international technology exchange programs
with the U.K., Canada, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway.
1970-1976 Professor of Nuclear Materials, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, MA.; Developed academic and research programs
in support of advanced energy conversion technologies, fuel management
and physical metallurgy. Supervised research programs in in-situ
radiation creep, proton scattering in solids, materials development for
magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) power systems, nuclear fusion and fission
reactor materials, and reactor safety. Served as a member of the U.S.-
U.S.S.R. Bilaterial Exchange Program in MHD and as principal
investigator for the MIT Fusion Technology Program. Was co-director of
the MIT Summer Course in Reactor Safety.
1976-1979 Director, Materials Science Office, Defense Advanced
Projects Agency, Department of Defense, Arlington, VA.; Responsible for
sponsored research programs in structural, optical and electronic
materials for advanced defense systems. Supervised five project
managers in major programs in advanced materials, fiber-optic sensors,
compound semiconductors, very-large-scale integrated circuits, laser
optics, and advanced armor and anti-armor materials.
1979-1980 Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering, Department of Defense, The Pentagon, Washington, DC;
Responsible for overall management of the science and technology
programs of the Department of Defense to include the OSD program
offices for directed-energy weapons and very-high-speed integrated
circuits (VHSIC). Was also responsible for related activities, such as
the Manufacturing Technology Program and the monitoring of Defense
Federal Contract Research Centers, the Independent Research and
Development Program, and the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
Program. These programs had an aggregate budget of more than three
billion dollars. Served as DOD Principal on the OSTP Federal
Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering and Technology and the
Committee on International Science, Engineering and Technology. Also,
was the principal DOD representative on the Technical Cooperation
Program (TTCP), the Synthetic Fuels Task Force, and the NATO Defense
Research Group.
1980-1988 Vice President for Technical Resources, TRW Inc.,
Cleveland, OH; Responsible for identifying and evaluating emerging
technologies and for recommending product, material, and process
development projects. Responsibilities included the development of
special relationships with selected universities and the recruiting of
key individuals in new technologies of interest to TRW.
1988-1992 Vice President for Science and Technology, TRW Inc.,
Cleveland, OH.; Responsible for leading company wide programs in the
acquisition and use of advanced technologies of high leverage for TRW
businesses. Responsibilities included strategic technology planning,
technology resource sharing, international technology alliances,
university programs, technical consulting with business units, the
company's purchasing function, information technology function, and
environmental control and quality functions. Supported CEO leadership
in the implementation of the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award
criteria.
1992-1988 Basil Turner Distinguished Professor of Engineering,
School of Materials Engineering and School of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.; Responsible for
academic and research programs in high temperature superconductors and
ferroelectric materials. Also, directed the Midwest Superconductivity
Consortium of the USDOE, involving the collaborative research
activities of six major Midwest research universities, to include R&D
partnerships with sixteen participating companies and federal
laboratories.
1988 David A. Ross, Distinguished Professor of Nuclear Engineering
and Head, School of Nuclear Engineering, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN.; Responsible for a department of ten faculty members,
sixteen technical and administrative staff members, and over one
hundred undergraduate and graduate students. The School conducts over
six million dollars of research in two-phase flow, reactor safety,
nuclear reactor simulation, nuclear medicine, complex adaptive systems,
and direct energy conversion. Sponsors include DOE, NRC, US Navy, NASA,
NSF, and industry.
10. Government Experience: 1968-1970 Councilman, City of Richland,
WA.
1966-1969 Technical Coordinator, Irradiation Effects to Reactor
Structural Materials Program, Division of Reactor Development and
Technology, USAEC.
1967-1970 Member, Program Review Committee, Heavy Section Steel
Technology Program, USAEC.
1968-1970 Member, Working Group on Fast Reactor Cladding, USAEC.
1970-1973 Member, Radiation Effects Subcommittee, Technology
Committee, Division for Controlled Thermonuclear Reactors, USAEC.
1970-1976 Consultant, Advisory Committee for Reactor Safeguards,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
1972-1973 Technical Coordinator, MHD Materials Program, Office of
Coal Research, USDOI.
1980-1986 Member, Advisory Panel to the Congressional Task Force on
Technology Policy, Congressmen McKay and Packard, Co-chairmen.
1980 Member, Study Committee for the Energy Research Advisory
Board, USDOE and the Office of Technology Assessment on the Mission of
Weapons Laboratories.
1980-1986 Member and Chairman, NIST Statutory Visiting Committee,
USDOC.
1980-1986 Consultant, Defense Science Board, USDOD
1989-1995 Member, National Science Board, National Science
Foundation (served on the Program, Polar Research, Inspector General
and Science and Engineering Indicators (chaired) Committees).
1992-1998 Member, Technology and Commercialization Advisory
Committee, NASA.
1995-1998 Member, Space Station Utilization Advisory Subcommittee,
NASA.
1998-1991 Member, Board of Overseers, Malcolm Baldridge National
Quality Award Program, USDOC.
1996 Chairman, NSF Workshop on the Urban Infrastructure.
1994-1995 Member, Board of Assessment, State of Texas Research
Fund.
1996-1997 Member, Board of Assessment, State of Ohio
Instrumentation Program.
1996 Member, Advisory Committee for the Organization of the Air
Force Laboratory, USAF.
1997-2001 Member, Visiting Committee for the Directorate for
Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, NSF.
1998-2001 Member and Chair, State of Nebraska Research Program
Review Committee, University of Nebraska (1998-2001).
1999-2001 Member and Chairman, Advanced Technology Advisory
Committee, NIST, USDOC.
11. Business relationships: Corporate Directorships. Director,
Keithley Instruments, Inc., Solon Ohio (1984-2001), Membership on
Audit, Strategy, and Compensation Committees; Director, Lord
Corporation, Cary NC (1987-2001), Membership on Strategy, Human
Relations, and Compensation Committees.
Consulting Positions: Industry. Battelle Memorial Institute (1970-
1976), The Materials Property Council (1970-1983), Wah Chang Albany
Corporation (1970-1973), Atomic Power Development Associates (1970),
Babcock and Wilcox (1972), United Technologies Corporation (1980-1988),
TRW (1990-1997), Lockheed Martin: Idaho Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory (1999-2001), Member, Science Advisory Committee, Al Ware,
Cleveland, Ohio (1984-1987), Chair, Exploratory Research Advisory
Committee, Electric Power Research Institute (1990-1995), Member,
Nuclear Operating Committee, Commonwealth Edison Co. (1994-1998),
Member, Advisory Committee for Strategic R&D, Electric Power Research
Institute (1995), Member, Science Advisory Committee, Oryx
Technologies, Fremont CA (1990-1998), Member, Science Advisory
Committee, Midwest Superconductivity, Inc., Lawrence KA (1996-1998),
Member, Science and Technology Advisory Committee, Howmet International
Corporation (1999-2001).
Consulting/Advisory Positions: National Laboratories. Member,
Visiting Committee, Materials Science Division, Argonne National
Laboratory (1970-1973); Member and Chair, Visiting Committee,
Metallurgy and Ceramics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1972-
1975); Member, Visiting Committee, Materials Technology Division,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1974-1975); Member and Chair,
Visiting Committee for the Materials Science and Technology Division,
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (1996-1999); Member, Visiting
Committee for the Chemical Technology Committee, Argonne National
Laboratory (1998-2001); Member, Board of Overseers, Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, University Research Association, Inc. (1999-
2001) Membership on Administration and Audit Committees of the Board.
Consulting Advisory Positions: Universities. Chair, Science
Advisory Committee, Howard University (1981-1984); Chair, Advisory
Committee for the School of Engineering, Cleveland State University
(1982-1986); Member, National Advisory Committee to the School of
Engineering, The University of Michigan (1980-1986); Member, Advisory
Committee to the School of Engineering, The Ohio Sate University (1980-
1984); Member, Visiting Committees to the School of Engineering, MIT:
Department of Aeronautics and Aerospace Engineering (1989-
1992)
Department of Materials Science and Engineering (1992-
1995)
Department of Mechanical Engineering (1995-1998);
Member, Visiting Committee, Department of Nuclear Engineering,
University of Wisconsin (1992-1995); Member, Advisory Committee for
Engineering Center of Design, Carnegie Mellon University (1982-1984);
Member, Advisory Committee, Case Institute of Technology, CWRU
(19801985); Member, Steering Committee, Center for Integrated Design
and Manufacturing, Purdue University (1981-1986); Member, Board of
Visitors, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
(1983-1991); Member, Advisory Committee, University Technologies, Inc.,
Case Western Reserve University (1990-1992); Member, Advisory Committee
for the Establishment of a College of Engineering, Rowan College of New
Jersey (1993-1994); Member, Advisory Committee, School of Engineering,
University of California at Berkeley (1992-98); Member, Advisory
Committee for the Executive Course on Technology Policy, George Mason
University (1994); Chair, Assessment Committee for the Institute for
Advanced Technology, University of Texas, Austin (1996); Member,
Assessment Committee for the Center for Electromechanics, University of
Texas, Austin (1996); Member, Visiting Committee, Center for Risk
Management, University of Virginia (1997-98); Member, Program Review
Committee, Nuclear Engineering Program, University of Missouri, (1999);
Member, Program Review Committee, Department of Materials Science and
Engineering, The University of Michigan (2000); Member, Visiting
Committee, Department of Materials Science and Engineering,
Northwestern University (1999-2001).
12. Membership: National Research Council. Member and Chairman,
National Materials Advisory Board (1982-1986); Chairman, Commission for
Engineering and Technical Systems (1986-1992); Member, Board on Science
and Technology for International Development (1983-1984); Member, Board
on Army Science and Technology (1984-1986); Member, Engineering
Research Board (1984-1986); Member, Advisory Committee on Advances in
Materials Research and Development (1985-1987); Co-Chairman, Steering
Committee for Materials Science and Engineering Field Study (1985-
1989); Member, Committee on Space Policy (1987-1988); Member, NRC
Finance Advisory Committee (1987-1988); Member, Committee on Key Issues
in the Future Design and Implementation of U.S. National Security
Export Controls (1989-1991); Member, NAS-Japan Study Committee for the
Promotion of Science (1991); Member, Committee on International
Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology (1991-1993);
Member, NRC Board of Assessment of NBS Programs (1976-1980); Member,
Committee on Materials for the 21st Century (1991-1992); Member, U.S.
National Committee on Theoretical and Applied Mechanics (1989-1992);
Chairman, Workshop on Research Progress Measurement and Management
Decision Making (1992); Member, Corporate Council for Mathematics and
Science Education Executive Committee (1992-1993); Chair, Project
Guidance Group on Careers in Science and Engineering, Committee on
Science, Engineering and Public Policy (1995-1996); Member, Board on
Air Force Science and Technology (1996); Chair, Panel on International
Benchmarking of U.S. Materials Science and Engineering Research (1997-
98); Chair, Transportation Research Board Committee for the Review of
the National Automated Highway System Consortium (1997-98); Member,
Report Review Committee (1998-2001); Member, Committee on Integration
of Commercial and Military Manufacturing in 2010 and Beyond (2001).
Community Service. Councilman, City of Richland WA (1968-1970);
Founder and Commissioner, Benton-Franklin Regional Arts Commission,
Benton and Franklin Counties, WA (1969-1970); Chairman, Boards of
Public Health, Mental Health and Mental Retardation, Benton and
Franklin Counties, WA (1969-1970); Member, Board for Community Action,
U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, Benton and Franklin Counties, WA
(1969-1970); President, Allied Arts Council for the Mid-Columbia
Region, Richland, WA (1968-1970); Member, Board of Trustees, Cleveland
Opera Company (1980-1992); Member, Board of Trustees and Chair,
Architectural Committee, Great Lakes Science Museum (1990-1992);
Member, Steering Committee for Adventure Place, Akron, Ohio (1990-
1992); Member, Board of Trustees, Society for the Prevention of
Violence, Cleveland, OH (1988-1992); Member, Steering Committee,
Cleveland Advanced Manufacturing Program (1986-1992); Member, Lafayette
Symphony Orchestra Board of Trustees, (1999-2001).
International Activities. Member, U.S.-U.K. Libby Cockcroft
Exchange on Irradiation Effects to Reactor Structural Materials (1966-
1969); Member, U.S.-Japan Exchange on Radiation Effects in Metals and
Structural Materials (1968-1971); Member, U.S.-Scandinavian Exchange of
Radiation Effects on Reactor Structural Materials (1968); Lecturer,
Summer School on Radiation Effects in Matter, Romanian Institute for
Atomic Physics (1971); Lecturer and Technical Advisor, Instituto
Nacional de Energia Nuclear, Mexico (1971-1975); Technical Advisor,
National Research Council, Taiwan (1973-1975); Member, U.S.-U.S.S.R.
Bilateral Exchange on Magnetohydrodynamics (1973-1975); Member, USAID
Mission to Thailand under the U.S.-Thailand Scientific Agreement
(1983); Member, Special Committee to Assess Graduate Engineering
Programs at the National University of Mexico (UNAM) (1996).
13. Political affiliations and activities: (a). List all offices
with a political party which you have held or any public office for
which you have been a candidate. Councilman, City of Richland, WA
(1968-1970): filled an unexpired term by vote of the council and was
reelected unopposed. (b). List all memberships and offices held and
services rendered to all political parties or election committees
during the last 10 years. None. (c). Itemize all political
contributions to any individual, campaign organization, political,
political action committee, or similar entity of $500 or more for the
past 10 years. Life membership in the National Republican Committee,
$750.00 in July 2001.
14. Honors and awards: Professional Society Fellowships. American
Society of Chemists (1969), American Nuclear Society (1973), and ASM
International (1978).
Leadership and Career Awards. Engineers Citation Award, University
of California at Los Angeles (1985); Rackham Hall of Fame, The
University of Michigan (1986); Doctorate Honorious Causa (Engineering),
Cleveland Sate University (1989); Melville F. Coolbaugh Memorial Award,
Colorado School of Mines (1991); Alumni Hall of Fame, University of
Idaho (1991); Outstanding Alumnus Award, The University of Michigan
Club of Cleveland (1992); Alumni Society Merit Award, College of
Engineering, The University of Michigan (1993); National Materials
Advancement Award, Federation of Materials Societies (1997);
Distinguished Life Membership, ASM International (1998); Honorary
Membership, American Ceramics Society (1999).
Awards of Appreciation. U.S. Air Force Laboratories (1980); U.S.
Department of Defense (1980); U.S. Department of Defense, for
Outstanding Contributions to the Defense Equal Opportunity Program
(1981); Federation of Materials Societies (1984); Cleveland State
University (1985); National Institute for Standards and Technology
(1991); Department of Commerce (1992); National Research Council
(1992); Electric Power Research Institute (1993); Department of
Commerce (1993-1996).
Performance Awards and Medals. Outstanding Performance Award,
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (1977); Distinguished Federal
Executive Award (1980); Distinguished Civilian Service Medal, U.S.
Department of Defense (1980); Outstanding Service Award, Department of
Commerce (1995).
Lectureships and Commencement and Keynote Addresses. Keynote
Speaker, Cleary Scientific and Schwartz Engineering Awards Banquet,
U.S. Air Force Materials Laboratory (1980); Commencement Speaker,
Gonzaga University (1984); Distinguished Lectureship in Materials and
Society, ASM and AIME (1986); Regents Professorship, University of
California at Los Angeles (1987); McBride Global Currents Lecturer,
Case Western Reserve University (1987); Comencement Speaker, Cleveland
State University (1987); Commencement Speaker, University of Idaho
(1991).
Biographical Listings. American Men and Women of Science; Marquis
Who's Who: In the World, In America, In the Midwest, In Science;
Federal Staff Directory (1976-1982); Strathmore's Who's Who (1998-1999)
15. Published writings. Books: A.R. Rosenfield, G.T. Hahn, A.L.
Bement, Jr. and R.I. Jaffee, Dislocation Dynamics, McGraw Hill Book
Company, NY (1968); and D.G. Franklin, G.E. Lucas and A.L. Bement, Jr.,
Creep of Zirconium Alloys in Nuclear Reactors, ASTM Spec. Tech. Pub].
815, (1983).
Monographs. A.L. Bement, Jr., ``Void Formation in Irradiated
Austenitic Stainless Steels,'' Advances in Nucl. Sci. & Eng., 7,
Academic Press, New York (1973).
Book Contributions. A.L. Bement, Jr. and J.E. Irvin, ``Automatic
Processing of Mechanical Properties Data,'' Computer Applications in
Metallurgical Engineering, American Society for Metals, Metals Park,
Ohio (1964); R.A. Oriani and A.L. Bement, Jr., ``Interstitial Phases
and Solutions,'' Phase Stability in Metals and Alloys, McGraw-Hill, New
York (1967); F.A. Smidt, Jr. and A.L. Bement, Jr. ``Thermally Activated
Dislocation Motion and its Application to the Study of Radiation
Damage,'' Dislocation Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York (1968); A.L.
Bement, Jr., F.A. Smidt, Jr. and R.G. Hoagland, ``Fracture Mechanisms
and Radiation Effects,'' Engineering Fundamentals and Environmental
Effects, Vol. III, Fracture, An Advanced Treatise, edited by H.
Liebowitz, Academic Press, New York (1969); A.L. Bement, Jr.,
``Biomaterials'', Encyclopedia of Chemistry, Third Edition, C.A. Hampel
and G.G. Hawley, eds., Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York (1973); A.L.
Bement, Jr. and E.C. Van Reuth, ``Quo Vadis--RSR,'' Rapid
Solidification Processing, Principles and Technologies--II, Claitor's
Publishing Division, Baton Rouge, LA(1980).
Formal Reports of the Atomic Energy Commission. (1). A. L. Bement,
Jr., ``The Influence of Uneven Quenching Rates on the Warping of
Uranium Slugs,'' USAEC Formal Report HW-33651, Hanford Atomic Product
Operations, General Electric, Co., Richland, WA (1954). (2). A. L.
Bement, Jr., ``An Investigation of the Properties of Rolled Uranium
Related to the Quench after Beta Heat Treatment,'' USAEC Formal Report
HW-33726, Hanford Atomic Product Operations, General Electric Co.,
Richland, WA (1954). (3). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``A Comparison of Sonic
and X-ray Orientation Data for Uranium Quenched at Different Rates from
the Beta Phase,'' USAEC Formal Report HW-33937, Hanford Atomic Product
Operations, General Electric Co., Richland, WA (1954). (4). A. L.
Bement, Jr., ``The Presence and Removal of Hydrogen in Punched and
Machined Uranium Washers,'' USAEC Formal Report HW-48293, Hanford
Atomic Product Operations, General Electric Co., Richland, WA (1957).
(5). A. L. Bement, Jr., and W. P. Wallace, ``A Martensitic Reaction of
Uranium,'' USAEC Formal Report HW-51084, Hanford Atomic Product
Operations, General Electric Co., Richland, WA (1957). (6). A. L.
Bement, Jr., and V. E. Kahle, ``Reaction Layers Formed by Leadbath and
Salt-bath Heat Treatments of Uranium,'' USAEC Formal Report HW-52049,
Hanford Atomic Product Operations, General Electric Co., Richland, WA
(1957). (7). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``The Effects of Carbon Content on the
Rate of Dissolution of Dinget Uranium in Nitric Acid,'' USAEC Formal
Report HW-52430, Hanford Atomic Product Operations, General Electric
Co., Richland, WA (1957). (8). A. L. Bement, Jr., and D. W. Rathbun,
``Status Report on the Properties of Centrifugally Cast Uranium,''
USAEC Formal Report HW-53569, Hanford Atomic Product Operations,
General Electric Co., Richland, WA (1958). (9). A. L. Bement, Jr., and
V. E. Kahle, ``The Diffusion Layer Formed by Molten Lead Reaction with
Uranium,'' USAEC Formal Report HW54628, Hanford Atomic Product
Operations, General Electric Co., Richland, WA (1958). (10). A. L.
Bement, Jr., ``Burnup and Specific Power Calculations for the Thermal
Neutron Irradiation of Thorium-uranium Alloys,'' USAEC Formal Report
HW-56631, Hanford Atomic Product Operations, General Electric Co.,
Richland, WA (1958) (11). A. L. Bement, Jr., and R. L. Hales, ``Neutron
Damage to Metals--A Program Document,'' USAEC Formal Report HW-59300A,
Hanford Atomic Product Operations, General Electric Co., Richland, WA
(1959). (12). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``The Effects of Low Neutron Exposures
at Low Temperature on the Hardness and Tensile Properties of Natural
Uranium,'' USAEC Formal Report HW-60326, Hanford Atomic Product
Operations, General Electric Co., Richland, WA (1959). (13). K. R.
Wheeler, H. J. Pessl, and A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Effects of Reactor
Environment on Candidate PRTR Gas-loop Materials,'' USAEC Formal Report
HW-62543, Hanford Atomic Product Operations, General Electric Co.,
Richland, WA (1959). (14). D. L. Gray and A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Effect
of Irradiation upon Mechanical Properties of Zircaloy-2,'' USAEC Formal
Report HW-62422, Hanford Atomic Product Operations, General Electric
Co., Richland, WA (1959). (15). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Tensile Properties
of Irradiated Thorium,'' USAEC Formal Report HW-66643, Hanford Atomic
Product Operations, General Electric Co., Richland, WA (1960). (16). A.
L. Bement, Jr., ``Examination of an Irradiated, Zircaloy-2, Hot Water
Loop Tube,'' USAEC Formal Report HW-65499, Hanford Atomic Product
Operations, General Electric Co., Richland, WA (1960). (17). A. L.
Bement, Jr., and L. D. Coffin, ``Automatic Processing of Tensile Test
Data,'' USAEC Formal Report HW-71570, Hanford Atomic Product
Operations, General Electric Co., Richland, WA (1963). (18). A. L.
Bement, Jr., ``Effects of Cold Work and Neutron Irradiation on the
Tensile Properties of Zircaloy-2,'' USAEC Formal Report HW-74953,
Hanford Atomic Product Operations, General Electric Co., Richland, WA
(1963). (19). A. L. Bement, Jr., and J. E. Irvin, ``Materials
Irradiations in the ETR-G-7 Hot Water Loop,'' USAEC Formal Report HW-
80615, Hanford Atomic Product Operations, General Electric Co.,
Richland, WA (1964). (20). A. L. Bement, Jr., and J. E. Irvin, ``The
Effects of Hot-water Thermal Treatments in the Cold Work Recovery of
the Tensile Properties of Zircaloy-2,'' USAEC Formal Report HW-80309,
Hanford Atomic Product Operations, General Electric Co., Richland, WA
(1964). (21). A. L. Bement, Jr., and R. G. Hoagland, ``Fracture Studies
of Zircaloy-2,'' USAEC Formal Report HW-82681, Hanford Atomic Product
Operations, General Electric Co., Richland, WA (1964). (22). J. E.
Irvin, A. L. Bement, Jr., and R. G. Hoagland, ``The Combined Effects of
Temperature and Irradiation on the Mechanical Properties of Austenitic
Stainless Steels,'' USAEC Formal Report BNWL-1, Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland, WA (1965). (23). A.
L. Bement, Jr., R. E. Dahl and J. E. Irvin, ``Fast Neutron Flux
Characteristics of the ETR-G-7 Hot Water Loop,'' USAEC Formal Report
BNWL-89, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute,
Richland, WA (1965). (24). A. L. Bement, Jr., and L. E. Steele,
``USAEC-Industry Meeting on Irradiation Effects to Reactor Structural
Materials,'' USAEC Formal Report BNWL-609, Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland, WA (1967).
Journal Publications. (1). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Tensile Properties
of Irradiated Thorium,'' Journal of Nuclear Materials, 6 (1962). (2).
A. A. Dykes and A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Void Formation in Nickel by Flash
Heating,'' J. Nucl. Mater., 42, 223-226 (1972). (3). J. B. Vander Sande
and A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Investigation of Second-phase Particles in
Zircaloy-4 Alloys,'' J. Nucl. Mater., 52, 115-118 (1974). (4). G. E.
Lucas and A. L. Bement, Jr., ``The Effect of a Zirconium Strength
Differential on Cladding Collapse Predictions,'' J. Nucl. Mater., 58,
246252(1974) (5). E. Lucas and A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Temperature
Dependence of the Zircaloy-4 Strength-differential,'' J. Nucl. Mater.,
58, 163-170 (1975). (6). P. Hendrick, A. L. Bement, Jr., and O. K.
Harling, ``Proton-simulated Irradiation-induced Creep,'' Nucl. Instrum.
Meth., 124, 389-395 (1975). (7). P. Hendrick, D. J. Michel, A. G.
Pieper, R. E. Surratt, and A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Simulation of
Irradiation-induced Creep in Nickel,'' J. Nucl. Mater., 59,229-23. (8).
P. Hendrick, D. J. Michel, A. G. Pieper, R. E. Surratt, and A. L.
Bement, Jr., ``Simulation of Irradiation-induced Creep in Nickel,'' J.
Nucl. Mater., 59,229-23. (9). P. Hendrick, D. J. Michel, A. G. Pieper,
R. E. Surratt, and A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Ion Simulation Irradiation-
induced Creep,'' Nucl. Instrum. Meth., 133, 509-52. (10). C. Peterson,
S. Mansour and A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Effects of Optical Illumination on
Fatigued Lead, Zirconate Titanate Capacitors,'' Integ. Ferroelec., 7,
139-147 (1995). (11). C. Peterson, S. A. Mansour, A. L. Bement, Jr.,
and G. Liedl,`` Optical Studies of PZT/Metal and Metal-Oxide
Interfaces,'' Integ. Ferroelec., 7, 139-147 (1995). (12). A. V. Rao, S.
Mansour, and A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Fabrication of Ferroelectric PZT Thin
Film Capacitors with Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) Electrodes,'' Mater. Ltrs.,
29, 255-258 (1996). (13). E. N. Paton, M. Brazier, S. Mansour, and A.
L. Bement, Jr., ``A Critical Study of Defect Migration and
Ferroelectric Fatigue in Lead Zirconate Titanate Thin Film Capacitors
Under Extreme Temperatures'', Integ. Ferroelec., 18,529-537 (1997).
Transactions and Conference Proceedings. (1). R. D. Pehlke and A.
L. Bement, Jr., ``Mass Transfer of Hydrogen between Liquid Aluminum and
Bubbles of Argon Gas,'' Trans. AIME, 224 (1962). (2). A. L. Bement,
Jr., Discussion on Paper by R. J. Wasilewski entitled ``On
Discontinuous Yield and Plastic Flow in (x-titanium,'' Trans. ASM, 56
(1963). (3). A. L. Bement, Jr. and J. E. Irvin, ``Automatic Processing
of Mechanical Properties Data,'' Metals Engineering Quarterly, 4
(1964). (4). A. L. Bement, Jr., J. C. Tobin, and R. G. Hoagland,
``Effects of Neutron Irradiation on the Flow and fracture Behavior of
Zircaloy-2,'' Flow and Fracture of Metals and Alloys in Nuclear
Environments, Special Technical Publication No. 380, ASTM 364-384
(1965). (5). A. L. Bement, Jr., J. E. Irvin, and R. G. Hoagland,
``Combined Effects of Temperatures and Irradiation on the Mechanical
Properties of Austenitic Stainless Steels,'' Flow and Fracture of
Metals and Alloys in Nuclear Environments, Special Technical
Publication No. 380, ASTM, 236-250 (1965). (6). A. L. Bement, Jr.,
``Zirconium Cladding Alloys,'' Proceedings of MLT. Symposium on
Materials of Nuclear Power Reactors, Cambridge, MA (1966). (7). A. L.
Bement, Jr., ``Radiation Damage in Hexagonal Close-packed Metals and
Alloys,'' Proceedings of AIME Symposium on Radiation Effects,
Asheville, NC, Gordon and Breach, NY, 671-725 (1967). (8). A. L.
Bement, Jr., ``Effects of Minor Constituents on the Irradiation Damage
to Austenitic Stainless Steels,'' Proceedings of ASTM Symposium on the
Effects of Residual Elements on Properties of Austenitic Stainless
Steels, Special Technical Publication No 418, ASTM (1967). (9). R. G.
Hoagland, A. L. Bement, Jr., and R. G. Rowe, ``Applications of Fracture
Mechanics in Evaluating the Initiation and Propagation of Brittle
Fracture in Reactor Structural Components,'' Proceedings of ASTM
Symposium on the Effects of Radiation on Structural Metals Special
Technical Publication No. 426, ASTM, (1967). (10). J. E. Irvin and A.
L. Bement, Jr., ``The Nature and Engineering Significance of Radiation
Damage to Various Stainless Steel Alloys,'' Proceedings of ASTM
Symposium on the Effects of Radiation on Structural Metals, Special
Technical Publication No. 426, ASTM (1967). (11). E. R. Gilbert, A. L.
Bement, Jr., and S. A. Duran, ``Creep of Zirconium from 50 to 85 C,''
Applications-related Phenomena for Zirconium and its Alloys, Special
Technical Publication 458, 210-225, ASTM (1970). (12). A. L. Bement,
Jr., ``Fundamental Materials Problems in Nuclear Reactors,''
Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Strength of Metals and
Alloys, ASM, 2, 693-728 (1970). (13). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Introduction
of Wrap-up Session,'' Proceedings of the Conference on Fast Reactor
Fuel Element Technology, New Orleans, LA, ANS (1971). (14). A. L.
Bement, Jr., ``Radiation Effects on Zirconium and Zirconium Alloys,''
Proceedings of the United States-Japan Seminar on Radiation Effects in
Metals and Structural Materials, Kyoto, Japan (1971). (15). A. L.
Bement, Jr., ``Irradiation Effects of Structural Materials. I.
Radiation Hardening,'' Rev. Roum. Phys., 17, 361-380 Bucharest (1972).
(16). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Irradiation Effects of Structural Materials.
II. Brittle Fracture,'' Rev. Roum. Phys., 17, 505-517, Bucharest
(1972). (17). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Irradiation Effects of Structural
Materials. III. High Temperature Embrittlement,'' Rev. Roum. Phys., 17,
519-525, Bucharest (1972). (18). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Irradiation
Effects of Structural Materials. IV. Creep and Growth,'' Rev. Roum.
Phys., 17, 607-618, Bucharest (1972). (19). A. L. Bement, Jr.,
``Irradiation Effects of Structural Materials. V. Void Swelling,'' Rev.
Roum. Phys., 17, 619-630 (1972). (20). H. K. Bowen, D. R. Uhlmann, J.
F. Louis, J. W. Halloran, W. T. Petuskey, R. Goodof, and A. L. Bement,
Jr., ``High Temperature Electrodes,'' Proceedings of the First USA-USSR
Symposium on MHD, Moscow, (1974). (21). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Needs in
Alloy Design for Nuclear Applications,'' in Proceedings of Battelle
Colloquium on the Fundamental Aspects of Structural Alloy Design,
Seattle, WA and Harrison Hot Springs, BC (1975). (22). A. L. Bement,
Jr., ``Interrelationship Between Nuclear Fuel Design, Performance and
Fabrication,'' Proceedings of the International Symposium on Nuclear
Power Technology and Economics, Taipei, Taiwan (1975). (23). Y. H.
Choi, A. L. Bement, Jr., and K. C. Russell, ``The Effect of Fusion Burn
Cycles on First Wall Swelling,'' Proceedings of the International
Conference on Radiation Effects and Tritium Technology for Fusion
Reactors, Ed., J. S. Watson and F. W. Wiffin, 11.1-11.17 (1976). (24).
P. L. Hendrick, D. J. Michel, A. G. Pieper, R. E. Surratt, and A. L.
Bement, Jr., ``Ion-simulated Irradiation Creep of Nickel,'' Proceedings
of the International Conference on Radiation Effects and Tritium
Technology for Fusion Reactors, Ed., J. S. Watson and F. W. Wiffin
(1976). (25). Y. Y. Liu and A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Regression Approach
for Zircaloy-2 Inreactor Creep Constitutive Equations,'' M.I.T.,
Transcript of the 4th International Conference on Structural Mechanics
in Reactor Technology, Structural Analysis of Reactor Fuel and
Cladding, San Francisco, CA, Commission of European Communities,
Luxemburg (1977). (26). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Greening of Materials
Science and Engineering,'' Mater. Soc. V. 11, N4,415-432 (1987). (27).
A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Greening of Materials Science and Engineering,''
Metall. Trans. A., 18A, 363-375 (1987). (28). A. L. Bement, Jr.,
``Review and Forecast for NDE in Advanced Materials Technology,''
Proceedings for the Conference for the Review of Progress in
Quantitative NDE, University of California-San Diego, LaJolla, CA
(1990). (29). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Progress in Materials Science,''
Proceedings of the International Conference, Electricity Beyond 2000
Forum, Washington, DC. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA
(1991). (30). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Utilization of Science and
technology to Reduce Materials Vulnerability,'' Materials and Society,
7 (1991). (31). C. R. Peterson, S. A. Mansour, and A. L. Bement, Jr.,
``An Optical Study of PZT Thin Film Capacitors,'' Proceedings of the
7th International Symposium on Integrated Ferroelectrics, ACS (1995).
(32). S. A. Mansour, J. L. Norton, G. L. Liedl, A. L. Bement, Jr., and
C. Venkatraman, ``Laser Beam Lithography of Metal Oxide Electrodes for
PZT Memory Applications,'' Proceedings of the MRS Spring Meeting, San
Francisco, CA (1995). (33). J. L. Norton, S. A. Mansour, G. L. Liedl,
A. L. Bement, Jr. and C. Venkatraman, ``Laser Beam Lithography of Metal
Oxide Electrodes for PZT Memory Applications,'' Materials: Fabrication
and Patterning at the Nanoscale, MRS, 380, 99-104 (1995). (34). S. A.
Mansour, A. Rao, and A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Photo-induced Effect Recovery
in PZT Thin Film Capacitors with Oxide Contacts,'' Materials for Smart
Systems II, MRS, 459, 201-206 (1997). (35). A. L. Bement, Jr.,
``Benchmarking National Leadership in Materials Science and
Engineering.'' Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Modern Materials and Technologies, Florence, Italy, June 14-19,1998.
(36). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Status of Electrical and Magnetic
Instruments as of the Turn of the Century'', Proceedings of the
Symposium on 20th Century Developments in Instrumentation and
Measurements, American Physical Society Centennial Meeting, Atlanta,
Georgia, March 21, 1999.
Other Publications
(1). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Materials Problems in Advanced Energy
Conversion,'' University Forum on National Materials Policy, National
Commission on Materials Policy, M.I.T., (1972). (2). A. L. Bement, Jr.,
and R. Kaplow, ``Materials Limitations in Advanced Energy Conversion
Systems,'' Report of the ARPA Materials Research Council Summer
Conference, Centerville, MA (1972). (3). R. Kaplow, A. L. Bement, Jr.,
and M. Cohen, ``Solar Energy,'' Volume II of Preliminary Reports,
Memoranda and Technical Notes of the Materials Research Council Summer
Conference, LaJolla, CA., U. Of Michigan Report No. 005020 (1973). (4).
A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Outlook for Technology in the 80's,'' Testimony
before the Ohio House of Representatives Select Committee on Technology
(1983). (5). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``National Perspectives on the Role of
Universities and Industry Promoting Science and Technology,'' Testimony
before the Ohio Science and Technology Commission, Cleveland, OH
(1989). (6). A. L. Bement, Jr., S. K. El-Rahaiby and C. X. Campbell,
``Bringing Advanced Materials to Market,'' DoD Ceramics Information
Analysis Center (CAIC), CINDAS, Purdue University (1995). (7). A. L.
Bement, Jr., ``The Opportunities and Shortfalls of National Science and
Technology Policy,'' Materials Technology, 10, #3-4 (1995). (8). A. L.
Bement, Jr., ``Inventivity: The Art and Science of Research Management
by John J. Gilman'', Book Review, Materials Technology, 8, September/
October 1993, Elsevier.
Congressional Testimony
(1). J. E. Louis and A. L. Bement, Jr., ``MHD Power Generation, an
Assessment and a Plan for Action,''Testimony before the Task Force on
Energy of the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development of the
Committee on Sciences and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives,
92nd Congress, Volume II, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC (1972). (2). A. L. Bement, Jr., and R. Kaplow, ``Statement on the
Importance of Materials in Power Technology,'' Testimony before the
Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications and Subcommittee on
Energy of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of
Representatives, 93rd Congress, U.S. Government Printing Office (May
24, 1973). (3). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Utilization of Science and
Technology to Reduce Materials Vulnerability,'' Testimony before the
Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space, U.S. Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation (June, 1982). (4). A. L Bement,
Jr., ``Views on the President's National Materials and Minerals Plan
and Report to Congress,'' Testimony before the Schmitt Subcommittee on
Science, Technology and Space of the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation (June 22, 1982). (5). A. L. Bement, Jr.,
``The Economic Competitiveness, International Trade and Technology
Development Act for 1987,'' Testimony before the Senate Committee on
Government Affairs on Senate Bill 1233 (June 9, 1987). (6). A. L.
Bement, Jr., ``Issues Related to the Development of
Magneticallylevitated Transportation Systems Along the Federal Highway
Rights of Way,'' Testimony before the Subcommittee on Water Resources,
Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC (October 24, 1988).
(7) A. L. Bement, Jr., ``Authorization for the Appropriation for the
Activities of the National Institute of Standards and Technology'',
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Space, Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC (March 8, 1989). (8). A.
L. Bement, Jr., ``Department of Commerce Technology Programs,''
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology
of the Committee of Science, Space and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC (Feb. 6, 1990). (9). A. L. Bement, Jr.,
``The Trade and Technology Promotion Act of July, 1989,'' Testimony
before the Committee on Government Affairs, U.S. Senate on Senate Bill
S. 1978, Washington, DC (June 12, 1990). (10). A. L. Bement, Jr.,
``Findings and Recommendations of the Visiting Committee on Advanced
Technology of the National Institute of Standards and Technology,''
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology,
Committee on Science, Space and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives (Feb. 26, 1991). (11). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``On the
Midwest Superconductivity Consortium,'' Testimony before the Energy and
Water Development Subcommittee on Appropriations, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives (April 1, 1993). (12). A.
L. Bement, Jr., ``On the Midwest Superconductivity Consortium,''
Testimony before the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee on
Appropriations, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of
Representatives (April 1, 1993). (13). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``On the
Midwest Superconductivity Consortium,'' Testimony before the Energy and
Water Development Subcommittee on Appropriations, U.S. House of
Representatives (April 11, 1994). (14). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``On the
Midwest Superconductivity Consortium,'' Testimony before the Energy and
Water Development Subcommittee on Appropriations, U.S. House of
Representatives (March 28, 1995). (15). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``On H.R.
1756, the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act,'' Testimony submitted
for record to the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
(September 12, 1995). (16). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``On the Midwest
Superconductivity Consortium,'' Testimony before the Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee on Appropriations, U.S. House of
Representatives (February 29, 1996). (17). A. L. Bement, Jr., ``On the
Midwest Superconductivity Consortium,'' Testimony before the Energy and
Water Development Subcommittee on Appropriations, U.S. House of
Representatives (March 31, 1997).
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated.
``Guidelines for Innovation: The Role of Research and Development
Policy,'' presented at the Workshop on Germany and the United States--
Partners in Science and Technology, Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Berlin,
July 17, 2000.
``One Hundred years of Excellence and Still Improving . . . A View
from the Outside,'' presented at the NIST Centennial Symposium,
Gaithersburg, Maryland, March 5, 2001.
17. Selection: (a) Do you know why you were chosen for this
nomination by the President? I believe it was because of my performance
record in technology and research leadership positions with government,
industry and academia and my extensive networking with high-ranking
leaders in all three sectors. (b) What do you believe in your
background or employment experience affirmatively qualifies you for
this particular appointment? I believe that my experience in research
and leadership positions in industry, government, and academia along
with my long-term service to the scientific and engineering communities
at large qualify me for this position.
B. Future Employment Relationships
1. Will you sever all connections with your present employers,
business firms, business associations or business organizations if you
are confirmed by the Senate? Yes.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, explain. No.
3. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements after
completing government service to resume employment, affiliation or
practice with your previous employer, business form, association or
organization? No.
4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any
capacity after you. leave government service? No.
5. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your full term or until
the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable? Yes.
C. Potential Conflicts of Interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients or customers.
Deferred board fee compensation, Keithley Instruments,
Inc.
Consulting agreement, Howmet Research Company
2. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
Stock ownership in street name with: Keithley Instruments,
Inc.; Lord Corporation; Sprint PCS; Sprint FON; Alltel, and Oryx
Technologies.
Stock options with Keithley Instruments, Inc.
Stock loans with Lord Corporation.
Loan from Raymond James & Assoc. Financial Services
(Regulation T margin loan secured by Keithley Instruments, Inc. stock).
3. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated. None.
4. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have
engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy. None.
5. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your response to the above
items. (Please provide a copy of any trust or other agreements.) I will
consult with ethics officials and take any actions required by my
ethics agreement or advised by legal counsel.
6. Do you agree to have written opinions provided to the Committee
by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to which you are
nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics concerning potential
conflicts of interest or ant impediments to your serving in this
position? Yes.
D. Legal Matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct by, or been the subject of a complaint to
any court, administrative agency, professional association,
disciplinary committee, or any other professional group? If so, provide
details. No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details. No.
3. Have you any business of which you are or were an officer ever
been involved as a party in interest in an administrative agency
proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide details? No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? No.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination. I believe I have led my life
respecting the law.
E. Relationship With Committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines set by congressional committees for information? Yes.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the committee with requested
witnesses, to include technical experts and career employees with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the committee? Yes.
4. Please explain how you will review regulations issued by your
department/agency, and work closely with Congress, to ensure that such
regulations comply with the spirit of the law passed by Congress. It is
my understanding that NIST seeks legal counsel relative to federal from
the Department of Commerce and Congressional staff members to
understand the intent and spirit of laws passed by the Congress. I will
establish a policy of meeting frequently with appropriate Congressional
staff members to obtain interpretations of the law as they apply to
Department regulations.
5. Describe your department/agency's current mission, major
programs, and major operational objectives. The mission of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology is to develop and promote
measurements and standards and advanced technologies that enhance
productivity and quality, facilitate trade, and contribute to the
economic well being of the nation.
The major programs and operational objectives at NIST are the
following:
Provide U.S. private and public sectors with measurements,
standards, and information services that increase competitiveness and
facilitate trade.
Conduct long-term research in measurement science and
develop and promulgate standards and standard reference data for
electronics and electricity, chemical science and technology, and
materials science and engineering.
Demonstrate evaluation techniques, testing methods and
standards to enable U.S. industry to use interoperable products for
information technology.
Develop interfaces, recommended practices, and associated
technology to the manufacturing industries.
Provide laboratory assistance in the increased usefulness,
safety and economy of buildings and the prediction, prevention,
measurement, and control of fires.
Provide assistance to industry and to other public benefit
organizations in the development of technology and procedures to
improve U.S. quality and competitiveness through the National Quality
Program.
Work with the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Under
Secretary for Technology to make the Advanced Technology Program
stronger and more sustainable.
Develop as a joint venture with State and local
governments technical assistance with smaller U.S. manufacturers to
strengthen their global competitiveness through the Manufacturing
Extension Program.
6. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you maybe
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
F. General Qualifications and Views
1. How have your previous professional experience and education
qualified you for the position for which you have been nominated? I
believe the following factors are salient:
Senior R&D and technology leadership positions in
industry, academia, and government.
Business experience in directing high-technology
companies.
Experience in technology policy development and execution
in the Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, NASA, and the
Congress.
A record of research achievements leading to membership in
the National Academy of Engineering and membership on the National
Science Board.
Extensive advisory committee experience with NIST to
include the statutory Visiting Committee for Advanced Technology
(chair), the Board of Overseers for the Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award Program, and the Advanced Technology Program Advisory
Committee (chair).
Research contributions in the field of materials science
and engineering.
A breadth of exposure to emerging technology developments
and basic research at national laboratories, universities and industry
leading to an understanding of what constitutes outstanding research
and research performance.
2. Why do you wish to serve in the position for which you have been
nominated? I am strongly committed to the mission of NIST. I believe
that its continued strength in performing its mission is essential for
the economic and technological welfare of the nation and the continuing
ability of U.S. industry to effectively compete in global markets. It
is an institution with a strong research culture, high ethical
standards, and a tradition of outstanding accomplishments. I believe it
deserves the very best of my effort, experience, and abilities.
Finally, I wish to complete my career in public service.
3. What goals have you established for your first two years in this
position, if confirmed? The principal goals would be the following:
Establish strategic planning tools across NIST that would
better align NIST's strategic vision and goals with national needs and
priorities.
Provide good stewardship for NIST facilities to achieve
optimal utilization.
Establish a more proactive NIST involvement with
international standards developments.
Work with the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, the Under
Secretary for Technology and the Congress to develop a more stable,
sustainable Advanced Technology Program
Continue to build on NIST's traditions and culture to help
NIST provide the greatest return to the nation through excellence in
science and technology.
Find more effective means to communicate with industry and
government decision makers about the important contributions that NIST
makes to industrial and technological developments and the economic
well-being of the nation.
4. What skills do you believe you may be lacking which may be
necessary to successfully carry out this position? What steps can be
taken to obtain these skills? I believe I have strong skills and
experience in the key areas needed to provide leadership for NIST,
including management of personnel, finances, technical programs, and
planning processes. To lead NIST as effectively as possible, I will
focus on supplementing my background with the following actions:
Refreshing my knowledge of federal policies and
regulations governing management of personnel, facilities, and
finances.
Becoming familiar with the specific budgeting processes at
NIST, the DOC, and the OMB.
Establishing effective relationships with the Office of
the Inspector General and Legal Counsel.
Improving my understanding of the U.S. voluntary standard
setting processes and organizations and of how the U.S. system and
international systems interact.
5. Who are the stakeholders in the work of this agency? Direct
stakeholders include:
Industry and academic users of NIST measurements and
standards, including purchasers of more than 38,000 NIST standard
reference materials annually.
Industry, academic, and federal R&D organizations which
benefit from NIST measurement research through more than 2,000
peerreviewed technical publications annually, and through many other
means of disseminating NIST research.
Industry and academic research projects receiving more ATP
cofunding: More than 350 companies participating in more than 170 joint
ventures, and including about 140 universities, with a total ATP
investment of more than $1.6 billion since the program began about 10
years ago.
U.S. smaller manufacturers served through more than 400
Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers and offices in all 50
states and Puerto Rico, providing direct business and technical
assistance.
All types of companies and organizations that use
the.Baldrige criteria for performance excellence. Different sets of
criteria are optimized for business, health care organizations, and
educational organizations. More than 2 million copies of the Baldrige
criteria have been distributed, and quality programs based on the
Baldrige principles are used throughout the U.S. and in many foreign
nations.
Federal agencies with regulatory responsibilities that
rely on NIST measurements and standards to fulfill their missions.
Federal agencies that rely on NIST information processing
and information security standards, practices, and guidelines.
State weights and measures organizations that rely on NIST
certification and training to fulfill their regulatory responsibilities
for all types of legal measurement needs. Laws governing weights and
measures affect more than half the U.S. GDP, or about $5 trillion per
year.
National standards developing organizations that rely on
NIST technical expertise and advice to develop voluntary consensus
standards driven by the private sector to promote trade and ensure
product quality and performance.
International standards developing organizations that work
with NIST and U.S. standards developing organizations.
U.S. private sector and local government measurement and
standards laboratories that are accredited through organizations
cooperating with NIST.
A key indirect stakeholder is the general public, which benefits
from NIST measurements and standards that enable efficient
manufacturing of products and delivery of services, that ensure fair
commerce through accurate weights and measures, that underpin provision
of quality health care, that increase public safety through structural
and fire standards for buildings, and through many other NIST
activities too numerous to list here.
6. What is the proper relationship between your position, if
confirmed, and the stakeholders identified in question number 5: Among
these would be the following:
Communicate to all stakeholders the impacts and values of
NIST programs, services and capabilities to their needs.
Solicit from stakeholders assessments of the impacts and
values of NIST's products and services.
Involve stakeholders in charting the future vision and
objectives of NIST and in identifying strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats.
Maintain an open stance as a principal point of contact to
respond to needs, issues or complaints.
7. The Chief Financial Officers Act requires all government
departments and agencies to develop sound financial management
practices similar to those practiced in the private sector. (a) What do
you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to ensure that
your agency has proper management and accounting controls?
Provide the CFO with the talent and IT resources needed to
perform his/her function at the highest possible level of performance.
Assure that Laboratory managers and unit heads are
adequately trained in standard government accounting and financial
management and reporting procedures.
Involve the CFO in all executive committees at NIST and in
all strategic planning activities.
Consider establishing an audit and finance subcommittee of
the Visiting Committee for Advanced Technology.
Assure a seamless relationship between department and NIST
finance operations and policy development functions.
Assure that the Office of the IG has timely access to all
requested financial information.
(b) What experience do you have in managing a large organization? I
have had responsible management positions with top organizations in
indusrry, government and academia, to include General Electric Company,
Battelle Memorial Institute, TRW, Inc., Defense Advanced Projects
Agency, Office of the Secretary of Defense, MIT, and Purdue University.
I have also had long-term corporate directorships with Keithley
Instruments, Inc. and Lord Corporation. In these positions I have had
extensive experience in personnel management; financial budgeting and
control; strategic planning; R&D management; and technology transfer.
Budget authorities have ranged from $3 million to approximately $3
billion (DOD). A brief description of these management assignments is
given in section A.9. in this questionnaire.
8. The Government Performance and Results Act requires all
government departments and agencies to identify measurable performance
goals and to report to Congress on their success in achieving these
goals. (a) Please discuss what you believe to be the benefits of
identifying performance goals and reporting on your progress in
achieving those goals. These requirements establish a basis for
managing by objectives and for being accountable for performing against
these objectives. They also provide an opportunity to learn the
practice of realistic goal setting and forward thinking. (b) What steps
should Congress consider taking when an agency fails to achieve its
performance goals? Should these steps include the elimination,
privatization, downsizing or consolidation of departments and/or
programs? The Congress should exercise its oversight authority to
determine the root causes for failing to meet performance goals.
Possible factors involved may be due to improper organizational
structure, management system, or monitoring and control mechanisms, or
incompetence. However, failures may also result if the agency is not
provided sufficient human and financial resources to meet its
performance goals, or if other external factors prevent the goals from
being met. The corrective actions described in the question may be
appropriate for some cases, but in other cases Congress may provide
greater benefit to the nation by addressing external factors that
prevent success of the agency. (c) What performance goals do you
believe should be applicable to your personal performance, if
confirmed? I should be held to the performance goals set by the
Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for Technology and as
specified by law and by the Congress. I should also be held accountable
for accomplishing goals identified in GPRA reports and NIST planning
documents. I should be held to the highest ethical standards applicable
to anyone serving in the public's trust.
9. Please describe your philosophy of supervisor/employee
relationships. Generally, what supervisory model do you follow? Have
any employee complaints been brought against you? I have followed the
following principles in supervisor/employee relationships:
Lead by example . . . don't expect what you would not be
willing to do.
Set high standards but empower the individual to achieve
his/her highest potential.
Delegate authority but hold the individual accountable for
results.
Listening can pay premiums in understanding an
individual's strengths and weaknesses. Build on the strengths and
provide mentoring and training to overcome the weaknesses.
Celebrate achievements . . . psychic rewards can be as
important as tangible rewards.
Be alert for opportunities that will motivate individuals
to exceed their own expectations.
When setting tough goals be patient . . . individuals
often arrive at innovative solutions on their own.
No employee complaints have been brought against me throughout my
career.
10. Describe your working relationship, if any, with the
Congress.Does your professional experience include working with
committees of Congress? If yes, please describe. My working
relationships with the Congress have been primarily to give testimony
upon request. I have also recently discussed with staff members the
2000 annual report of the Advanced Technology Program Advisory
Committee. During the period 1980-1986 I served as a member of the
Advisory Panel to the Congressional Task Force on Technology Policy,
co-chaired by Congressmen McKay and Packard.
11. Please explain what you believe to be the proper relationship
between yourself, if confirmed, and the Inspector General of your
department/agency? As a representative of the Congress, the IG is
entitled to my full support. My responsibilities would include
providing any information requested by the IG in a timely way;
providing access to any personnel for fact finding; support any
investigations required; and to take actions stipulated by the IG based
on such investigations. It would also be my responsibility to assure
that all personnel at NIST are informed of the functions and
authorities of the IG.
12. Please explain how you would work with this Committee and other
stakeholders to ensure that regulations issued by your department/
agency comply with the spirit of the laws passed by Congress. I would
work closely with the General Law Division of the Office of the
Assistant General Counsel for Administration, Department of Commerce,
to assure that such compliance is fulfilled.
13. In the areas under department/agency's jurisdiction, what
legislative action(s) should Congress consider as priorities? Please
state your personal views.
At this stage of my knowledge of critical needs, I can cite three
legislative actions of high priority:
Spending authority to complete the equipping of the
Advanced Measurements Laboratory,
Changes in the Authorizing Act for the Advanced Technology
Program as requested by the Secretary of Commerce,
Budget authority to enable essential research facilities
improvements at the Gaithersburg and Boulder sites.
14. Within your area of control, will you pledge to develop and
implement a system that allocates discretionary spending based on
national priorities determined in an open fashion on a set of
established criteria? If yes, please state what steps you intend to
take and a time frame for their implementation. Yes, I pledge to do so.
I am aware that criteria are already in place at NIST for the use of
director's discretionary funds. I will assess the adequacy of these
criteria at my first opportunity and modify them as required with the
participation of NIST managers and key personnel. The NIST-wide
strategic plan, identified as one of my priority initiatives, will
address incentives to encourage cross unit interdisciplinary research
initiatives and other such incentives that improve the responsiveness,
productivity and quality of NIST activities. A first version of this
plan should be developed, ready for vetting with NIST management and
employees in fall 2002.
Senator Wyden. We will have a number of those in a little
bit.
Mr. Bond, welcome.
STATEMENT OF PHILLIP J. BOND, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR
THE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee. I, too, have a longer written statement. I will try
to be brief in my remarks.
I, of course, am honored and humbled to be here, honored by
the kind words from the chair, and the full and flattering
introduction from Senator Allen and also the statement by
Senator Murray. I am humbled by the confidence placed in me by
Secretary Evans, and President Bush to be nominated for the
post of Under Secretary for Technology, and of course I am
daily humbled byu the support from my wife and children, of
whom I am very proud, and I am honored to share the witness
table with an accomplished scientist like Dr. Marburger, and I
will be sure to pass on your congratulations to the Nobel
prize-winners at NIST.
I would like to focus my remarks on my views about this
particular post, and a little bit about my qualifications, such
as they are, and of course look forward to any questions. First
and foremost, I want to underscore my commitment to the notion
of public service, and especially national service. I did leave
a more financially rewarding post because I came to Washington,
like Members of the Committee, to do good, not merely to do
well. In the household in which I was raised, public service
was a high calling. My father served as vice mayor of our town
in California, part-time job, but a full-time commitment.
Second, I am also committed to serving in this particular
capacity within technology administration, because I know that
Government plays an influential role in the development of new
technology and its application to the opportunities and
challenges that our Nation faces at this particular time.
I believe and understand that a strong economy and a strong
national defense are the twin pillars that support America's
freedom, and more than ever, technology is vital to both of
these strengths.
Secretary Evans clearly wants Technology Administration to
play a key role in advancing U.S. economy through continued
technological leadership, as Senator Allen described, and I am
proud to be asked to enlist in that cause. Clearly, as
referenced by Dr. Marburger, the scientists at NIST and
professionals within Technology Administration are doing
outstanding and particularly relevant work, so I hope to
benefit from working with all of them.
As to experience, Senator Allen was kind and complete
enough to mention the three things I bring to this job,
background in information technology with both Hewlett-Packard
and the Information Technology Industry Council, national
security, working in two administrations in the Pentagon, and
particularly honored to be the number 2 legislative advisor to
then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney at the end of the earlier
Bush administration.
Congressionally, I did serve as chief of staff to two
Members, one of whom was in leadership, and so I understand and
fully appreciate the crucial role of the legislative branch
both in policy and budgetary matters.
Finally, let me say that in light of the incredible
challenges facing our Nation and its economy after September
11, I pray that my background is a good fit for these difficult
and present times.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
Committee, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bond follows:]
Prepared Statement of Phillip J. Bond, Nominee for Under Secretary for
the Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am honored to appear
before you today as the President's nominee for the position of Under
Secretary for Technology. My wife, Diane, and daughters Jacqueline and
Jessica are here with me today.
I am deeply grateful to President Bush and Secretary Evans for the
confidence they have shown in me, and their willingness to entrust me
with a leadership position on issues that are of great and lasting
importance to our Nation. I recognize the key role technology will play
in our short-term and long-term responses to the despicable acts of
September 11, and I am ready and resolute in my commitment to serve the
country in this regard as Under Secretary for Technology. I am deeply
committed to leading the Technology Administration because I know from
experience that government plays an influential role in the development
of new technology and its application to the opportunities and
challenges our Nation faces.
A strong economy and a strong national defense are the twin pillars
supporting America's freedom, our world leadership, standard of living,
and quality of life. More than ever before, technology is vital to
these U.S. strengths.
Rapid advances in technology, especially in information technology,
have driven our country's remarkable economic performance for the past
decade. Technological innovation has underpinned our strong economic
growth, higher rates of investment, low inflation, high-wage job
growth, low unemployment, and solid increases in productivity--the true
path for producing higher standards of living. There can be little
doubt that our technology producers and technology-intensive industries
will lead the way in returning our Nation to a path of robust economic
growth.
There is every reason to believe that technology will continue to
be a significant force in our economy and in the defense of our Nation
in the years ahead. All around us we see the information technology
revolution in progress--in national security and homeland defense, in
communications, business and commerce, in how we educate and train our
people, and in how we manage our personal lives. Biotechnology is
poised to revolutionize agriculture and medicine. Cracking the human
genetic code will one day bring promising new medicines and therapies
to those who hope and pray for them. All this information is increasing
exponentially, and combining with advances in computing and the advent
of the Internet to give rise to a new era: the Information Age. It is
an era of promise. Rapid advances in technology are transforming all of
our human endeavors, creating the potential for a host of new global
market opportunities, new and powerful ways to secure our nation,
improvements in our standard of living, and a better quality of life.
It is no accident that the United States leads the world in high
technology, both civilian and defense. Our achievements are the
dividends that flow from sustained public and private sector
investments in research and development, coupled with America's
entrepreneurial spirit and willingness to take risks. Today, the
private sector plays the dominant role in the process of developing new
technologies and bringing them to market. But the Federal Government
plays a pivotal role in creating a climate that supports the private
sector's efforts, and in investing in those basic areas of exploratory
research and development upon which the private sector builds its own
technology base.
I believe the Technology Administration can continue to make vital
contributions to our nation's technology base, and our national
policies that support private sector technology development,
commercialization, and competitiveness.
Compared to our world of commerce for most of the 20th century,
today we are operating in a radically different, and rapidly changing,
business and technology environment. This era of change has vast
implications for our national policies--ranging from R&D investment
policies and regulations, to how we educate and train our people. The
Technology Administration's Office of Technology Policy (OTP) has
strong analytical capabilities, coupled with good working relationships
with the private sector, that allows it to delve into the complex
competitiveness and technology issues with which all policymakers
grapple, and generate fresh insights and new policy paths for the
country to explore.
Our National Institute of Standards and Technology is a national
jewel. It ensures that we have an up-to-date and world-class system of
measurements and standards based upon some of the world's greatest
scientific research. These measurements and standards have enabled
advances in science, innovation, trade, and the public good. Its work
continues to be as relevant as ever as we move to new technological
frontiers such as nanotechnology.
As Members of this Committee know, NIST has played a key role in
U.S. counterterrorism and critical infrastructure protection. NIST has
provided standards for the dose in x-ray security machines and for
biometric identification, a promising security technology. NIST
research has focused on standards for the detection of chemical and
radiological weapons, and new methods of detecting concealed weapons at
a distance. It has tested search and rescue robots, and helped in the
retrieval of information from damaged and erased flight recorders. If
confirmed, I plan to strengthen NIST's role by promoting its cutting
edge work within the policy councils of the Administration, and
throughout industry.
I believe my skills and experience are well suited to leading the
Technology Administration in carrying out its missions. I have a great
appreciation for the capabilities of our high-tech industries, a deep
understanding of the opportunities and challenges before them, and how
public policies affect their ability to grow and compete. As the
Director for Federal Public Policy at the Hewlett-Packard Company, and
as the Senior Vice President for Government Affairs and Treasurer for
the Information Technology Industry Council, I led efforts addressing
the growing role of information technology in our economy, market
opening initiatives, the protection of the Internet, e-commerce, and
intellectual property protection. It was a pleasure working with the
Administration and Congressional policymakers to further the
understanding of the positive implications of a networked, digital
world. This work also afforded me the opportunity to develop strong
relationships with some of this nation's best and brightest high-tech
companies that are leading the global technology revolution. If
confirmed, I will work to strengthen the government's relationship with
high-tech industries for the benefit of our economy and security.
If confirmed, I would also bring national security knowledge and
experience to the job. For example, among my work at the Defense
Department, I was privileged to serve as Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs for Vice President Cheney
when he was Secretary of Defense. In that capacity, I provided policy
advice and guidance on a wide range of national security issues. I
believe my experience in the national security arena will bring a new
and important dimension to the Technology Administration's work at this
critical juncture in our nation's history.
Importantly, if confirmed, I will also bring a Capitol Hill
perspective to the job. I was privileged to serve as Chief of Staff to
both Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn and Congressman Bob McEwen. It is my
hope that I will have the opportunity to use the experience I gained in
these jobs to build stronger relationships between the Commerce
Department and the Congress in the pursuit of our common goals for the
economy, our technology base, and our national security.
Mr. Chairman, it is my firm conviction that the Technology
Administration can contribute much to our economic and national
security. I have found that its career policy analysts, scientists and
engineers, and technical and support professionals are talented,
creative, and committed deeply to their mission. If confirmed, it would
be an honor to lead this group of dedicated public servants.
Thank you for considering my nomination, and giving me the
opportunity to appear before you today. I will be happy to answer
questions you may have.
______
A. Biographical Information
1. Name (include any former names or nick names used.): Phillip J.
Bond.
2. Position to which nominated: Under Secretary of Commerce for
Technology.
3. Date of nomination: September 4, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
Residence: Not released to public. Office: Department of Commerce, 14th
Street NW & Constitution, Washington, DC 20230.
5. Date and place of birth: October 15, 1956; Compton, California.
6. Marital status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to the former Diane Auth since July 1989.
7. Names and ages of children: (Include stepchildren and children
from previous marriages.) Jacqueline Bond, age 9; Jessica, Bond, age 7.
8. Education: (List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.) Petaluma High
School, Petaluma, CA; attended 1971-74; high school degree (1974)
Linfield College, McMinnville, OR; attended 1974-78; B.A. in
Communications (1978).
9. Employment record: (List all jobs held since college, including
the title or description of job, name of employer, location of work,
and dates of employment.) August 1978-January 1979: Account Assistant
(Public Relations), The Rockey Company, Portland, OR; January 1979-
September 1981: Account Executive (Public Relations), The Rockey
Company, Seattle, WA; September 1981-March 1983: Public Relations
Manager, Rainier Bancorporation, Seattle, WA; March 1983-September
1985: Assistant to the Chairman, Rainier Bancorporation, Seattle, WA;
September 1985-September 1986: Federal Government Relations Manager,
Rainier Bancorporation, Seattle, WA; September 1986-April 1987:
Assistant to the President (non-profit advocacy), American Security
Council, Boston, VA; July 1987-July 1990: Special Assistant to the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs), Department of
Defense, The Pentagon, Washington, DC; July 1990-July 1992: Chief of
Staff, U.S. Rep. Bob McEwen, Washington, DC; July 1992-January 1993:
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs),
Department of Defense, The Pentagon, Washington, DC; January 1993-March
1998: Chief of Staff, U.S. Rep. Jennifer Dunn, Washington, DC; March
1998-February 2001: Senior Vice President and Treasurer (trade
association executive), Information Technology Industry Council,
Washington, DC; February 2001-August 2001: Director of Federal Public
Policy, Hewlett-Packard Company, Washington, DC; August 2001-present:
Senior Advisor to the Secretary. (consultant), Department of Commerce,
Washington, DC.
10. Government experience: (List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other parttime service or positions with Federal, State, or
local governments, other than those listed above.)None beyond those
listed in .answer to question number nine.
11. Business relationships: (List all positions held as an officer,
director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or
consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.) I served as
director of Federal public policy for the Hewlett-Packard Company of
Palo Alto, CA for six months in 2001. I served for three years (1998-
2001) as an officer of the Information Technology Industry Council, a
Washington, DC-based trade association. I was initially a Vice
President, later serving as Senior Vice President and Treasurer of the
organization. From May through July of 2000 I served on the board of a
filtered ISP based in Minneapolis by the name of Lightdog.com,
receiving no compensation of any kind.
12. Memberships: (List all memberships and offices held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.) Member, Army-Navy Club of Washington, DC, May-
August 2001. Member of the non-fiduciary Board of Associates of the
Emmanuel School of Religion of Johnson City, TN. Member of McLean Bible
Church, McLean, VA.
13. Political affiliations and activities: (a) List all offices
with a political party which you have held or any public office for
which you have been a candidate. I was a Republican nominee for the
office of State Representative in Washington state's 46th district in
1984. (b). List all memberships and offices held in and services
rendered to all political parties or election committees during the
last 10 years. I have held no offices in any political campaigns over
the past 10 years. (c) Itemize all political contributions to any
individual, campaign organization, political party, political action
committee, or similar entity of $500 or more for the past 10 years.
Itemized political contributions in excess of $500 over the past 10
years are as follows: 2001: None. 2000: Bush-Cheney 2000 Compliance
Committee ($500); National Republican Congressional Committee ($500);
Dooley for Congress ($1,250); The Washington Fund (Rep. Dunn) ($500);
Lazio 2000 ($500). 1999: Friends of Jennifer Dunn ($500); Abraham
Senate 2000 ($500); American Success PAC (Rep. Dreier) ($1,000). 1998:
Citizens for Kasich ($500). 1991-1998: None.
14. Honors and awards: (List all scholarships, fellowships,
honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals and any
other special recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.) I
was presented an Outstanding Public Service medal by the Secretary of
Defense in January of 1993.
15. Published writings: (List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.) None.
16. Speeches: Provide the Committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. None which were done from anything beyond notes or for which
I have copies.
17. Selection: (a) Do you know why you were chosen for this
nomination by the President? I was recommended by the Secretary of
Commerce to the White House personnel office based upon my experience
working with the leading IT companies. (b) What do you believe in your
background or employment experience affirmatively qualifies you for
this particular appointment? I have a mix of experience in government
and the private sector that the Secretary of Commerce felt were
appropriate to the job: legislative and executive experience at senior
levels, policy development and Congressional relations on behalf of the
IT industry through a major trade association, and more recent
selection to head the federal policy efforts of one of the world's
premier technology companies.
B. Future Employment Relationships
1. Will you sever all connections with your present employers,
business firms, business associations or business organizations if you
are confirmed by the Senate? Yes.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, explain. No.
3. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements after
completing government service to resume employment, affiliation or
practice with your previous employer, business firm, association or
organization? No.
4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any
capacity after you leave government service? No.
5. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your full term or until
the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable? Yes.
C. Potential Conflicts of Interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients or customers. The only continuing dealings I have are
represented by continued participation in two 401 (k) programs from
past employment. I participate in, but make no further contributions
toward, a 401 (k) program sponsored by the Hewlett-Packard Company of
Palo Alto, CA. Similarly, I participate in, but make no further
contributions toward, a 401 (k) program sponsored by the Information
Technology Industry Council, a Washington, DC-based trade association.
2. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated. None.
3. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated? None.
4. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have
engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy. At the
Information Technology Industry Council and as the director of federal
public policy for Hewlett-Packard, I worked to influence a wide variety
of legislative and executive actions on technology, trade and education
matters. I also worked on the staff of two House members, and for the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs).
5. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items. (Please provide a copy of any trust or other agreements.) I will
endeavor to immediately eliminate any potential conflict of interest
working in close coordination with the Ethics Division of the Commerce
Department's Office of the General Counsel. Attached to this
questionnaire is the Ethics Agreement I signed after consulting with
that office. I will seek counsel from that office in the event any
questions arise to seek their advice on how to avoid any potential
conflicts of interest. I intend to follow the guidance of the
Department's counsels.
6. Do you agree to have written opinions provided to the Committee
by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to which you are
nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics concerning potential
conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to your serving in this
position? Yes.
D. Legal Matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct by, or been the subject of a compliant to
any court, administrative agency, professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, provide
details. I have not.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details. I have not.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in interest in an administrative agency
proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide details? I have not. The
Hewlett-Packard Company was involved in many proceedings in conjunction
with its global business during my stint with the company. None of
these proceedings involved me specifically or related to any of my
actions at the company.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? I have not.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination. None.
E. Relationship with Committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines set by congressional committees for information? Yes.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the committee with requested
witnesses, to include technical experts and career employees with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the committee? Yes.
4. Please explain how you will review regulations issued by your
department/agency, and work closely with Congress, to ensure that such
regulations comply with the spirit of the laws passed by Congress. It
is my understanding that the Technology Administration does not
presently anticipate any major revision to its existing regulations and
does not plan to initiate any new major rule-making. Should new laws
passed by the Congress require the development of a new regulation on
any matter, I would direct that the draft regulation be reviewed by
appropriate officials within the Technology Administration to ensure
that it takes into account the clear wording of the law, as well as any
legislative history included in Committee Reports. As required by the
Administrative Procedures Act the Technology Administration would use a
public comment process in the Federal Register, and public workshops as
appropriate, to obtain the views of other stakeholders. My objective
would be to ensure that such regulations fully comply with the spirit
of the laws passed by Congress.
The Technology Administration (TA) is not a regulatory agency, and
enters to rulemaking activities infrequently. With the exception of one
regulation which establishes safety marking requirements for toy guns,
the Technology Administration has promulgated no regulations of general
effect on the public. Rather, regulations promulgated by TA fall into
the two following categories:
Regulations which establish operating procedures for TA
programs, including the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) (see 15 CFR
Part 295); the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP) (see 15 CFR Part
290); the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP)
(see 15 CFR Part 285) and others, all of which exist at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology within TA; and
Regulations which address the internal operation of the
Federal government on matters such as ``Rights to Inventions Made by
Nonprofit Organizations and Small Business Firms Under Government
Grants'' (see 37 CFR Part 401); ``Licensing of Government Owned
Inventions'' (see 37 CFR Part 404); and a ``Uniform Patent Policy for
Rights in Inventions Made by Government Employees'' (see 37 CFR Part
501).
Absent a change in law, I do not now anticipate any major change to
these regulations.
5. Describe your department/agency's current mission, major
programs, and major operational objectives. The collective mission of
Technology Administration is to work with US commercial interests to
maximize technological contributions to US economic growth and
productivity through: the development and promotion of federal
technology policies that promote innovation; improving the national
technological infrastructure; fostering the development and adoption of
new technologies; and disseminating technical information needed by
innovators.
The major programs within the bureau include the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Office of Technology Policy
(OTP), the Office of Space Commercialization (OCS), the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS), and the Partnership for a New
Generation of Vehicles (PNGV).
Major operational objectives include: effective advocacy on behalf
of US technology, air and space commercial interests in national and
international fora; development of Federal policies that will maintain
America's global competitiveness in technology; fostering and promoting
effective federal investment in research and development and technology
transfer; development of relevant technical standards for US commercial
advancement; representing US commercial interests in the crafting of
bilateral and multilateral science and technology agreements; analysis
to identify opportunities for the advancement of US manufacturing,
productivity and innovation; and serve as the Departmental focal point
for initiatives to position and strengthen the US workforce for an
information and technology-based economy.
6. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
F. General Qualifications and Views
1. How have your previous professional experience and education
qualified you for the position for which you have been nominated? My
past experiences have provided me with an understanding of how Federal
policy is formulated and executed. My experience in working with major
IT companies, in particular, has given me an appreciation for the
fundamental shift taking place in the US economy as we move into what
is often referred to as the Information Age. The reach and impact of
new technologies is advancing exponentially and causing industries to
converge. My experience has taught me to appreciate that the policy
opportunities of technology are often accompanied by public policy
opportunities.
2. Why do you wish to serve in the position for which you have been
nominated? First and foremost, I was raised to believe that public
service is a very high calling. Further, I believe that American
quality of life for the next generation hangs in the balance. If we
achieve smart policy that keeps America competitive in technology,
there will be a very positive impact on the lives of Americans in terms
of employment and other opportunities. If policies stymie American
innovation and technological competitiveness, then people will lose
jobs and other opportunities. I would like to make a contribution
toward a positive outcome.
3. What goals have you established for your first two years in this
position, if confirmed? First, to more firmly establish the Commerce
Department's Technology Administration as an effective advocate for US
technology interests in both international and domestic policy
considerations. Second, to become a more effective partner with the
Congress in the development of good technology policy. Third, to
advance the development of the US workforce to fit the needs of an
increasingly technology-reliant economy.
4. What skills do you believe you may be lacking which may be
necessary to successfully carry out this position? What steps can be
taken to obtain those skills? I desire to sharpen my understanding of
other scientific and technological developments beyond information
technologies, and also to better understand the intricacies of
technology transfer. I will endeavor to achieve that by turning to the
vast expertise that resides within NIST, one of the world's pre-eminent
centers of research and development. Other steps that can be taken
include better outreach by the Commerce Department to the vast array of
private sector R&D facilities.
5. Who are the stakeholders in the work of this agency? Beyond the
American taxpayer for whom we ultimately strive, there are other
critically important communities included among TA stakeholders: the
Congress, especially the Commerce Committees; the US science community;
the US IT and biotech sectors; the American space industry; and the US
automotive industry are among those communities relying on work done by
TA.
6. What is the proper relationship between your position, if
confirmed, and the stakeholders identified in question number ten. If
honored with confirmation, my job would be to communicate effectively
with the stakeholders to ensure mutual understanding of information and
policy needs.
7. The Chief Financial Officers Act requires all government
departments and agencies to develop sound financial management
practices similar to those practiced in the private sector. (a) What do
you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to ensure that
your agency has proper management and accounting controls? My
responsibility would be to review all the controls and policies
presently in use to assess their effectiveness. Further, my
responsibility will include making sure that appropriate policies are
in place and periodically checked to ensure adherence. (b) What
experience do you have in managing a large organization? As the
principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for legislative
affairs, I directly managed a significant staff of career military
officers and civilian staff. In that same capacity, I was responsible
for a degree of management for each of the service legislative affairs
functions. This experience extended to procurement, personnel
management, and budget oversight.
8. The Government Performance and Results Act requires all
government departments and agencies to identify measurable performance
goals and to report to Congress on their success in achieving these
goals. (a) Please discuss what you believe to be the benefits of
identifying performance goals and reporting on your progress in
achieving those goals. What is measured gets done. The only way to
achieve a measurable output is to first clearly establish goals and a
deadline for reporting progress toward those goals. The review of
progress, or lack thereof, helps to identify success and/or uncovers
shortcomings. (b) What steps should Congress consider taking when an
agency fails to achieve its performance goals? Should these steps
include the elimination, privatization, downsizing or consolidation of
departments and/or programs? In my view, when an agency fails to
achieve its performance goals, Congress should at least consider
virtually all of the options listed above. First, it should review the
performance goals to ensure that they are appropriate and realistic.
Next, it should review the criticality of the agency mission and goals.
Assuming that the mission is critical, Congress should work with the
executive to improve performance on behalf of the taxpayer. (c) What
performance goals do you believe should be applicable to your personal
performance, if confirmed? If confirmed, I would expect to work out
specific performance goals and measurement milestones with the
Secretary of Commerce or his designee to move TA forward in a manner
consistent with the Secretary's overall objectives. I would expect my
performance to be assessed on progress made toward those goals.
9. Please describe your philosophy of supervisor/employee
relationships. Generally, what supervisory model do you follow? Have
any employee complaints been brought against you? I believe in a model
based upon trust and delegation. This requires a clearly stated and
shared vision, performance goals and milestones for measurement. At
that point, I believe people are most productive when empowered with
responsibility. I have never had an employee complaint brought against
me.
10. Describe your working relationship, if any, with the Congress.
Does your professional experience include working with committees of
Congress? If yes, please describe. As a lobbyist for Hewlett-Packard,
as an association lobbyist, and as a Defense Department official, I
have worked extensively with Committees of Congress and their staffs.
These experiences have included preparations for hearings and
testimony, fact-finding missions for staff and Members, technology
demonstrations, report preparation, policy briefings and industry
outreach.
11. Please explain what you believe to be the proper relationship
between yourself, if confirmed, and the Inspector General of your
department/agency? The IG's critical role in an executive agency
requires respect and cooperation from senior executives within the
agencies. I will certainly be respectful of the IG's authority and
mission, and look forward to instilling that same view in all the
employees of Technology Administration should I be confirmed.
12. Please explain how you will work with this Committee and other
stakeholders to ensure that regulations issued by your department/
agency comply with the spirit of the laws passed by Congress. The
Technology Administration (TA) is not a regulatory agency, and enters
to rulemaking activities infrequently. Absent a change in law, I do not
now anticipate any major change to that status. However, should that
occur, I would instruct appropriate staff to ensure, through study of
the legislative record and direct communications with the professional
staff of appropriate committees, that the draft regulations were
consistent with the intent of Congress. Other stakeholders would have
an opportunity to comment as described above in question #4 of section
E.
13. In the areas under the department/agency's jurisdiction, what
legislative action(s) should Congress consider as priorities? Please
state your personal views. My views closely track those of the
Secretary and the President. I believe that since the technology sector
is critical to America's economic success in the future, that we need
to craft policies that help facilitate the infrastructure for
innovation. That would include:
pro-trade policies such as Trade Promotion Authority and
updating of the Export Administration Act since most US technology is
export-dependent;
extending the R&D tax credit to encourage private sector
innovation;
robust funding for federal R&D, as the President has
recommended, to do basic research that can give rise to technology
transfers;
emphasizing and encouraging math and science excellence at
all levels;
authorizing substantial investment in e-government to make
government more accessible and efficient;
working with the Administration and industry stakeholders
to stimulate broadband rollout so that people can receive greater
services via the Internet;
working with the Administration and industry stakeholders
to make spectrum available for 3G so that we do not fall irretrievably
behind global competition.
14. Within your area of control, will you pledge to develop and
implement a system that allocates discretionary spending based on
national priorities determined in an open fashion on a set of
established criteria? If not, please state why. If yes, please state
what steps you intend to take and a time frame for their
implementation. Yes. I will review the procedures currently in place to
determine their adequacy. If those procedures are not open and or the
criteria are not well established, I will move immediately to rectify
that situation.
Senator Wyden. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Bond, and we will
just go with each Senator taking 10 minutes or so on the first
round, and then I expect we will have several rounds this
afternoon because of the importance of these issues.
Let me turn first to this question of combatting terrorism.
Dr. Marburger, I think you heard me say in my opening statement
that I found very troubling that section of the General
Accounting Office report recently that dealt with the lack of
coordination among science agencies in conducting
counterterrorism research.
Specifically what they said was that the Coast Guard was
conducting research on detection of chemical attacks on cruise
ships, and the Coast Guard did not know of virtually identical
research being conducted by the Defense Department. I think it
is very clear that one of the keys for you and for Tom Ridge in
the days ahead is to make sure that the left hand and the right
hand are having a conversation, because it is integral that
this research be done.
I cannot conceive that a Member of the U.S. Senate would
not support this research, but it is going to undermine our
ability to get this work done if the General Accounting Office
comes back 2 years hence and says, ``Well, as a result of the
September 11 tragedy, there was an effort to beef up the
Government's work with respect to chemical attacks on these
defense installations, but again two agencies were heading off
without making any efforts to coordinate''.
What do you see your role specifically being to prevent
this kind of duplication that the General Accounting Office
talked about in the new report?
Dr. Marburger. Senator, the Office of Science and
Technology Policy was created specifically to provide this kind
of coordination, and I would accept it as my responsibility to
convene cross-cutting committees. Many such committees already
exist, as you probably know, chaired by Office of Science and
Technology Policy staff and others appointed by the President.
The issue of coordination in this changed environment is
extremely important, I agree with you completely. There are
many programs of research and development in science and
technology that bear on homeland security, and in this changed
circumstance I believe that it is necessary to look again at
these programs from this new point of view and attempt to
discover parallels and aspects of research that can be done in
a coordinated way. This was clearly the responsibility of OSTP,
and I look forward to implementing it with your assistance.
There are sometimes rather invisible ways in which research
and development activities can support each other, and it is
not always a simple thing to disentangle those, but I believe
in this critical time that increased communication among
agencies is absolutely necessary.
Senator Wyden. In a situation like this, would it not make
sense, before everybody goes off and does their own research,
to essentially have a policy where the administration in
concert with the Congress says, ``This is an area we want to
fund, and these are the people we want to have do it'', and we
not just sort of get involved after the fact?
What has troubled me is that it seems like we are always
playing catch-up ball in trying to eliminate duplication and
the lack of coordination, and so the General Accounting Office
comes out and offers this report, and it is troubling Senator
Allen and myself and Members of Congress, and here you are, you
are just coming in. This did not happen on your watch, and we
ask you a question, and you say, ``By God, Senators Wyden and
Allen, we are going to go out and do better coordination''.
I think what I would like to see on your watch is
essentially an approach that would be preventive in nature, and
that you, in concert with Mr. Ridge and the relevant officials,
work with Senator Allen and myself and other Members of the
Senate and say, ``This is what we think needs to be done, and
you Members of the U.S. Senate, you have got to just walk the
walk in addition to talking the talk and give us the money'',
but once we do, then we can hold accountable the people who are
charged with the responsibility, and we do not just keep
repeating these instances where the research it is done, it is
duplicative, the General Accounting Office issues a critical
report, and then you have got to come in here and have a bunch
of Members of the Senate carp at you.
Dr. Marburger. I agree completely, Senator, and I will do
my best.
Senator Wyden. The previous administration--President
Clinton wrote a paper that I found very interesting. It was
called, National Security, Science and Technology Strategy. Are
you familiar with that document?
Dr. Marburger. Somewhat.
Senator Wyden. In it, they basically tried to lay out, I
think, an approach that says there are some issues with respect
to science policy that are essentially national security
questions with respect to science. Some of them come to mind,
obviously, like dual use of technologies and the like, and that
is separate from what is considered science that would be
totally divorced from terrorism and national security issues.
Do you share this view of the previous administration that
there is really a discipline that ought to be appropriately
called national security science, and if not, what would be
your differences from the Clinton administration, that this
document seems to have invested a considerable amount of effort
and research to articulating this policy?
Dr. Marburger. I can only answer very generally at this
point, Senator. I do believe that science and technology are
not now pervasive in many, many activities of society. It is
very difficult for us to know in advance what aspects of
technology a terrorist will exploit in waging and perpetrating
these atrocities, and so it is difficult to distinguish between
science and technology development that could be applied by a
terrorist and an imaginative person willing to die and disrupt
society and other very, very pure basic science that would have
no applications, so these are difficult questions, and they
really require analysis from the points of view of the several
agencies that are responsible for carrying out the R&D and for
carrying out the missions, whether they be security or
enhancing commerce or environment.
So this is the type of activity that OSTP does engage in,
where we bring together representatives from the diverse
agencies and work over problems of this nature, and try to
produce reports that give criteria for dealing with the dual
use issue, for example, which is a very serious issue, but not
a simple one.
Senator Wyden. In this area, because you were not put on
notice when we got together that this is something I was going
to ask about, why do you not take the time to look at this
particular paper and give me in writing your analysis of it,
and particularly areas where you might disagree.
I think it is a provocative paper, and the notion that
there really is a discipline known as national security science
strikes me as an intriguing one. I mean, clearly an investment
in science and technology is absolutely key to military
preparedness. That would be another example that would come to
mind, and I would like you to look at that paper. Could you do
that over the next few weeks?
Dr. Marburger. Absolutely. I would be delighted to.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
Let me turn now to this question of the response to
September 11 from the standpoint of technology. On September
11, as you know, wireless access was suspended. Wireless
Internet access was suspended. Telephone service was cut.
People would call and say, ``We are walking the streets as if
we were in an undeveloped Nation, looking for our relatives'',
and people were posting pictures and signs all over New York
City.
I mean, it struck me, for example, that if medical
authorities and medical personnel had put a GPS bracelet on
people right at the outset, that would have been a chance, for
example, to use technology in a very modest sort of way to
prevent some of the frustration that families and loved ones
were facing, and I think there is an opportunity here to do a
significantly better job in terms of mobilizing the brains and
the talent and the energy in the private sector to both prevent
these kinds of tragedies, and second, to move quickly by way of
the first response to deal with them, and this Subcommittee is
going to look at this.
Senator Allen has been very interested in this, and by the
way, we do not see this as setting up some big Government kind
of program. I mean, if you have something which resembled a
technology version of the National Guard, where you had at the
ready the brains and the equipment and the talent and a
clearinghouse where people could go to get this assistance, I
think we could make vastly better use of all of this energy and
creativity in the private sector, and I would like to know at
the outset what you think about coordinating a better approach
between the Government and the private sector to both
preventing these problems and moving to respond when you have
them.
Dr. Marburger. Well, Senator, first of all, I believe the
organization that Governor Ridge will be putting together will
have some of those responsibilities. There is nothing like a
real incident to drive, to learn lessons from, and there is no
question that we are going to learn a lot about emergency
response as we look at the events following this atrocity on
September 11.
Of course, when infrastructure is destroyed, communication
is disrupted in some respects. We do attempt to foresee the
nature of infrastructure destruction in our planning processes,
but it is inevitable that there will be some chaos. This is, of
course, the intent of terrorism, but I certainly agree that
there are lessons to be learned here, and I plan to cooperate
with the Office of Homeland Security to try to learn those
lessons and pore over the record of events, and try to identify
opportunities to do a better job in the future.
Of course, concerns about terrorism and terrorist
incidents, and the possible disruption of society, have been
with us for sometime, long before September 11, and there has
been a good deal of planning. There are organizations and
cross-cutting committees that have been set up to study these
things. Vice President Cheney himself requested prior to the
incidents of September 11 that such an exercise be done, but
now I think we are looking reality in the eye, and we need to
get very serious about being really prepared for the next one.
Senator Wyden. Let me give you a handful of ideas that the
high technology companies gave to me yesterday at home in
Portland, because I had a session with Intel and IBM and many
of the technology leaders, the wireless firms and others, and
here are some suggestions they gave me, and I would be curious
about your reaction to them.
They talked about the need for improvements in wireless
policy to deal with emergencies.
They talked about the need for better coordination of
existing data networks so there would be a way to communicate
in the time of an emergency.
They talked about the idea of a clearinghouse, a one-stop
process to access people and equipment, where people could go
to get the brains and the equipment to deal with an emergency,
and the frustration that they found when that was not
available.
They talked about the need for simulating drills to test
the various IT systems.
They talked about the heed for ways in which high-tech
companies could share information, share information about
their various services without running afoul of the antitrust
laws, and there are some real legal questions with respect to
how they do that.
Do you disagree with those kinds of issues? Would these be
the kinds of issues that you would zero in on as our science
policy leader, and my reason for asking is not that you
subscribe to every detail, but we have, as Senator Allen--I
think it is fair to say Virginia and Oregon are in the lead
nationally in terms of technology policy.
We had really some of the premier technology executives
spend a couple of hours with me yesterday to talk about some of
these ideas, and these were some of their suggestions, and I
think it would send a real message if you as the Science
Advisor said, ``These are the kinds of things I want to work
on'', or maybe, ``I want to work on this'', and something else
is more important. Maybe there are things that you think make
sense in addition, but I would be curious as to your response
to that.
Dr. Marburger. Absolutely. These are the kinds of ideas
that I am hearing as well. These are the kinds of ideas that I
think many people are bringing forward. They need to be
evaluated. Of course, the devil is in the details. They sound
like good ideas to me, and we need to take a look at exactly
what the obstacles might be to implementing them in detail, and
that is something that we are charged to do at OSTP.
Also, some of the industry leaders that you mentioned are
associated, or will be associated with PCAST, the President's
Council of Advisors in Science and Technology, and I do expect
that body, when it gets going, will have an important role in
precisely these issues. There has been an executive order
reestablishing PCAST for 2 years, and I look forward to seeing
it get going. It is this kind of thing that we can cooperate
closely with Commerce on, and the subject area and the type of
suggestions that those gentlemen made to you are right on
target. They are certainly in the ballpark of things we need to
be looking at.
Senator Wyden. Very good. I have just one other area I want
to talk about with you on this first round, and then I am going
to recognize my friend Senator Allen, but on this point, and I
had a chance to talk about it with Mr. Bond a little bit, the
Subcommittee is going to hold hearings, hopefully as soon as
next week, on this issue of how the technology sector responded
on September 11, and I want to make it clear that my goal at
this opening kind of round of hearings is to look at all of the
ideas that are out on the table.
In other words, I have talked about the idea of a
technology version of the National Guard. I am not wedded to
that kind of concept at all. Since we have begun these
discussions, and I spoke about it on the floor, scores of
people have contacted us with ideas that sound very creative
and very good, and I think it is our goal at the first round of
hearings to really get a cross-section of the ideas out on the
table, and see if we can find common points of agreement
between these various efforts that are going on in the private
sector, and then look to see how we can work together to deal
with it, and as I indicated to Mr. Bond, this is going to have
to be something that ultimately the executive branch and the
President of the United States would have to lead, and that is
why we are looking forward to working closely with you too, and
Tom Ridge, in doing that, and our past history augers will for
that kind of cooperative effort.
One last area. I want to talk about on this first round, if
I could, with you, Dr. Marburger, is the question of coming up
with some principles to try to guide scientific decisions, and
I am not talking here, again, about passing some kind of law,
or creating a Government program, but given the importance of
scientific policymaking, ensuring that is done on the basis of
merit, and not from corporate boardrooms, and people with
agendas that are more junk than science.
I wanted to ask you about a handful of principles that have
really struck me as central to coming up with sound science,
and get your reaction to those, and you may have other ones,
and you may think this is completely off-base altogether.
The first that I mentioned is that sensible science should
be consistent with the majority of findings as published in
peer-reviewed literature. Is that something that by and large
you would agree with?
Dr. Marburger. Is that a 51-percent majority?
Senator Wyden. No quibble here. I think we are looking for
somewhere probably a lot higher than 51 percent.
Dr. Marburger. I think the peer review process is flexible
enough to be a pretty good guide on these things. We do have to
remember that sometimes ideas come out from left field, and
they are found a little crazy. There have been some very
important breakthroughs in medicine, for example, that were met
with derision in the professional community when they first
appeared, and then were subsequently found to have some merit.
We need to be very careful about limiting arbitrarily so
our policies do have flexibility enough for the occasional wild
card, an off-beat idea. We cannot just toss something out
because most people do not agree with it, so taking that into
account and having a reasonable safeguards in this regard I
think the peer review process is the right approach to
evaluating the quality of proposals.
Senator Wyden. That is a thoughtful answer, and I am asking
these questions because I want to see how you are going to
approach them, and suffice it to say, ``I think it would be
just dead wrong to say that a brilliant idea cannot advance in
America because it does not satisfy peer review analysis''.
A second principle that--as I talked with leaders in the
field--has been important has been scientific inclusions and
policy should satisfy the standards of good practice published
by scientific societies, or organizations. Would that strike
you as a kind of second kind of principle that would make
sense?
Dr. Marburger. I suppose so, but there are some awfully
sloppy scientists out there who are very brilliant, and again I
worry a little bit. Good practice, as determined by whom, and
by a Federal bureaucracy, or by a person's supervisor, or a
council of peers in a similar field?
It sounds good, but I think we should be careful again to
recognize that science progresses in a very opportunistic way.
Somebody will have a great idea that came out of the blue that
was based on a spurious reasoning, perhaps, but if it
stimulates thought and suggests a new avenue, a new place to
look, then we should take it seriously.
Some of the most brilliant scientists in the past have had
some really kookie origins and motivations for what they have
done--I mean, dreams and astrology and all sorts of things--but
the bottom line has been that they have suggested new avenues
of approach, and by applying the methods of science, which I
believe you must be referring to in this case the scientific
method, which is just testing against nature and against
reality the hypothesis you have, it does not make any
difference where the hypothesis comes from, but nature has to
agree before you can say you know it is right.
And this is a sloppy process, the basic science
particularly is a rather sloppy process. Frankly, I think that
the regulatory mechanisms for science that this Nation has
developed over the years, and particularly during the post war
years, when Federal support for science increased so much, are
quite strong. It is no accident that America has the strongest
scientific establishment in the world, and I believe that the
reason for that is the freedom and the diversity and plurality
of methods that we have accommodated in the science we support,
so certainly we have to weed out the junk science and make sure
that the science that we fund with taxpayer dollars is
methodologically sound, but I do want to be careful about how
to implement those standards.
Senator Wyden. Again, that is a thoughtful answer, and one
that I think fleshes out a little bit of what I am trying to
do. This is not a law. This is not a bill. This is not a
program. I want to see if we can work together with you to try
to bring some light to the science questions that in many
respects have become a kind of political football, and not
something that really in the majority of cases addresses these
questions of peer review and sound methodology and the like.
A third area that we have heard continually cited is that
the principles used to support scientific policy should be
acceptable to a variety of scientific and engineering
disciplines. Would that be a third area that you would say good
in principle, with qualifications?
Dr. Marburger. No. That one sounds so good it is hard to
find something to criticize about that one. Certainly, there is
a diversity of fields, and they all have different approaches,
but in general they all have to deal with nature, and nature
has to be the final arbiter when it comes to determining which
hypotheses are right and which ones are wrong, and I think that
policy input that all fields can agree on is bound to be good.
Senator Wyden. The fourth principle advanced was that
policy should be derived from a broad range of studies and not
based on a single set of findings. Your reaction to that?
Dr. Marburger. Well, that sounds good, but remember that
camels are made by committees, and sometimes when you try to
get a broad range of opinion you just get that, a broad range
of opinion, you do not have a clear, incisive approach, so I
think some balance is required here. We need to take advantage
of the integrative capacity of the human mind, and there are
some people that seem to write better policy than others, so we
can have a committee with lots of input, but I would like to
see one person write the report, and that is just a prejudice,
and perhaps this is a question of style.
Senator Wyden. The last question deals with essentially
backing up a theory, can something actually be supported, and I
think a lot of scientists see this as a question of whether
empirical data supports the findings of predictive models. How
would you see that?
Dr. Marburger. Now, there are different areas of science
that differ in their amenability to modeling and simulation.
Some of the most important scientific work done today is
statistical in nature. In health research, for example, tracing
environmental effects on health, public health, it relies on
epidemiology and the sorting out of very large numbers of
variables, some of which may be irrelevant.
This is a tough area, and there are lots of philosophical
debates as well as technical debates about how to apply
statistics, and how do you design an experiment to protect, for
example, the rights of human subjects? In other areas, in
particle physics, particularly in solid state physics,
materials increasingly in molecular biology, we have tools for
simulation that work extremely well, and that one can rely on
modeling. We can even predict the weather for about a day ahead
or more, but the fact is that we have to be careful about
making a commitment to base our scientific input on modeling as
opposed to real world studies of phenomena, and I think as long
as we keep these differences in mind, the various fields of
science and engineering are quite clear on this, and we have
good guidance from the scientific community itself on what
methodologies are appropriate in different areas, and I feel
quite confident that if you were, for example, to ask a
question about a specific field or a specific study, I would be
able to get very clear advice on whether this was appropriate.
I feel very confident about that.
Senator Wyden. I am going to recognize Senator Allen, and
then I will have some questions for you, and we have not even
gotten started with you yet, Mr. Bond, but on this point, Dr.
Marburger, I hope that, given the importance of science as it
relates to policymaking at a time when there are not very many
scientists in the U.S. Congress, and there are not very many
researchers, and we are dependent on outside sources for
scientific information to make these policy decisions, I hope
that on your watch, when you hang them up, that one of the
things that you will have helped to do would be to have helped
the Congress and the administration, working together, to
decipher the lines between sound science and junk science when
making policy decisions.
That is what I see to be a real priority on your watch,
because it affects an array of issues which now, whether it is
stem cell research, global climate change, or dominating most
of what we talk about when we are not dealing with terrorism
and the events of September 11. I think someone of your stature
and someone like yourself, who has commanded so much respect in
the scientific community, and obviously with Members of
Congress already, can make a real difference here in terms of
helping us set out some principles and some processes, not laws
and programs, but principles for making sure that we are
driving science policy on the basis of scientific merit and not
something that comes from a corporate set of interests, or junk
science.
Senator Allen.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would make a few
remarks, and then I will let Dr. Marburger take a break and I
will work over Mr. Bond.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. I very much enjoyed listening to your--
Senator Wyden, Mr. Chairman--your questions here. Both these
gentlemen and their agencies that deal with science are going
to be very important in technology for our future.
I have said on many occasions as well that our laws, our
permitting, our regulations ought to be based on sound science,
not political science, and too often we do not listen to the
actual sound science, and you and the folks that you work with
and the agencies for which you all have responsibility will be
very important to us in the area of biotechnology and in
technology generally. I think it is one of the great things in
our country.
I always remember what de Toqueville once said about the
United States, and I kind of paraphrase it. He said, ``In
America the only things that have not been done are those that
have yet to be imagined'', and I am one who very much dislikes
limits, and we should only be limited by our imagination, our
ingenuity, our hard work, and indeed, in the area of
biotechnology, much, virtually anything can be done, but there
does need to be ethical standards, and those are tough
decisions, but I think it is very important that we do listen
to the scientists, to the physicians, to the technologists, to
determine what are the facts, and then they should make the
decisions, we should make the decisions, but nevertheless it
should be based on sound science, and I very much agree with
your comments in that regard.
The other matters I will get into as far as coordination of
data networks and so forth, which I do think will be important,
but that is another matter.
I would like to quote back to you, Mr. Bond, your statement
that--you did not go through your whole statement, but this
really is very much a part of what is great, and the great
potential of our country, in that in your written statement
that you submitted, that you state that it is no accident that
the United States leads the world in high technology, both
civilian and defense. Our achievements are the dividends that
flow from sustained public and private sector investments in
research and development, coupled with America's
entrepreneurial spirit and the willingness to take risks.
Today, the private sector plays a dominant role in the
process of developing new technologies and bringing them to
market. The Federal Government plays a pivotal role in creating
the climate that supports the private sector's efforts. In
other words, the Government's role is to create the conditions
precedent for people with good ideas and ingenuity to test
those ideas, take the risks, make the investments, create the
jobs that let the marketplace decide whether or not that is a
good idea, or maybe somebody has a better idea, maybe it is
less expensive, more efficient, less expensive, better quality,
whatever it may be.
And I like very much how you conclude this thought by
saying you believe the Technology Administration can continue
to make vital contributions to the Nation's technology base and
our national policies that support private sector technology
development, commercialization and competitiveness, and we
always need to be looking at what is going to help the
competitiveness of our country and our people and our society.
Now, we have an issue coming up very shortly that is
expiring, which has to do with taxes and tax policy and
regulatory policy have an impact on our economy, and
particularly in technology. One of the best advances in my view
has been the Internet, which is a tremendous way of
disseminating new ideas. It is good for commerce, it is good
for education, and sharing of information.
Now, there is going to be, if the House and Senate do not
act, this tax that--the moratorium on Internet access taxes. A
tax for getting access to the Internet will expire. Now, what
impact do you think will that have--if that moratorium expired
and was allowed to lapse, what impact do you think that would
have on our economy?
Mr. Bond. I think the important points I would make in
regards to the tax moratorium are first that our economy is in
a very shaky situation right now. We do not want to do any
harm, first and foremost, and we want to address that matter
before the moratorium finishes.
As you know, the administration has supported a 5-year
extension of the moratorium, and a ban on access taxes, because
we want more people to have access to the Internet rather than
fewer, and indeed we do not even fully comprehend, yet, the
power, I think, of the Internet and its ability to change
society and create opportunity, and so I think the central
issue there is going to be to get that done before the deadline
comes to avoid any harm to the economy, and I know Secretary
Evans has been clear with even those like myself who has been
in a consultant role, to be sure to say that he wants all these
issues tackled on the Hill in a bipartisan and positive
fashion.
Senator Allen. What role would you see yourselves playing
in the next few days and weeks?
Mr. Bond. Well, I think that both internally, within the
administration, and then up here on the Hill, trying to
advocate on behalf of economic growth and the commercial
interests, which is the role of Commerce, of course, in this
particular case, and to really try to beat that deadline again
in a positive and bipartisan way.
Senator Allen. Well, Senator Boxer, who is a Member of this
Committee, Senator Boxer and I do not always agree on every
issue. Nevertheless, we met last week and are trying to work in
a bipartisan way.
While I prefer a permanent ban on access taxes, or
discriminatory taxes, one has to be realistic here, and so we
have joined up together to try to get that 5-year moratorium on
it, and we will need all of your help to get that through on
the Senate side, because clearly, adding tax burdens hardly is
going to be helpful to the technology sector, which is
undoubtedly--it was in bad shape before September 11, and there
is nothing that has happened since September 11 to indicate any
up-tick in that regard. Obviously, other sectors have been hit
as well.
Let me ask you this. As far as--and this is to you, Dr.
Marburger, and you can answer this as well, as well as Mr.
Bond. Now, these terrorist attacks on September 11 took over
6,000 lives. They also took a significant amount of wealth.
They damaged the short-term productivity of certain key sectors
of our economy, and there is clearly a need to restore the
economy and some of that is better security, improved security.
There have been changes in some of the dynamics, or the
paradigms, even for airline pilots as to what do you do if
someone is trying to commandeer your aircraft, but there is a
need to improve our economy. Some call it a stimulus, and as
far as security, a new view as to what we need to do.
Now, what technologies, in either of you all's view--what
technologies, whether they are existing or emerging
technologies--do you see as potentially playing a key role in
this recovery process, whether it is in security or the
commercial economy generally? Again, this could be governmental
services, it could be the private sector, and also State,
local, and Federal Governments, not just the Federal
Government. What technologies do you see as emerging in helping
us restore our economy as well as enhance our security?
Mr. Bond. Let me address a few of those I have come to
learn about which I believe exist at NIST, in particular, some
world-leading research on biometrics which, of course, would
enhance security, whether it be of the cockpit or passenger
access to airlines.
There is also radiological detection that they are world
leaders in, the next generation of x-rays to see concealed
weapons at a distance, so there are a number of security-
related research and scientific matters going on at NIST which,
of course, build consumer confidence to bring people back into
the economy in a full way, and I think what we are facing right
now, in terms of the economy, is a crisis of confidence in many
of these sectors, so anything that increases security and
thereby confidence brings people back into the economy.
Senator Allen. Dr. Marburger.
Dr. Marburger. I agree with that. There have been enormous
advances in detection capabilities of one sort or another, both
remote detection of chemical compounds, and I think we are
going to need much more sophisticated technologies for rapid
assessment of unknown substances for first responders, for
example. You simply cannot underestimate the power of computing
and the Internet in recovery. I mean, it is old technologies,
or existing technologies are going to be just more important
than new technologies almost. We have to assess how to use them
appropriately.
There is just a wealth of ideas coming from every sector of
science. I am aware of efforts that the National Academies have
made in recent weeks to mobilize the scientific talent of the
Nation to come up with ideas in practically every field, so it
would take many hours to go through a list of representative
technologies, but biotechnology and sensors, detection, much
work done in our artificial intelligence, pattern recognition,
this sort of thing. Much of it is related to security.
Senator Allen. I would add to what our Chairman, Senator
Wyden mentioned when he was meeting with certain folks back
home, in his home in Oregon, the coordination of the data
networks, the bioinformatics, talking with Secretary Thompson
last week, one of the keys is actually all of those data
networks, and we are still analyzing the anthrax attacks, or
the anthrax incidents in Florida.
Now, the key to all of that is really not the Federal
Government. Originally it is going to come from the local
health departments, the local emergency rooms, and it is
absolutely critical in making sure--and I hate to use the word
critical unless it really is critical, but in that the sooner
one can determine if somebody has that malady, whether it is
anthrax, smallpox, whatever it might be, that there is a better
chance they have to live.
And the conglomeration, or the coordination of that
information, say there are a few people who have certain
symptoms in one locality, say the hospital in one locality
finds two people with those symptoms, then over the mountain in
another valley, they have six or eight and so forth, none of
these hospitals necessarily are talking with one another. They
are just handling whatever can come in.
But if that information gets to the State, gets to the CDC,
at least you see a pattern, that there may be some likelihood
of something going on, as opposed to an isolated incident, and
that is where I think technology--and I do want to work with
Senator Wyden on this to make sure that the bioinformatics are
there so that we do have the prompt responses.
We are also going to have a hearing on Thursday here again
on emergency coordination, and the Chairman mentioned GPS for
firefighters. We are going to have a hearing for fire services
and firefighters, and much of it, while just listening to an
officer who was trapped in the rubble up in New York City with
the World Trade Centers, and I think his name was Fuentas, and
they are trying to talk to him on whatever, whether it is a
walkie-talkie, or whether it was a cell phone, regardless, they
were having a hard time, in all of the dust and the darkness,
and he could not say where he was.
If he had that GPS on him, then they could know where he
is, and he could be in the midst of dust and smoke and fire and
so forth, that someone has just passed out, and they are not
going to be able to talk to one another, or that walkie-talkie
or two-way radio or cell phone could be broken, but with that
GPS they could find out, and fortunately they were able to find
him, but nevertheless we need to learn from this disaster, or
this terrorist attack, so that we can respond, and I think
people responded remarkably well under the circumstances, but
nevertheless, people want to respond even better in the future.
So you all will be very important, and your agencies, to
give us guidance, good ideas, whether it is for our first
responders, the medics, the emergency squads, the firefighters,
law enforcement or others, and again, these are going to be
pressing issues as well, and I am glad to hear the Chairman say
we are going to look at where technology can improve aviation
safety. I have seen some of the research that was done at
Langley Research Center, and what can be done as far as flight
patterns, and virtual domes that can be put over certain
buildings where a plane simply cannot fly into them.
Now, I am just going to finish with a broad question for
you, because I do have a meeting in 2 minutes, or Mr. Bond, and
I just think it is important for all of us to know where do you
see your key role going to be? What is going to be your top one
or two priorities as Under Secretary of Commerce for
Technology, to ensure that our Nation's technology sector is
healthy?
My view that there is no more important economic sector in
our economy than the technology sector. Yes, it is important
for good jobs, good-paying jobs, it is important in
manufacturing, so we have the most up-to-date, cleanest, most
efficient, best quality methods of production, it is important
for our health care, the life sciences, the medical sciences,
it is important for communications, finance, education, it is
vitally linked to technology and, indeed, our national defense
is key to having us have a technological advantage, and we must
as a Nation have that competitive attitude that we always have
to be at the cutting edge, in the lead, because it is vital for
our security, it is vital for our prosperity and for our
quality of life.
So with those comments, where will be, in your view, your
top two areas of concern to make sure our technology sector is
leading, and continues to lead in the future?
Mr. Bond. Well, let me, if I can, expand on that and give
you four that I am going to try to focus on in the first year,
if the Senate deems me worthy of confirmation.
First and foremost would really be a portal for the U.S.
technology industry to the Federal Government. That is the role
of Commerce, the charter of Commerce, to advocate on behalf of
commercial interest employers in the country, so I want to try
and create in the minds of technology leaders the notion that
this is their portal to the Federal Government, where they can
find people to guide them through the sometimes labyrinth of
different agencies and so forth, to try to advocate on their
behalf.
Second would be through the Office of Technology Policy to
make sure that we are at the table and advocating on behalf of
growth for this sector, which as you note, and as Dr. Marburger
said eloquently in his statement, really touches every single
facet of our life, from national security to personal security,
so that would be No. 2.
Third would be to reinforce the relationship with NIST,
again the crown jewel of the Federal research capabilities, to
make sure that within the policy councils of this
administration they appreciate and understand the good work
going on at NIST, and then finally would be to try to make that
one little part of Commerce, the NTA, a bureau that does not
just talk the talk, but walks the walk, and begins to deploy
some of these technologies.
I have worked for Hewlett-Packard, as you noted earlier,
and so I have seen what a major company can do via the
Internet, and the efficiencies and capabilities that can be
realized, and I want to try to bring some of that to the
Technology Administration.
Senator Allen. Let me follow up on that, on your last
point. One thing that you find sometime, we talk about the
digital divide in the private sector. I have found, not having
been in Government for a few years until getting elected last
year, that there is a digital divide between the private sector
and the Federal Government, in the utilization and adaptation
of new technologies. Would you foresee yourself also having a
role of making sure that the Federal Government and its
agencies will adopt the latest technologies, whether for their
own internal communications--you see it in the State
Department.
I am on Foreign Relations, on that Committee, and it is
amazing to me to read these reports that they could not even e-
mail within the same embassy, much less some outpost into
Washington to the State Department, and I am glad Secretary
Powell is there. He was on the AOL board, and recognizes there
are better ways to communicate, and that is not just for
communications of our policy, but for the security, to know
instantly what is going on and what is our policy, and what is
to be said.
So I would hope that you also use it as a way for just
internally--it would almost be like a CIO, so to speak, chief
information officer, to make sure that you use these policies
wherever possible and practical to save the taxpayer's money
and provide better service to the public, contract out some of
these services, because you could spend money, you can waste
money more quickly on technology than about anything else, and
it is important to get the most up to date, and if you can
outsource some of that, sometimes that would be the best way
for the taxpayers and the services, so would you make a
commitment to also, in the midst of that deploying
technologies, try to educate all Federal Government agencies.
Mr. Bond. In fact, there is some good work going on in that
regard already. Secretary Evans has asked the Technology
Administration to come up with some ideas that he can take to
Cabinet meetings to talk about other ways to use technology
better. There is a closer relationship with Labor in their 21st
Century workforce office, for example, Assistant Secretary
Millman is the Secretary's designate to the internal e-
Government work that Mark Foreman is doing over at OMB, and
Assistant Secretary Millman also recently signed a fellow Intel
vice president on with a fellow with the Technology
Administration.
In that case, he was putting together a web site for New
York Area's small- and medium-sized businesses to go to one
place on the web and find local businesses who could help them
get reestablished in their business with hardware and software
needs, but we are also talking to some folks about bringing in
some other private sector expertise under the CRADA at NIST
that allows this fellowship so we can get the benefit of some
of the best thinking in the private sector on exactly this kind
of matter.
Senator Allen. I look forward to working with you. I love
your term, portal of the tech community. We all agree this is
not a partisan issue. I have been made chairman of the High
Tech Task Force for the Republicans in the Senate, and that is
exactly the term we said. We want our task force to be a portal
to the Senate, so you have the right attitude.
This is not a partisan issue. This is very important for
all America. Whenever you get your e-mail address after the
confirmation, we will certainly want to get it there so you can
get all those good ideas. I do not know who will sort through
all of those e-mails, but you will get them.
So thank you both, Dr. Marburger and Mr. Bond. I thank you
for your insight and your testimony, and I know I speak for
everyone on this Committee, we look forward to working with you
to improve the lives of all Americans and also the world, so
thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Wyden. Before my colleague leaves, let me just say
how much I appreciate the comments you have made. These clearly
are areas where if you do not have a bipartisan front in terms
of science and technology policy, it is not going to get done,
so I am really pleased you are taking such an active role. We
are going to have a field hearing at Langley to look at those
aviation technology issues you are talking about, and I very
much look forward to working with you, and I have got some more
questions for our two nominees, but I know you have got to run,
and I just appreciate you spending all this time.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
gentlemen.
Senator Wyden. Dr. Marburger, I want to talk now about your
role in the White House, and what your role is going to be
specifically as a Science Advisor. It is our understanding that
previous Science Advisors were designated as Assistant to the
President with the privileges and duties that applies,
including sitting in on Cabinet meetings, and having direct
access to the President of the United States.
On the other hand, there have been a number of press
reports indicating that you are going to be designated
something called a Special Assistant. Now, I do not know if any
of this is accurate, and I think it would be helpful for you to
set out, on the basis of the conversations you have had with
the President of the United States, how you see your role as
Science Advisor for our country.
Dr. Marburger. Well, I plan to be a Science Advisor to the
President. Certainly, the role of the Science Advisor has been
shaped over decades by a number of distinguished predecessors,
and there has been nothing in my encounters with the President
or with other Members of the White House staff that would
suggest that my role would be any different. The question of
titles is not of great interest to me, as long as I have what I
regard as appropriate access, and I have been assured that I
would have appropriate access.
I must say that I have been delighted with the encounters I
have had with White House staff. They have been eager to talk
with me. They have sought me out and asked me questions. They
have welcomed me, and I feel good vibes with this organization,
so I have agreed to accept this position without reservations,
and I expect that when I have something important to say the
President will hear it either directly from me or through the
people that I am talking with.
Senator Wyden. Well, that is encouraging, and you are
absolutely right, titles, we can all have titles, but direct
access to the President is important, and I gather you have now
been given the assurance that you will have direct access to
the President on issues that are important as it relates to
science.
Dr. Marburger. I have been given the assurance that my
advice will reach the President, and in an appropriate fashion,
and I think that can be accomplished in a variety of ways,
including direct access.
Senator Wyden. Thus far, what areas has your counsel been
sought in? I mean, obviously there were a lot of big science
issues that generated a great deal of public discussion long
before September 11.
I will tell you I think it is almost unprecedented for a
scientific issue in the dead of summer to generate the
attention that the stem cell research debate generated. I think
it is literally unprecedented in sort of the dog days of
August, when most Americans are at the beach, that we are
having debates at virtually every kitchen table in the country
with respect to stem cell research and the implications for
health and science and entrepreneurship and the like.
Were you consulted on the stem cell issue, and if so,
without violating any confidences, what was your general
counsel?
Dr. Marburger. You can probably understand my reluctance to
talk about my conversations with the President on an issue like
that, and I would prefer not to, but it might reassure you to
know that I did have an opportunity to speak with him on that
topic.
Senator Wyden. Well, that is fine. What other topics has
the President talked about with you thus far?
Dr. Marburger. You should be aware that up until literally
a few days ago, the week before last, I had a full plate of
responsibilities as Director of Brookhaven National Laboratory,
a very dynamic and fully engaged facility, and the months since
the President announced his intention to nominate me for this
position have been occupied primarily with my role at
Brookhaven National Laboratory, so I did not become a
consultant.
I have received some criticism from leadership in the
scientific community for that, but I think it was an
appropriate way for me to wind up my affairs at Brookhaven, so
I was not engaged with the White House community until quite
recently. All I can say is that on every occasion when I did
visit Washington, I had good access to the people that I wanted
to see. They treated me with respect. They asked me questions
about a wide range of issues, and I was able to express myself
freely about them. Beyond that, I do not think it is useful for
me to go into detail.
Senator Wyden. Well, that is something that I was trying to
be sensitive to as well, and I want to ask you your views on a
handful of other important scientific issues, again not to try
to get you to commit to sort of one bill or one program or
another, but to try to assess a little bit how you are
approaching some of these issues, and that is why I asked the
previous question in a general sort of way, and understand the
sensitivity of the matters, and the fact that you are going to
be in the room, and be in a position to make sure that you can
get your views on science issues, which we respect very much,
heard, is one that I am interested in.
Frankly, if we did not have respect for your background and
your expertise, we would not make such a push and such a point
of stressing it.
On the stem cell issue, let me ask you a question that has
troubled me. I have been concerned at the number of private
companies and the number of private donors that were in effect
already committed to funding stem cell research who are walking
away, and are walking away as a result of the administration's
policy in this area.
There were several, for example, op ed pieces in the Wall
Street Journal after the President's decision, with large
donors saying we do not think we are going to be in a position
in this climate to ensure that the important research that
needs to go forward is going to be possible.
Set aside the question of whether there is X number of stem
cell lines available or not, and tell me whether you are
troubled by the fact that a number of private companies have
abandoned their plans in this country and are moving overseas
to pursue stem cell research as a result of the
administration's decision.
Dr. Marburger. Well, I think the administration's decision
opened the door to research in this area. There is still quite
a lot of work to be done, preliminary work, and I believe the
President's decision makes it possible to begin to understand
the promise of embryonic stem cells for the future, and we are
going to have to wait and see what the results of some of the
early programs are for which proposals are being written now,
and the National Institutes of Health is gearing up to begin to
evaluate those proposals and fund them.
If the promise turns out to be what many have thought it
might, then I expect you will see some of these companies
walking back in the door, so I believe that one needs to wait
and see on the results. The President has got it started. I
have heard good responses, favorable, approving responses from
some industry people, so by no means are all of them out of the
business, or walking away, but we are pretty early in this
game.
There has been a lot of publicity associated with the
opportunities that stem cells pose for a cure of previously
intractable diseases or conditions, but these results are
speculative and quite far in the future. We need to just get
going and do this research and see if the promise is there.
Senator Wyden. Well, I hope that you will, as your answer
suggests, monitor carefully what goes on in the private sector,
because I know I was troubled by the fact that those private
companies that do not have an ideological orientation to these
kinds of things were saying that we are going to pack up, we
are going to go overseas, and if you are saying, and your
answer is a good one, that you are going to monitor this, and
that you want to have a strategy to get some of these people
back, and to do it in line with ethical standards for research,
then I appreciate that answer, and it is a good one.
Let me talk to you about global climate change for a
minute, and try to see if I can understand what the
administration's position is from a scientific standpoint. As I
understand it, we are essentially now standing out there by
ourselves with 180 countries or thereabouts not being in accord
with our view, and as I understand the administration's
position, the theory is that the administration will fund
various kinds of experimental efforts and research kind of
efforts, and the theory is, is that when these efforts go
forward they are going to produce data and information which
somehow is going to get these other 180 countries to stop what
they think makes sense and go at it our way.
How would you characterize where we are on the global
climate change issue from a scientific standpoint, and where we
stand on this issue, and how, if at all, you intend to be
involved in it?
Dr. Marburger. Well, first of all, you made a distinction
which makes me feel better about answering this question,
because I am not representing the State Department or
international diplomacy, or national policy in this area. The
fact is there is strong economic issues here as well as
scientific issues.
We do know that the climate is changing globally, and the
National Academy has issued a report that confirms that the
science community agrees that human activity has played a role
in global warming, but we do not know the mechanisms very well.
There are huge error bars on things that are very, very
important, where we go with the carbon cycle, and it has some
very large numbers associated with the scientific mechanisms,
aerosols and the role of reflectivity affecting the temperature
of the earth, so there are scientific details that are not
understood well enough to craft a cause and effect policy that
says if you do this, or this industry does that, then the
following will happen to the climate over the next 50 years.
I believe the President is basically correct in calling for
a diverse set of science and technology activities designed to
steer us toward a knowledge-based policy for the future, and I
think it is entirely appropriate to do so. I have also found it
reassuring that the President did ask for science advice, and
in the absence of a Science Advisor he asked the National
Academy for advice on this issue.
The National Academy rendered that advice within a few
weeks, and the President, it seems to me, changed his tune to
make it clear that he aimed to have the United States take
responsibility for its emissions. He said that, I believe it
was July 11, and he is now working and OSTP is working with him
to craft programs that will address future long-range climate
policy for this country.
Senator Wyden. When are we likely to see those programs,
the ones that seem to be being offered as an alternative?
Dr. Marburger. I am aware that work is being done on them.
I cannot tell you from my own personal knowledge when they will
come out, but I know that there is a sense of urgency to get
them out, and I am aware that various agencies, EPA, the
Department of Energy, relevant agencies are working on them.
Senator Wyden. And when you are confirmed, you will be
actively involved in those projects?
Dr. Marburger. I certainly will. The issue of climate
change is one that I place a high priority on.
Senator Wyden. Because I will tell you, I am troubled by
the fact that we are out there by ourselves, with 180 countries
joining hands, and the United States essentially outside that,
but I am even more troubled that I do not understand
essentially how we are going to fund some of these important
scientific projects and use it to build a consensus to be part
of an effort that has us joining the rest of the world. I am
interested in working with the administration on it.
Senator Brownback, for example, he and I joined forces on
carbon sequestration with respect to agriculture and timber. We
think what we are doing in terms of carbon sequestration might,
in a way that would be supported by agriculture and
environmental people, and your scientists and the like, help us
to deal with perhaps 25 percent of the global warming problem.
That is not 100 percent, but to deal with 25 percent of the
problem in a bipartisan kind of way ain't bad by Washington, DC
standards, and I would very much like to have you, as these
additional scientific initiatives go forward where you look at
various approaches, and presumably find science that you
consider acceptable and try to persuade other countries to do
it, to take an active role on it, and to work with us to speed
it up, because this message that we are going to stand out
there by ourselves, while 180 other people can make an
agreement, I think is very unfortunate.
Dr. Marburger. Before we leave this issue, I would like to
try to be clear. We are not out there by ourselves on the
scientific issues. There is pretty good agreement worldwide in
the scientific community about where we stand scientifically.
Other countries may be more willing than we are to take risks
with their economy. Again, this is not my area of expertise.
I think we have to be very clear that our decision to
participate in protocols and international agreements has to be
informed from many different dimensions, science, economics,
political, national security considerations, but science-wise,
the science of global climate change is being pursued
internationally, and the United States science does not differ
substantially, or in any respect, from science in Germany, or
Japan, or Russia, or China.
There is a science community mechanism for straightening
these things out.
Senator Wyden. If we go any further with this, I am only
likely to get you in trouble, because if there is consensus on
science, then what seems plausible to me is what is holding it
up is politics, and that, of course is outside your bailiwick.
Dr. Marburger. That is your job, Senator.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. I get the drift on that. I am going to let
you take a breather here and turn to Mr. Bond if I could.
Let me ask you a question to follow up on Senator Allen's
good point about Internet taxes. We have got the moratorium
that has expired. As you know, I sponsored the Internet tax
freedom bill in the Senate. Congressman Cox did in the House,
and we would like to break the gridlock.
We have had discussions among the Members of this
Committee, very constructive discussions among Members of this
Committee, Senator Dorgan, Senator Hollings, Senator McCain and
others, and what can the administration do to help us break the
gridlock and get this resolved?
My sense is, if the President says, ``Ron Wyden and John
McCain put in a 2-year bill, and given this difficult economic
situation I want to see that bill passed'', I think that is the
one that goes through the U.S. Senate. If the President wants
something else, I think it would be very helpful to hear from
the Administration now. What can you tell me in terms of how
the Administration can help break the gridlock up here on this?
Mr. Bond. Well, I guess I can tell you first that I will
take that message back, which may be the most important
contribution I could make. Second is to reiterate the
Secretary's insistence that we engage up here in a positive and
bipartisan way, as we discussed in your office, making sure
that we keep relations as warm as possible as we continue to
work in the future toward simplifying State tax codes and so
forth, another thing the administration does support.
The administration's position is well-known to you, and I
am certainly not about to change it today, but I will take the
message back and look forward to working with all Senators on
that issue.
Senator Wyden. That would be helpful. As you know, it is my
view that there is not a single jurisdiction in this country,
not a single local governmental body that can show that they
have been hurt by their inability to discriminate against the
Internet, and that is all the current law says.
The current law always says you cannot tax the Internet as
if you were creating some kind of Cayman Islands with the
Internet. That is not it at all. You can have as many taxes as
you want on the Internet. You just have to treat the offline
world like you treat the online world, and I would hope that
the administration would weigh in aggressively here for one of
the bills that is going to extend the moratorium and let us get
on with it, because the last thing the economy needs now is to
set up a crazy quilt of local and State taxes, which is what
could come about if, for example, the Congress adjourns and the
moratorium is not extended, and I think you know that, Phil,
and just convey the urgency of it.
Let us talk a bit about the portal idea that you see for
small business, and like Senator Allen, I am very supportive of
this, and I think it can make a real difference, particularly
for small businesses, which I know you have been very
interested in. How do you see this creating opportunities for
small businesses in particular through the portal?
Mr. Bond. Well, as you point out in your question, not
every business has the resources to fly to Washington and try
to engage, and so I think one of our primary venues of
communication there will be the MEP program that exists through
the NIST and is already deployed in 50 States, working with
small- and medium-sized manufacturers to bring more technology
to bear there, and can serve as a communication medium coming
back to Washington as well.
It already does, but I think that, coupled with this
reinforced NIST relationship I talked about, is to make sure
that that occurs for the small- and medium-sized manufacturers,
and then I think engagement here in town with the various
associations that represent that constituency to make sure that
we are listening closely to their concerns and needs, trying to
make sure that they are taking into consideration the policy
councils.
Senator Wyden. How do you envisage your position and your
watch interacting with the communications side of the
technology debate? For example, I am very interested, and a lot
of Members of this Committee are very interested in the
question of spectrum policy. I mean, it is clear that we have
run out of oceanfront property. I mean, it is just that simple.
There are too many competing uses for available spectrum.
I would like to see marketplace forces introduced into the
allocation of spectrum in our country. A number of our
colleagues would as well, and I am not completely clear how
Commerce is going to divide up how spectrum policy is made. I
assume Ms. Victor is going to be involved in this, and you and
Mr. Mellman and others, but perhaps you could tell us a little
bit about how your office is going to work on the
communications side of technology policy.
Mr. Bond. Sure. On that specific issue, certainly NTIA and
Nancy Victory will be the lead. We enjoy, myself personally and
Assistant Secretary Bruce Mellman, a close professional
relationship with Assistant Secretary Victory and her office,
and so we will be working closely with them in policy
development, again with her in the lead position on that
particular question.
The other ways in which I think we will be helpful in the
Technology Administration include making sure that the private
sector voices who need some of that spectrum for IT and so
forth are heard throughout the Government, that their arguments
are heard, that we are as helpful as possible there, that the
Secretary is informed on those issues, and again, of course,
Nancy Victory will be very much the leader in that particular
vein, but I think it is going to boil down to communication and
advocacy within the Government councils to make sure that
people understand the need.
And of course in the case of spectrum classic confrontation
between some of the national security needs of the country and
the economic growth needs of the country, which I think you and
I agree are also integral to future national security, that is,
we must run faster in technology and keep the technology
growing so indeed our national security infrastructure is the
very best.
Senator Wyden. Well, this, and I think the Secretary knows
that I have a great interest in this, as do a number of Members
of the Committee. This is a perfect area to try to build some
new incentives to create efficiencies, and they do not exist
now. Basically, if you got something 2 decades ago just hang
onto it, you can basically hold everybody hostage, and we are
going to be anxious to work with you on it.
The last point for you, and then we are going to wrap up.
In my office, you assured me that you would transmit to the
administration and to Mr. Ridge our interest in working to try
to coordinate the private sector responses to what happened on
September 11 with technology. I just want to give you a chance
to say publicly what you said in my office on that point.
Mr. Bond. You bet. In fact, we have contacted the White
House as the follow-up to our meeting, and although Governor
Ridge understandably is not going to be ready on such short
notice for that, having other very pressing matters, we do want
to work with you, and I personally am not surprised, and this
is what I alluded to in your meeting, is that I have heard in
my role as a consultant at Commerce from a partial list would
be Intel, IBM, Accenture, HP, Sun, Dell, Verizon, Ricoh,
Motorola, all willing to help in some way, and many who did
lend incredible help in the wake of September 11, and so there
is good work there to be done.
There is an overwhelming, positive desire to be more
helpful from the private sector. Perhaps the fellowships I
alluded to earlier can be helpful in that regard, but we need
to explore ways we can take advantage of the desire to help
and, in fact, should I be so lucky as to be confirmed by the
17th, I would love to explore the possibility of being the
witness on the 17th if Governor Ridge cannot make it.
Senator Wyden. Well, we do not have many people
volunteering.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. So to have the administration saying sign me
up is great, and we are just finalizing plans on that, and Mr.
Bond, you have been great, and very accessible, and I
appreciate it.
Let me close, and we have a couple of formalities. In fact,
we do have to enter a statement into the record for Senator
McCain.
Senator Schumer wanted to convey to Dr. Marburger his
strong support for you, and a letter from Senator Chuck Schumer
needs to go into the record at this point as well.
Senator Wyden. Dr. Marburger, I'm sure we will have further
conversations in the future. I want to ask you a couple of
things about the nanotechnology initiative, which strikes me as
very promising, and they are going to deal with both the
coordination question and the substance.
I was struck again, nanotechnology, tremendously exciting,
cross-cutting new field. We have got six agencies already that
seem to be part of the nanotechnology initiative, and we are
going to need you and your colleagues to some extent to bring
people together, or the GAO will be writing reports on
nanotechnology 2 years from now and they will say, so-and-so
did it, and so-and-so did exactly the same thing, and why
weren't those characters on the Science and Technology
Subcommittee watching it. So I want to work together to improve
coordination and the policy.
Let me leave you with one thought. We are going to be
working very, very closely with you. I have felt for a long
time that there is nothing partisan about the matters that we
are talking about and, in fact, if you cannot get bipartisan
agreement in key areas like we are talking about today, like
combatting terrorism, that research is not going to get done in
our country, and we are going to suffer as a result.
Fortunately, there has been a bit more bipartisanship since
September 11, and with two good people like yourselves taking
on these key positions, I think you can help us advance that
bipartisanship in an important area, and I will tell you,
because I have had a chance to both listen to you and to meet
with you, that I have very high expectations for you two.
I have expectations of you two that I would not normally
have for people that come before this Committee, or any
Committee in the U.S. Senate, and I think you are going to meet
them, and so I thank you very much. If there is anything the
two of you would like to add further, we will welcome it, or
otherwise we will adjourn.
Dr. Marburger, Mr. Bond, anything further?
Dr. Marburger. No, thank you.
Mr. Bond. No, thank you.
Senator Wyden. The Subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the Committee adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today for these
two Presidential nominees. You know, as well I, there are many
challenges that are before the Committee at this time.
Nevertheless, as we look to resolve the many problems resulting
from the terrorists attack of September 11, we must look to the Federal
agencies for additional insight and advice. We also depend upon them to
implement the statutes created by the Congress. As we have learned over
the past weeks, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the agencies to
operate without the proper personnel in place. I hope and trust that
these two nominees will bring the necessary leadership and management
skills and abilities to their respective positions that would ensure
the efficient and effective operation of the government.
Given the emphasis on science and technology to address national
security, as well as economic security, the positions that these two
gentlemen will occupy will play pivotal roles as the country continues
the recovery process.
Today, we have Dr. John Marburger who will advise the President on
an extensive and complex list of science and technology issues. We
still marvel at the wonders of technology and the role it has played
over the years in the improvement in the quality of life for all
people. Without a doubt, we are living longer and our lives are much
fuller, because of the scientific research performed by the many men
and women that make up our research community.
As a director of a national laboratory, I am sure that you are
aware of the role of technology in winning of previous wars. As we
prepare for the next war on terrorism, I am hopeful that you will apply
the many lessons learned from previous wars in your new position as the
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Science
Advisor to the President, if confirmed by the Senate.
Many have said that much of this upcoming war will be fought on the
economic front. If so, then the position occupied by Mr. Bond will also
be crucial. As the Under Secetary of Commerce for Technology, if
confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Bond will serve as an advocate for
innovation and industrial competitiveness within and outside of
government. The nation's economy has become reliant upon a steady flow
of technology for continuous economic growth. The U.S. is investing
over $40 billion per year in civilian scientific research. It is
imperative that this investment provides a real return-on-investment.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to congratulate Dr. Eric A. Cornell
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratory
in Boulder, Colorado on his recent selection for the Nobel Prize in
Physics for his work on the Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases
of alkali atoms, and for early fundamental studies of the properties of
the condensates. This represents the second NIST scientist to receive
the Nobel Prize in recent years and is quite an accomplishment for all
the men and women of the laboratory. I am impressed.
Dr. Marburger, as the Director of Office of Science and Technology
Policy nominee and Mr. Bond, as the Under Secretary of Commerce nominee
and responsible for NIST, I hope and trust that both of you will ensure
that this type of world class research becomes the standard not only
for NIST, but for all government labs.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this hearing and for
providing your leadership in this area.
__________
Prepared Statement of Hon. Patty Murray, U.S. Senator
from Washington State
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to share my strong support for Phil Bond
who has been nominated by the President to serve as the Undersecretary
of Commerce for Technology. Mr. Bond is known for being straightforward
in his dealings, and attentive to details important to building
consensus around sometimes tricky issues. Mr. Bond also has a wealth of
experience both in government and the private sector that should serve
him well in the position to which he has been nominated. For these, and
other reasons, I think Mr. Bond would make an excellent choice for
Undersecretary of Commerce for Technology.
I first became familiar with Mr. Bond when he served as
Representative Jennifer Dunn's Chief of Staff. Representative Dunn
represents the 8th congressional district in Washington. The district
is home to many of the people and high-tech enterprises that have
helped to establish Washington State as a leader in this important
economic sector. Throughout his tenure, Mr. Bond was able to work in a
bipartisan fashion to help build consensus on important policy issues
facing Washington's technology industries.
After leaving Congress, Mr. Bond went on to serve as Senior Vice
President for Government and Treasurer of the Information Technology
Industry Council. There he worked with some of the biggest names in the
technology sector including Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Cisco Systems, AOL-
Time Warner, Intel, IBM, Apple, and many companies from Washington
State including Amazon.com and Microsoft. Earlier this year, Phil
joined Hewlett Packard as Director of Federal Public Policy.
His experience in both the executive and legislative branches of
the Federal Government; his work in the private sector; and his ability
to work across the aisle in a constructive fashion make Phil Bond a
first-rate pick for this job. He understands the technology industry
and the importance it holds for our economic fiuture, and I think the
Commerce Committee will find Mr. Bond to be a good partner in crafting
good public policy.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you in advance for the consideration and
courtesy I know you will extend to Mr. Bond.
__________
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson
to Phillip Bond
Question 1. Based on research done by the Office of Space
Commercialization and by other sources in the space commerce industry,
there is no question that the United States has lost market share in
the space sectors, particularly in the launch sector.
Answer. As I understand it, the Office of Space Commercialization's
role is to coordinate space policy and activities within the Department
of Commerce. In this role, the Office works with other bureaus of the
Department such as the International Trade Administration and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Some of the
responsibilities undertaken by the Office in fulfilling these
obligations have included advocating for the interests of industry in
the interagency space policy process, such as the National Security
Council's Space Policy Coordinating Committee. In addition, I
understand that the Office is also sponsoring, along with the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and the Space Transportation Association, a
workshop designed to highlight the opportunities for companies in
emerging space commerce sectors and to bring together the investment
and space communities.
If confirmed, I plan to work to continue to advocate for the
interests of industry in areas such as improving commercial access to
Federal launch range assets and in promoting U.S. products and services
in international markets. Clearly, U.S. companies offer state-of-the-
art capabilities in launch, remote sensing, satellite manufacturing and
positioning technologies. I share the concern of many Senators and
Members of Congress about U.S. market share in the space sector, and
look forward to working with them to improve our competitive position
in this industry.
Question 2. Regarding NIST's potential future role as a regulatory
agency: The Office of Technology Administration (OTA) also oversees the
National Institutes of Standards and Technology. In the increasingly
fast paced high-tech communities, some commercial sectors are finding
it difficult to come to consensus about commercial technology standards
within their now 2- or 3-year laboratory-to-market cycles. For this
reason, some have proposed changing NIST's role from one of assisting
industry with developing its own consensus on standards, to more of a
regulatory role wherein NIST would actually decide which standard would
be utilized, including enforcing those standards. How do you feel about
such a shift? In your opinion, are there other policies that could
assist our industries with this effort without making such a huge
change in NIST's role? What impact do you think such a change could
make on innovation and research efforts?
Answer. NIST is now involved in a number of efforts to assist in
the timely completion of needed standards within each standards body
that is addressing needed technologies. These efforts avoid the
drawbacks and burdens of government rulemaking, preserve the consensus
nature of the developed standards as well as NIST's impartial role in
the marketplace, and are timely in meeting industry's needs. For these
reasons, as is explained in more detail below, making NIST a regulatory
agency is neither necessary nor desirable.
A lengthy and burdensome effort its required for a Federal agency
to propose and finalize a new rule. Compliance efforts impose
additional burdens on both the regulator and the regulated. The
resources and expertise do not now exist at NIST to carry out
compliance functions. They would have to be created, at potentially
great cost. The cost to industry of meeting new government mandated
standards would be profound. The effect on innovation and research
might be unfortunate.
In recent years, NIST has begun to participate in industry
consortia where the objective is to rapidly develop standards for
products with either a short product life cycle, or a short laboratory-
to-market cycle. In some instances, NIST has served as a convener,
making use of its authority under the Federal Technology Transfer Act
of 1986 to develop Cooperative Research and Development Agreements
(CRADA's) to rapidly develop standards needed by U.S. industry. NIST
also participates in standards setting activities in which it is not
the convener, including the World Wide Web Consortium and the Computer
Graphics Metafile Open Consortium.
Through these consortia and others like them, industry is finding
the means to develop standards rapidly, without profound government
intrusion. Within the formal standards system, NIST has supported
changes that have been accepted and that also will serve to remove old
procedural requirements in order to allow those bodies to act more
expeditiously.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John McCain
to John Marburger III
Question 1. Quantum computing uses entanglement and other quantum
mechanical properties to do calculations. Quantum mechanics permits a
small number of atoms to potentially store and process enormous amounts
of information--far more information than could be handled by even the
most powerful electronic supercomputers. In fact, a quantum computer
consisting of just 300 interacting atoms could store as much
information as could be stored by a classical electronic computer that
uses all the particles in the universe (about 10\80\ particles). An
example of the enormous increase in power represented by a quantum
computer: A complex code for encrypting information that would take
today's best supercomputer 20 billion years to decipher could be
cracked by a modest quantum computer in 30 minutes. The implications
for information security are obvious, and cryptography would be one of
the most significant applications of quantum computers--quantum
computers would probably not be used to just add numbers or do other
simple operations.
Given the possible merits of quantum computing, does this warrant a
``Manhattan project'' style approach for future research in this area?
Answer. No. It is true that the U.S. has vital interests that
require high-performance computers with capabilities well beyond those
that are currently available. From cryptology and precision target
engagement systems to weather prediction and genomics, computing
challenges exist that require computing systems beyond our current
capabilities.
Quantum computing offers tantalizing new capabilities to address
these needs, but research on quantum approaches is still in its infancy
and our understanding of the technology is grossly inadequate. Major
long-term research questions exist as to how to practically construct
hardware devices. Moreover, not all computational challenges lend
themselves to quantum computing.
Interest in quantum computing began more than 15 years ago, but
intensified following Peter Shor's 1994 discovery of a quantum
algorithm for factoring numbers, a computationally intensive
application. Significant increases in funding have been reported in the
past year at defense R&D agencies. Despite the increasing interest in
quantum computing, however, the most prudent approach to maintaining
our technological superiority in advanced computing at this time is to
support a broad research and development portfolio in advanced computer
architectures. The research portfolio should contain nearer term
projects such as the IBM Blue-gene ``cellular'' architecture as well as
higher risk approaches including quantum systems.
Question 2a. What are your views on the current process used by the
government to determine the research priorities for climate change
research?
Answer. The current process is a coordinated interagency and
interdisciplinary approach that sets appropriate scientific priorities
and addresses the complex issues of climate change research. Under the
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) each agency carries out
the components of the research that it can do best. At the request of
the President, the Secretary of Commerce, after taking input from
USGCRP and other sources, is reviewing existing programs and developing
recommendations for the President's Climate Change Research Initiative.
The priorities for that initiative are currently under development. The
Department of Energy and other agencies are working in parallel to
develop the President's new Climate Change Technology Initiative. As
with the other global change-related research carried out by the U.S.
Government, implementing the resulting priorities of these initiatives
will involve coordination among multiple agencies of the government.
Question 2b. Do you feel that changes are necessary to strengthen
the role of the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program?
Answer. We will continue to look at ways to improve and strengthen
the USGCRP as we will with all scientific programs. As noted above, the
U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program has a coordinated
scientific process that sets appropriate scientific priorities and
addresses the complex issues of climate change research. The President
made it clear in his June 11 speech that climate change research will
be a priority for this Administration, and I support this priority. He
stressed three areas in his speech: development of a Climate Change
Research Initiative, development of a new Climate Change Technology
Initiative, and the need for greater international collaboration in
climate modeling and other areas. These initiatives will provide a
strong framework for climate change research.
Question 2c. Will you ensure the timely release of the annual ``Our
Changing Planet'' report to allow the Congress to take comprehensive
look at the overall budget for the U.S. Global Climate Change Research
Program?
Answer. The fiscal year 2002 Our Changing Planet Report is
finalized and we expect it to be printed and transmitted to Congress by
the end of October. We will work with Congress to develop an
appropriate way to communicate the FY2003 budget in a timely fashion.
Question 3. What are your thoughts on the National Academy of
Science's recommendation for a National Climate Service which would
coordinate a global weather observing system?
Answer. I generally agree that the Nation needs a better-defined
and more integrated set of climate services than we have currently, but
the optimum structure of a new service remains to be determined, as the
NAS report points out. Indeed many elements of the needed observation,
analytical and modeling systems already exist in the National Weather
Service, and at universities and Federal research centers across the
country.
Most of our current observing systems were designed to help
forecast daily and shortterm weather patterns (storms, temperature,
rainfall, hurricane tracks). These systems are designed to monitor
daily large environmental changes and current differences in pressure,
upper air circulation patterns, and other characteristics that allow
forecasts to be developed. Climate applications require data sets that
can document small changes in the environment and patterns that occur
over seasons to decades, and at regional to global scales. Applications
of climate data include monitoring and modeling how the planet (or
specific regions) is changing and for predicting seasonal to multi-
decadal patterns. This places a premium on accuracy and consistency
over time. Climate observation needs special data sets and modeling
tools not needed for weather forecasts. Understanding and monitoring
the heating and cooling impacts of changes in greenhouse gases,
aerosols, and solar radiation require establishment and long-term
maintenance of well-calibrated observing systems.
On seasonal to decadal timescales, climate information is used for
economic, agricultural, resource management, and disaster planning. On
decadal to centennial timescales climate information and projections
are key input for policy and planning decisions by governments and the
private sector. How large should emission reductions be? What new
energy technologies should be invested in? What are the societal
threats? What carbon sequestration strategies might be pursued?
The different timeframes and customer bases for weather and climate
data, and the need for new types of global observations, for
coordination with observing programs internationally, and for long-term
consistency in data calibration, interpretation, and management need to
be considered in future investments.
Question 4. I, along with Senator Lieberman, recently announced our
intentions to consider a ``cap and trade'' program for the reduction of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. One of the initial steps is to
determine the appropriate atmospheric level of carbon dioxide along
with the corresponding impacts. What are your thoughts on how we may
proceed to determine the appropriate level?
Answer. This is a question to which there is no simple answer. The
appropriate level of atmospheric CO2 is a function of our
tolerance and capability to adapt to environmental change, as well as
our constantly improving understanding of the interactions between
atmospheric CO2 and global and regional climate. Many
scenarios have been developed through the IPCC and other processes;
some of these scenarios have obviously unrealistic goals and
assumptions, but for a broad middle range of scenarios, social and
economic decisions are critical drivers of eirtission trajectories. The
short answer is that this is more a social and political question than
a scientific one, but one that must be informed by the best science and
the best predictive capabilities we have to offer. An ongoing open and
informed dialog between the science community and policymakers will be
necessary to resolve this issue.
Question 5. NASA is currently conducting a review of the
International Space Station program. As the program currently stands,
only a total of 20 hours per week would be available for research
purposes. Do you feel that 20 hours per week of research time justifies
the financial investment that the government has in the program? If
not, what would you recommend to the President as a means of restoring
the program?
Answer. In some sense, even 1 hour of research per week is
priceless if the facility is unique. While the significant cost growth
is troubling, the International Space Station continues to represent an
exciting opportunity for science. There is a community of thousands of
scientists and students from government, academic, and the private
sector interested in using the Station to answer fundamental questions
in protein crystal growth, cell cultures, fluid physics, gravitational
biology, and materials science. But perhaps the greatest value of the
Station will be in its flexibility--it is not a static laboratory, but
instead offers adaptable, long-terns, continuous access to the space
environment with skilled human operators onsite.
The Station is still in the process of being deployed and currently
provides for three crewmembers to be continuously on-orbit. The figure
of 20 hours per week average crew time available for research was met
by the second increment crew during an extremely busy period of
assembly. I know NASA is exploring innovative ways to provide more crew
time for research with three permanent crewmembers. Good science is
already being done on the Station but more can quid should be done. I
believe it is important to focus on outputs, good research, and not
just on key inputs like crew time. Perhaps more can be done with remote
control from researchers on the ground and experiments that need less
continual attention.
Question 6. What type of changes are being experienced because of
the increasingly multidisciplinary nature of research and technology
development? Do these changes warrant a revision of our data reporting
system?
Answer. One of the most important characteristics of science today
is the ability to relate phenomena in nearly every field to the
structure of matter at the atomic level. This capability, enabled by
advances in instrumentation (mostly from the physical sciences) and
access to vast computing power, has transformed the traditional
scientific disciplines, and blurred the distinctions among them. Thus
physicists now work with biologists on problems of protein structure,
and chemists work with computer scientists to understand catalytic
reactions. This trend does have consequences for the tracking and
funding of research and technology, and care is required to ensure
balanced support of the mutually interdependent programs.
The Office of Science and Technology Policy is uniquely positioned
to identify interdisciplinary opportunities and, to facilitate the
convergence of multiple disciplinary efforts across department or
agency boundaries toward a common research goal. Gaps do occur that
hinder cooperation between the interested groups. For example,
sometimes funding mechanisms do not exist that allow different
departments/agencies/investigators to work together. To counter this,
funding organizations are increasingly devising grants for trans-
institutional awards. OSTP has encouraged and facilitated these types
of endeavors and will continue to do so. Some of our most notable
technologies have arisen out of unforeseen or even unlikely
interactions between dissimilar disciplines and I am sure this will
continue and grow.
The research data generated by interdisciplinary R&D are currently
being made available effectively through traditional professional
publications, which are flexible enough to adapt to changing fields. To
ensure appropriately balanced funding through multiple agencies, OSTP
works with the Office of Management and Budget to ensure that reporting
categories accurately reflect investments made in multidisciplinary
programs.
Question 7. In your written statement, you spoke about the need for
achieving diversity throughout the ranks of the science and engineering
workforce. Do you have any plans on how you would pursue this
challenge?
Answer. The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) report,
``Ensuring a Strong U.S. Scientific, Technical, and Engineering
Workforce in the 21st Century,'' released in April 2000, concluded that
ST&E workers are essential to both the private and public sectors.
Given a tight global ST&,E workforce, changing demographics, and
projected growth in ST&E-based jobs, it is in the national interest to
vigorously pursue the development of domestic ST&E workers from all
ethnic and gender groups. I plan to pay special attention to groups
that are currently under-represented in the ST&E workforce, because it
is with these groups that much of our nation's growing talent pool
resides.
If confirmed, I will work with Federal agency heads through the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) to enhance coordination
of existing ST&E workforce programs and planned workforce initiatives.
In addition, I plan to challenge university, foundation and private
sector leaders to create innovative scholarship, job training,
internship and other programs to encourage all students, especially
women and minorities, to pursue science, engineering and technical
careers.
Question 8. To further ensure a higher quality of education for
U.S. students, will you reach out to the secondary education system to
ensure that science and engineering curriculums are consistent with the
changing needs of industry? Will you provide a special focus on
minority serving institutions that already provide a majority of
minority scientists and engineers?
Answer. My years as a higher education administrator have prepared
me to work with the leadership of the science and engineering secondary
education system to achieve these desirable goals. With the assistance
of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Policy
(PCAST), I plan to work with schools of higher education and relevant
Federal agencies through the National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC) to review what we know about today's higher education S&E
curriculums and what changes are needed to meet the quickly evolving
needs of private industry. I will make a special effort to reach out to
minority serving higher education institutions to find out how we can
better support their ability to help produce the next generation of
minority scientists and engineers.
Question 9. What are your thoughts on the Advanced Technology
Program? Is it the type of research program that satisfies the needs of
the nation's research agenda?
Answer. The fiscal year 2002 budget proposes suspending the
granting of new awards in fiscal year 2002 pending a full comprehensive
review of the ATP by the Department of Commerce. This review will
determine if ATP grants to U.S. industry are still merited. The
performance of the ATP has been previously evaluated through a
combination of external review, economic impact studies, and evaluation
of numerous quantitative outcomes and outputs. These measures will be
used as input in determining the continued effectiveness of the ATP and
whether Federal ATP grants are still required. I have full confidence
that Secretary Evans and the Department of Commerce will lead a
thorough ATP review and make a well-reasoned and appropriate
recommendation on the Advanced Technology Program.
Question 10. Many observers have said that this new war against
terrorism will utilize groundbreaking American research in fields, such
as biotechnology and cybersecurity. As National Science Adviser, how do
you plan to mobilize industry and the R&D community to prepare for this
effort?
Answer. I have been impressed with the number of experts in the
scientific and technical communities who have already contacted me to
express their desire to support the government's war against terrorism.
I intend to act immediately on this issue, should I be confirmed. I
will convene workshops to bring the scientific, academic, government,
and hi-tech communities together to examine existing antiterrorism and
counter-terrorism programs and explore research and technology
development that have the potential to produce critical capabilities
for the long-term war against terrorism.
The Presidents of the National Academies convened a meeting on
combating terrorism on September 26 which produced a preliminary plan
for mobilizing the scientific and higher education communities. Their
efforts require coordinated action among the science and engineering
funding agencies, which is a natural task for OSTP. I welcome their
interest and support and plan to work closely with them.
After confirmation, I will discuss the role of OSTP in coordinating
the S&T response to terrorism with the President's National Security
Advisor, Homeland Security Advisor and others within the Administration
and Congress. I envision working closely with those in the scientific
and hi-tech communities as OSTP engages in this critically important
function.
Question 11. American industry, laboratories, and universities have
identified a serious shortage in American college students pursuing
science, mathematics, and engineering degrees. There also have been
complaints that students are graduating with degrees in these areas,
but still lack many basic skills. In your opinion, what should the
Federal Government do to help resolve this shortage?
Answer. America's continued world leadership depends critically
upon an adequately trained scientific, technical and engineering
workforce. This sector continues to be one of the fastest growing
within the U.S. workforce, with an increased demand for technicians and
Ph.D. level research scientists alike. Unfortunately, our current
educational system is not producing enough qualified workers to keep up
with this demand, and women and minorities are significantly
underrepresented in these positions. There is no easy fix to this
problem, but I am committed to making progress. The President addresses
one of the root causes of this problem in his education blueprint, No
Child Left Behind, calling for a new Math and Science Partnership
Initiative (MASPI). MASPI would strengthen the teaching of primary and
secondary math and science education in our schools and enhance their
interaction with institutions of higher learning. We need to make sure
that K-12 teachers are qualified to teach math and science classes,
opening new doors of opportunity rather than boring students with
uninspired instruction or scaring them away by conveying their own
``math anxiety''. Once we have kindled an interest in these topic
areas, it will be up to our schools of higher education to make sure
that interested students receive the education, training, support and
guidance they need to pursue careers in academia government or private
industry. I will work with the leaders of Federal, state, academic,
foundation, and private sector institutions to ensure that schools of
higher education are up to this challenge.
Question 12a. For the past few years, Congress has discussed
doubling the amount of Federal money spent on research in physics,
chemistry, astronomy, and other non-medical fields in order to attain
parity with biotechnology funding.
Have you examined this issue, and what guidance would you give to
Congress as it considers this ``doubling'' issue?
Answer. We need to take a careful look at the entire R&D portfolio
to better understand our investments and the interconnectivity that
exists among them. For example, certain breakthroughs in physical
science are responsible for some of our most important biomedical
advances. We need to make certain that our research programs, across
the frontiers of science, are robust and appropriately leveraged in
both the public and private sector. We need to make sure our national
S&T infrastructure is second to none. To do this, some programs will
require more attention than others. If confirmed, I will work with OMB
and the Federal agencies included in the Federal Science and Technology
Budget to help ensure that this issue is considered as the President
develops his budgets for submission to Congress.
This said, I am wary of sweeping initiatives that would double
budgets by agency without considerable analysis and a clear idea of
what is to be gained. We should be engaged in a thoughtful and
analytical review of all the research budgets and their expected
outcomes.
Question 12b. What would you do to ensure better accountability of
these funds?
Answer. Proper accountability depends on the nature of the research
and on the type of research performer. Any set of realistic and
workable R&D performance measures needs to reflect these differences.
For example, the research outcomes of applied research are usually more
predictable than those of basic research. Intramural and extramural
program managers have a different set of accountability tools.
Underpinning all accountability is the need to ensure that the research
(at the individual project level to the program level) is of high
quality as determined by impartial peers. For many applied programs, it
may also be important to get quality assessments from end users of the
research. OMB circulars, like A-21 and A-110, provide accounting rules
and procedures to dictate stewardship of Federal funds used in
extramural research. These circulars need to be examined periodically
to make sure they are functioning as desired.
Question 13a. Over the years the U.S. economy has become reliant
upon a steady flow of technologies for continuous economic growth. The
U.S. is investing over $40 billion per year in civilian scientific
research.
Do you have any ideas about how to improve the technology transfer
process to increase the flow of technologies fom the federally
sponsored research laboratories to the marketplace?
Answer. Federal sponsorship of civilian scientific research takes
many forms, from individual investigator awards to the construction of
huge facilities shared by thousands of investigators. It funds work in
universities, private laboratories, and Federal laboratories. The
Federal laboratories themselves come in a wide spectrum of sizes and
missions. The projects supported range from very basic to very applied,
and the manner in which the knowledge gained affects the marketplace
differs for each of these different kinds of project.
Much of the impact of this work comes through the personnel who
perform it as they move through their careers as students and
professionals. ``Most technology is transferred on two legs!'' Much
also comes through the regular professional reporting process in
journals, conferences, and special publications. Only a small fraction
of the impact comes from actual transfer of intellectual property
through licenses or other agreements. This portion attracts attention
disproportionate to its significance because it is usually associated
with the quickest (shortest term) payoff on the research investment.
In my opinion, all the mechanism necessary to an effective
technology transfer process are in place, but the short term,
intellectual property-oriented mechanisms are exploited with great
variation among the different sponsoring agencies. I am aware that
studies of this issue have been performed in the past, and I need to
review them before I can come to a conclusion regarding direction on
this issue.
Question 13b. What areas of the innovation process would you
consider to be in need of changes to meet this growing demand?
Answer. A difficulty exists in the early stages of technology
transfer from the laboratory to industry. Often in the past we have
assumed that the results of basic research will be picked up and
developed by the private sector. We are discovering that this does not
occur as often or seamlessly as is optimal. There is a mismatch between
the new general technical concepts that emerge from the laboratory and
the product orientation that an industry needs to justify the expense
of further development. Resolving this mismatch requires special
attention to the earliest stage of the technology transfer process, a
stage that is difficult to characterize and remains poorly understood.
Question 14. In the past, many large scale science projects were
presented to the Congress with cost estimates that did not reflect the
total project costs. Will you ensure that total life cycle costs are
presented when requesting Congressional approval of these projects?
Answer. There are two issues: First, scientific discovery occurs on
the frontier of what can be observed with existing technology.
Consequently the technology of the projects is relatively untried, so
normal approaches to cost estimation may not give meaningful numbers.
Second, the process of discovery continues during the construction of
large facilities. It is foolish to persist ins the construction of an
expensive instrument if a new discovery suggests that it will not
observe anything of value. Either the design should be changed or the
project should be canceled. The first issue suggests why governments
should sponsor such projects in the first place: they drive technology
advancement. The second is part of the inherent risk of doing large
scale research.
Life cycle costs can and should be estimated for any project, but
such estimates will be very rough in the early stages of planning and
choosing among alternative approaches. The origins of risk and
uncertainty should be fully disclosed to Congress along with a clear
statement of benefits expected from the project. This is a complex
subject with which I have direct experience, and on which I hope to
work closely with OMB and other agencies should I be confirmed.
Question 15. How critical is international collaboration for
scientific research to the overall success of the U.S. investments in
this area?
Answer. International scientific collaboration is an essential
component of the U.S. research enterprise. While the world is marveling
at the pace of globalization in economic and cultural affairs, science
has been a global endeavor virtually since its inception. The U.S. has
a long history of international cooperation on science and technology
that has yielded remarkable benefits. We can simply look at the Nobel
Prizes recently awarded where our American Laureates in physics shared
the prize with a German scientist, our American Laureates in chemistry
shared the prize with a Japanese scientist and all three economics
Laureates were American.
So-called ``umbrella agreements'' on science and technology
currently exist with thirty-six countries as well as the E.U., NATO and
the OECD, with literally hundreds of more specific agreements falling
within these protocols. Beyond the thirty-six agreements, we have
active collaboration in science and technology with many more
countries.
The benefits of this collaboration .are not always easy to
quantify. Some scientific challenges are so ambitious and important
that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for one Nation to pursue
them alone. One example is the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in
which the United States is a significant contributor. Others are the
International Space Station, and the Human Frontier Science Program.
Beside these large institutional projects are countless collaborations
of American scientists with their international colleagues in which the
benefits of free exchange of data and insight may never be measurable.
That free exchange is an essential part of the scientific pursuit and
necessary to maximize the investments made in science and technology by
the United States and other countries.
Question 16. You mentioned in your written statement that the
``spillover'' effect means that private industry cannot and will not
commit the level of resources to R&D that is best for society. Can you
elaborate on the ``spillover'' effect, how it works, and its long term
effects on Federal research spending?
Answer. The ``spillover effect'' refers to the fact that much of
the return on an investment in basic research goes to society in
general, or to all the companies in an industry sector, not only, or
even primarily, to the investing company. This creates a disincentive
for investment by private companies in basic research that might have
broad benefits to society. Consequently, Federal Governments have
traditionally supported this kind of research, and this can be expected
to continue. Since this is not a new phenomenon, I do not expect it in
itself to have a long term effect on Federal research spending. The
total of such Federal spending should ideally be proportional to the
expected benefit to society of the supported research.
______
Responses to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson
to John H. Marburger III
Question 1. Regarding NASA: What is your position on continuing
construction of the Space Station? Do you believe that other NASA
programs should be jeopardized in order to pay for the completion of
this worthwhile project? Would you support a general increase to NASA's
annual budget in order to complete the Station and allow for
substantive research to be conducted onboard? As you know, the Space
Shuttle will likely be utilized through 2020 or possibly a decade
beyond. Yet, NASA continues to budget for the Shuttle program as if it
were going out-of-business within the next 5 years. As Director of
OSTP, what do you plan to do to remedy this situation?
Answer. I support the continued construction of the International
Space Station in order to meet the Administration's commitment to
achieving a permanent human presence in space, a world-class research
facility, and to accommodate the elements from our international
partners. I do not believe other important NASA programs need to be
jeopardized in order to keep the program within the President's Budget
Blueprint, however, it is vital for NASA to improve its financial
management and to be held accountable for the project.
I would like to hear from the existing NASA review teams now
underway. In particular, I would like to understand how NASA's
financial management system should be improved to anticipate and avoid
this kind of cost growth in the future. The safe deployment of the
Space Station to date is a credit to the engineering skill of NASA and
its dedicated contractors, but clearly significant improvements are
needed in its management of cost and schedule risk. I also want to get
a better understanding of the program's science objectives and focus on
ways to improve the productivity of research conducted in space.
Nonetheless, it is important to make the investments necessary to
keep the Shuttle flying safely until potential replacement vehicles are
available in the next decade. A significant portion of Space Shuttle
operations are already undergoing initial steps toward privatization
and are being conducted by United Space Alliance--a joint venture of
Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Further privatization could help move NASA
from operations to its core mission of science, technology, and
exploration and privatization may also reduce overhead and
infrastructure costs in the long run. However, ensuring safety through
the availability and continuity of a high quality workforce must remain
a top priority.
Question 2. Regarding an Interagency Working Group on Space: The
Rumsfeld report recommended the creation of an inter-agency working
group on space issues similar to--but not the same as--the previous
Bush Administration's National Space Council. I am concerned that the
Rumsfeld report recommended that this working group report directly to
the National Security Council, but not also to OSTP. As you know, more
than 50 percent of the U.S. space activities are non-governmental.
Given this, it would seem that OSTP should be directly involved in any
commercial and civil activities and/or recommendations that such a
working group would present. Do you plan on increasing OSTP's role in
such a group? Would you support revival of the National Space Council?
Answer. OSTP is already involved in the day-to-day work of the
Space Policy Coordinating Committee under the National Security
Council. OSTP and NSC staff work closely together on a variety of
matters affecting space commerce, space transportation, and
international space cooperation. If confirmed, I am confident that I
will have a close and cooperative relationship with the NSC and do not
see the need for a separate mechanism such as the National Space
Council.
Question 3. Regarding Global Warming & the Kyoto Protocol: As the
President's Science Advisor, you will be involved in assisting the
White House with scientific and technical hot-button issues, such as
global warming. What is your scientific opinion about the causes and
legitimacy of global warming research? How will you advise the
President and the White House about efforts to confirm the Kyoto
Protocol?
Answer. The President asked a similar question of the National
Academy of Science prior to his statement of July 11 on national
climate change policy. I agree with the NAS response that confirmed the
validity of research indicating that human activity has contributed to
global warming. Unfortunately, the relation between specific human
activities and global warming is unclear. In particular, insufficient
scientific data exist to permit a knowledge-based strategy to alter
global warming trends. The effect of aerosols produced by industrial
activity, for example, is known to be large but is not yet sufficiently
well understood to permit reliable modeling. In general, quantitative
contributions to global climate phenomena are known only within large,
and sometimes compensating, errors.
The Kyoto Protocol itself has such profound negative economic
consequences for the United States that any decision regarding it is
not likely to be made on purely scientific grounds. The President has
made it clear that he thinks the Protocol is seriously flawed on
economic grounds, and I support that decision.
Question 4. Regarding Double Federal R&D Investments: As you know,
there has long been a congressional push to double the Federal
Government's investment in research and development. This and the last
Administration responded to that effort by increasing its budget
recommendations for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). However,
commensurate budget increases for other Federal S&T agencies have not
been as forthcoming. I continue to hear from health researchers in
Florida and elsewhere that they are limited in their efforts to cure
diseases because the basic research in chemistry, physics, and
mathematics is not keeping pace with their own efforts in biotechnology
and biomedicine. Do you support the effort to double the Federal R&D?
What do you plan to do to influence the current Administration in that
regard?
Answer. We need to take a careful look at the entire R&D portfolio
to better understand our investments and the interconnectivity that
exists among them. For example, certain breakthroughs in physical
science are responsible for some of our most important biomedical
advances. We need to make certain that our research programs, across
the frontiers of science, are robust and appropriately leveraged in
both the public and private sector. We need to make sure our national
S&T infrastructure is second to none. To do this, some programs will
require more attention than others. If confirmed, I will work with OMB
and the Federal agencies included in the Federal Science and Technology
Budget to help ensure that this issue is considered as the President
develops his budgets for submission to Congress.
This said, I am wary of sweeping initiatives that would double
budgets by agency without considerable analysis and a clear idea of
what is to be gained. We should be engaged in a thoughtful and
analytical review of all the research budgets and their expected
outcomes.
______
Responses to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Fritz Hollings
to John H. Marburger III
Question 1. I have been contacted by Senator Jeff Bingaman who
sponsored the establishment of the Science and Technology Policy
Institute (STPI), then the Critical Technologies Institute, in the
National Defense Authorization of FY1991. STPI is the federally funded
research and development center that supports the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP). Implementing legislation designates the
National Science Foundation, not OSTP, as the primary sponsor of STPI.
Senator Bingaman is sponsoring legislation to designate OSTP as the
STPI's primary sponsor. Does the current arrangement cause any problems
for OSTP? Would you support such legislation? Please explain.
Answer. I am not aware of any feature of the current arrangement
that would prevent OSTP from effectively utilizing STPI. Since I do not
have experience yet with this arrangement, it is premature for me to
judge whether legislation is required to improve it.
______
Responses to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John McCain
to Phillip J. Bond
Question 1. Earlier this year, the physical condition of many of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) labs was
brought to my attention. Congressman Udall and I expressed these
concerns to the Secretary of Commerce in April of this year. In the
Secretary's response to that letter, he indicated that he would have
NIST update their facilities' needs and timeline. Can you update us on
the status of that revision and your plans to ensure that the
conditions of the labs are properly addressed?
Answer. Great strides have been made recently in upgrading the NIST
Gaithersburg facilities. An Advanced Chemical Sciences Laboratory
(ACSL) was completed in 1999 and the Advanced Measurements Laboratory
(AML) is currently under construction and will be completed in 2003.
With the AML underway, NIST's highest priority facilities need is the
renovation of its Boulder site.
NIST facilities are a concern for Secretary Evans. The Department
and OMB are reviewing these needs along with other Department
priorities, and NIST's updated facilities plan will be available with
the President's budget request.
Question 2. The President promised a Department of Commerce review
of the Advanced Technology Program in his budget request for fiscal
year 2002. Can you update the Committee on the review and ensure that
we receive a copy of the results?
Answer. The Secretary is in the final stages of his initial review
of the Advanced Technology Program. Upon completion, the Secretary will
forward a copy of his proposed legislative reforms to the Chairmen and
Ranking Members of the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Science
Committee.
Question 3. Over the years we have heard about the merits of the
Baldrige program and the criteria used to select the winner of the
annual awards given by the President. Do you have any plans to
implement the Baldrige criteria within the Technology Administration?
Answer. The Baldrige criteria for performance excellence provide a
useful way for businesses and organizations to evaluate their strengths
and weaknesses and develop improvement plans. If confirmed, I am
committed to leading and managing the Technology Administration as
effectively as possible, building on TA's strengths and finding ways to
deliver better service and value to the American people. I will closely
consider the best ways to strengthen TA, including examining how the
Baldrige criteria might best be used to improve TA.
Question 4. Several members on the Commerce Committee have
expressed an interest the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Technology (EPSCOT). Can you elaborate on your plans for this program
and how it fits within your overall plans for the Technology
Administration?
Answer. The Department appreciates support for the EPSCOT program
in the Technology Administration. An independent program evaluation was
launched to review what the program has accomplished for those states
receiving awards, and to determine what we have learned in terms of the
structure of the program and ease of use for potential applicants. The
Department is in the process of reviewing those findings and looks
forward to meeting with all interested parties on this subject in the
near future.
Question 5. Can you update the Committee on the Department's plan
for NTIS?
Answer. NTIS has streamlined itself and, when the annual
independent audit for fiscal year 2001 is completed, expects to report
earnings of close to $2 million. This will be its third consecutive
year of profitability. The Department deserves a degree of credit for
NTIS' remarkable turnaround. It installed a new management team at NTIS
that instituted a number of cost-saving measures. In addition, the
various components of the Department absorbed a number of excellent
NTIS employees that were excess to its needs. Accordingly, if
confirmed, I will continue to monitor its financial situation. I know
of no plans to ask Congress to change its status at this time.
However, based on briefings I have been given, I do believe some
changes to its business model may be in order. Specifically, NTIS needs
to explore new ways to make federally funded scientific and technical
information more readily accessible to a general public that is
accustomed to obtaining information on the World Wide Web for free. At
the same time, NTIS must operate on the ``substantially self-
sustaining'' basis called for in its organic legislation.
The NTIS' Director agrees with this assessment and is committed to
making this happen. In fact, NTIS has solicited public comment on a
plan to give the public free online access to the current portion of
its meticulously indexed Bibliographic Data base and to provide direct
links from it to any documents in it that are available at the web site
of the sponsoring agency. Those links would remain operable even if the
agency takes the item off its own web site. NTIS will also provide
access to its electronic document collection at a very nominal fee. So
far, it appears the response has been very encouraging.
Question 6. During the 105th Congress, the Congress established the
Teacher Science and Technology Enhancement Program, which would assist
teachers in their understanding of science and its relationship to
commerce. Can you comment on why this program did not receive any
funding as part of the President's budget request given the emphasis
that the President has placed technological-based economic development?
Answer. While the budget predates my nomination, I know the
President is committed to ensuring the best educational opportunities
for all children. The President recognizes the importance of education
to future economic and technological success and is investing
unprecedented sums in developing our knowledge base through education.
In his education reform bill the President has proposed investing $1
billion over 5 years in NSF-led partnerships to improve the K-12 math
and science curricula. Additionally the Administration proposed a
bipartisan plan to mandate accountability in our education system for
the first time, demanding schools develop metrics for assessing
performance so we know who is succeeding and can help those who are
failing. And the President has asked Congress to triple college loan
forgiveness for those who are willing to teach math and science in
underserved areas. Improving education is a complex challenge that will
require close cooperation between Congress, the Administration,
educators, and the American people.
Question 7. The Office of Space Commercialization was recently
added to the Technology Administration. Last month, NASA has circulated
a draft report on space commercialization that highlighted ideas, such
as greater emphasis on corporate sponsorship, advertising,
merchandising, space tourism, and utilization of the International
Space Station. What ideas do you have on space commercialization, and
how do you intend to work with NASA on this issue?
Answer. I am aware that the Department of Commerce has reviewed
NASA's draft report on space commercialization. If confirmed, I will
ensure that the Department remains involved in the development of
NASA's plans for commercialization as well as with other agencies whose
activities concern the space industry. Through the Office of Space
Commercialization, the Department of Commerce has played a critical
role in the development of policy that encourages the growth of the
commercial space sector while protecting national interests. Through
these activities, the Department has developed a closer working
relationship with NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration. As
Under Secretary, I would strongly encourage those relationships to
continue and support the Department's role in the formation of policy
affecting the space launch industry, commercial remote sensing,
satellite navigation, and satellite manufacturing and communications.
The Department of Commerce should be a leader in promoting a
positive business climate for space commerce. Two events that the
Department will host in the coming weeks demonstrate ways the
Department of Commerce can facilitate space commercialization. The
first workshop aims to improve the quality of economic data about the
space industry. Better space industry data will ultimately benefit the
industry as a whole, by driving the public and private sectors to make
sound decisions. The second workshop will invite industries not
traditionally engaged in commercial space activities to participate in
a discussion of potential future markets and the necessary conditions
for market growth. The focus of the workshop will be on identifying
realistic new space markets and ways to remove barriers to entry.
NASA and other interested government agencies and departments have
been invited to participate in both workshops. Their involvement will
lead to more interagency coordination as space commercialization
efforts are developed and implemented.
Question 8. Another important program in the Technology
Administration is the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles.
What role should this office play in the President's energy strategy,
and efforts to reduce carbon emissions in the United States?
Answer. The industry/government partnership for light-duty-vehicle
research and technology development, the Partnership for a New
Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), is a major element in the transportation
component of the President's energy strategy. Its goal is to reduce our
dependence on foreign sources of petroleum for transportation uses in
the USA. This partnership also seeks to create the technology basis to
first reduce, and then remove, carbon emissions from light duty
vehicles. Technology Administration, specifically the Office of the
Under Secretary for Technology, is the lead office for the Federal
Government's participation in the partnership and serves as the
government secretariat. Participating Federal agencies include the
Departments of Commerce, Energy, Transportation and Defense; the
Environmental Protection Agency; the National Science Foundation; and
NASA (20 Federal laboratories from these agencies). In addition to the
Federal partners and the major U.S. automakers' R&D consortium, USCAR,
more than 350 automotive suppliers, universities, and small businesses
have participated in PNGV activities.
Question 9a. Over the years, the U.S. economy has become reliant
upon a steady flow of technologies for continuous economic growth. The
U.S. is investing over $40 billion per year in civilian scientific
research. Do you have any ideas of how the technology transfer process
may be improved to increase the flow of technologies from the federally
sponsored research laboratories to the marketplace? (b) What areas of
the innovation process would you consider to be in need of changes to
meet this growing demand?
Answer. Technology Administration has helped draft two recent laws
to improve the technology transfer process, i.e. PL 104-113, The
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 and PL 106-
404, The Technology Transfer Act of 2000. PL 104-113 guaranteed rights
to a private party in any invention made by a Federal lab under a
cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) while requiring
only minimum rights to the Government in any invention made by the
private party. This law also increased the amount of royalty sharing
with Government inventors, PL 106-404 simplified the procedures for
licensing federally owned inventions and provided for the licensing of
background inventions under a CRADA.
The agencies are implementing these changes with the assistance of
Technology Administration, which chairs an interagency group on
technology transfer. This group is also considering the need to provide
education and training to Government laboratories on how to recognize
and evaluate innovations and whether to seek a reduction in PTO fees
such as are enjoyed by universities and small businesses.
The implementation of these laws, as developed by the interagency
group, should improve the transfer of federally funded research to the
private sector.
Question 10. There is Congressional interest in increasing funding
for research and development at the various Federal agencies. What
would you do to ensure better accountability of these funds?
Answer. In the most recent fiscal year, the Federal Government
invested an estimated $90 billion in R&D, representing about 14 percent
of all discretionary spending. This large public investment recognizes
that science and technology are vital to our nation's economy, national
defense, standard of living and quality of life. Moreover, with the
rate of technical progress accelerating, there are increasing numbers
of promising avenues for our R&D investments. As a result, every
Federal R&D dollar must be invested as effectively as possible, and the
ultimate goals for this research need to be clear.
The focus should be on measuring whether our R&D investments are
effective. That means assessing the performance of research programs,
examining how R&D is contributing to national goals, and linking
information about performance to decisions about funding. In allocating
our R&D investments, we should also pay attention to the
appropriateness of the Federal role, research quality, management
practices, the role of industry, the size of the investment, and how
these investments are expected to achieve our goals.
Developing a national R&D portfolio that meets the many and every
changing needs of the Nation requires greater coordination of R&D
planning within the Executive and legislative branches of government,
as well as consideration of the nature of the private sector's
investment. In this regard, the Technology Administration, working with
the White House Office of Science and Technology, can contribute to
developing that crosscutting view, for example, by serving as a portal
to industry to better understand its knowledge and technology needs,
and the nature of its R&D investments.
Question 11. What do you see as the main issues concerning U.S.
industry's global competitiveness?
Answer. Our economic performance over the past decade provides
convincing evidence that U.S. industry is highly competitive globally
and, despite slow growth recently, is fundamentally strong. We operate
in a dynamic and changing business and technological climate, requiring
continual examination of the global environment, reassessment of our
national policies, and adjustment when appropriate. In my opinion, we
must pay close attention to four broad areas of policy:
Ensuring a business environment--economic, tax, legal, and
regulatory--that fosters the commercialization and deployment of new
technology, attracts global investment to the United States, and helps
our companies grow and compete.
Developing a workforce that can adapt to rising skill
requirements and changing technologies.
Encouraging sustained investment in a broad and balanced
R&D portfolio in both the public and private sector.
Renewing our infrastructure, including widespread
deployment of modern information infrastructure.
Question 12. Given your earlier comments on workforce needs, what
specific plans do you have to increase the diversity of the workforce,
especially in management, in the science and technology areas, not only
within the Technology Administration and the Federal Government, but
also in industry?
Answer. Across business, the research enterprise, and in
government, workplace diversity is increasingly recognized as an
organizational asset. We operate in a global economy, and need a
workforce that can serve a diverse customer base. Also, our economy is
increasingly based on knowledge and innovation, and a diverse workforce
will produce the different perspectives, different approaches to
problem solving, and a richer pool of ideas that will help us thrive.
The Technology Administration has been active in examining
workforce diversity, especially in the science, engineering, and
information technology workforce where women and some minorities are
under represented. That research indicates that this under
representation has strong origins in the technical education pipeline.
For example, women leave high school about as well prepared in math
and science as men. And women earn more than half of all bachelor's
degrees. Yet, women are less likely to pursue and earn degrees in
science and engineering than men. This suggests that increasing women's
participation in the education pipeline that leads to technical jobs
requires efforts to get more college-bound women to choose science and
engineering as a field of study.
Black and Hispanic minority college freshman declare science and
engineering as a major at a rate equal to or higher than white college
students, and they earn bachelor's degrees in science and engineering
at rates roughly equal to white students. This data suggests that a
principal way to improve the participation rates of these minorities in
science and engineering is to increase their presence in the overall
pool of undergraduate students. Boosting math and science achievement
is critical important to meeting this goal, and the President's
proposed 5-year $1 billion investment through the Math and Science
Partnership program would significantly strengthen K-12 math and
science instruction and curriculum.
Another challenge is ensuring that young people get good
information about the science and technology professions during their
middle school years, when many young people form their notions about
careers. In an effort to provide them with information that conveys the
importance, excitement, and satisfaction associated with careers in
science and technology, the Technology Administration has teamed with
the National Association of Manufacturers on a nationwide public
service campaign and technical careers web site focused on ``GetTech.''
We will be exploring other ways we can encourage young people to
prepare for careers in science and technology.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9445.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9445.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9445.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9445.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9445.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9445.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9445.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9445.008