    [House Hearing, 109 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                               AN OVERVIEW OF THE
                               FEDERAL R&D BUDGET
                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 15, 2006

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 109-35

                                   __________

                Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

         Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    25-938                      WASHINGTON : 2006
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    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

                                     ______

                              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                 HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 BART GORDON, Tennessee
    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas                JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
    CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania            EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
    KEN CALVERT, California              DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
    ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         MARK UDALL, Colorado
    VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan           DAVID WU, Oregon
    GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota             MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
    WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland         RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            BRAD SHERMAN, California
    JO BONNER, Alabama                   BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
    TOM FEENEY, Florida                  JIM MATHESON, Utah
    BOB INGLIS, South Carolina           JIM COSTA, California
    DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington         AL GREEN, Texas
    MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana           CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
    JOHN J.H. ``JOE'' SCHWARZ, Michigan  DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
    MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
    VACANCY
    VACANCY

                                C O N T E N T S

                               February 15, 2006

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman,
      Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............    22
        Written Statement............................................    24

    Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Minority Ranking Member,
      Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............    25
        Written Statement............................................    27

    Prepared Statement by Representative Ken Calvert, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
      U.S. House of Representatives..................................    29

    Prepared Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,
      Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............    29

    Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
      Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............    30

    Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
      Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives....    31

    Prepared Statement by Representative Michael M. Honda, Member,
      Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............    32

    Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member,
      Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............    33

    Prepared Statement by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Member,
      Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............    33

                                   Witnesses:

    Dr. John H. Marburger III, Director, Office of Science and
      Technology Policy
        Oral Statement...............................................    35
        Written Statement............................................    37
        Biography....................................................    48

    Dr. Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary, Department of Energy
        Oral Statement...............................................    48
        Written Statement............................................    49
        Biography....................................................    56

    Dr. David A. Sampson, Deputy Secretary, Department of Commerce
        Oral Statement...............................................    56
        Written Statement............................................    58
        Biography....................................................    66

    Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation
        Oral Statement...............................................    66
        Written Statement............................................    68
        Biography....................................................    71

    Dr. Charles E. McQueary, Under Secretary, Science and Technology,
      Department of Homeland Security
        Oral Statement...............................................    72
        Written Statement............................................    74
        Biography....................................................    90

    Discussion.......................................................    90

                  Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Dr. John H. Marburger III, Director, Office of Science and
      Technology Policy..............................................   166

    Dr. Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary, Department of Energy............   170

    Dr. David A. Sampson, Deputy Secretary, Department of Commerce...   186

    Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation..   196

    Dr. Charles E. McQueary, Under Secretary, Science and Technology,
      Department of Homeland Security................................   203

           AN OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL R&D BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2006

                      House of Representatives,
                                          Committee on Science,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
    2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L.
    Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

                                hearing charter

                              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                               An Overview of the

                               Federal R&D Budget

                              for Fiscal Year 2007

                          wednesday, february 15, 2006
                              10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
                       2318 rayburn house office building

    1. Purpose

        On Wednesday, February 15, 2006, the House Science Committee will
    hold a hearing to consider President Bush's fiscal year 2007 (FY07)
    budget request for research and development (R&D). Five Administration
    witnesses will review the proposed budget in the context of the
    President's overall priorities in science and technology. The Science
    Committee will hold a separate hearing on February 16th to examine the
    budget request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    (NASA).

    2. Witnesses

    Dr. John H. Marburger III is Director of the Office of Science and
    Technology Policy (OSTP), the White House science office. Prior to
    joining OSTP, Dr. Marburger served as President of the State University
    of New York at Stony Brook and as Director of the Brookhaven National
    Laboratory.

    Dr. Samuel W. Bodman is the Secretary of the Department of Energy
    (DOE). Prior to joining DOE, Dr. Bodman served as Deputy Secretary of
    the Treasury and Deputy Secretary of the Department of Commerce (DOC).
    He also served in executive positions in several publicly owned
    corporations and as a professor of chemical engineering at the
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Dr. David A. Sampson is the Deputy Secretary of the Department of
    Commerce, which includes the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology (NIST) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA). Previously, Dr. Sampson served as Assistant
    Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development and head of the Economic
    Development Administration.

    Dr. Arden L. Bement is the Director of the National Science Foundation
    (NSF). Prior to his appointment to NSF, Dr. Bement was Director of NIST
    and professor and head of the School of Nuclear Engineering at Purdue
    University.

    Dr. Charles E. McQueary is the Under Secretary for Science and
    Technology (S&T) at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Prior to
    joining the Department, Dr. McQueary served as President of General
    Dynamics Advanced Technology Systems, as President and Vice President
    of business units for AT&T, Lucent Technologies, and as a Director for
    AT&T Bell Laboratories.

    3. Background

    Overall Budget
        Under the President's proposed budget for FY07, overall
    discretionary spending would increase by 3.2 percent, which the
    Administration describes as a level just under the projected rate of
    inflation of 3.3 percent. Consistent with Administration priorities,
    the increases are heavily weighted toward spending on defense and
    homeland security. Discretionary spending, excluding defense spending
    and homeland security spending across the government (i.e., ``non-
    security spending'') would be reduced by 0.5 percent, according to the
    Administration's calculations.
    Snapshot of Research and Development (R&D) Spending
        There are many ways of describing the R&D budget (see below),
    depending on what one wants to emphasize or determine. For example,
    development can be excluded or included; defense and homeland spending
    can be excluded or included; an entire agency's budget can be included
    or only those parts directly related to research and/or development. In
    addition, different baselines can be used for FY06. For example,
    supplemental funding can be excluded or included; Congressional
    earmarks can be excluded or included. In this charter, the FY06 enacted
    levels are used as the baseline unless otherwise noted.
        The President's proposed FY07 budget does not treat R&D uniformly,
    but rather provides significant increases in priority areas, while
    reducing or freezing spending in other areas. Therefore, aggregate
    numbers mask the wide variation in individual agencies and programs.
    The budget provides large percentage increases for the three physical
    science agencies included in the American Competitiveness Initiative
    the President announced in the State of the Union message--research
    funding at the National Science Foundation (NSF), internal programs at
    the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the
    Office of Science at the Department of Energy (DOE). In keeping with
    the Advanced Energy Initiative, also unveiled in the State of the Union
    address, some of the energy supply research programs of DOE also
    receive significant boosts (detailed below). And the basic research
    programs of DOD, which fund a great deal of university research in the
    physical sciences, also appear to fare well if earmarks are removed
    from the FY06 base.
        The budgets for other R&D agencies reflect their lower priority.
    Most notably, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
    after two years of significant increases, would see its budget increase
    by one percent (or by 3.2 percent if emergency money to recover from
    Hurricane Katrina is excluded from the FY06 base). The budget for the
    National Institutes of Health (NIH), which had seen its budget double
    in the years leading up to FY06, would be frozen. These proposals damp
    down the aggregate numbers for research spending since they are larger
    than the agencies receiving increases. (The proposed budgets for the
    three agencies in the American Competitiveness Initiative total about
    $10.5 billion, while NASA alone is slated to receive close to $17
    billion and NIH is budgeted at more than $28 billion.)
    Federal Research and Development Budget
        The President's budget proposes to spend $137.2 billion on R&D in
    FY07, an increase of $3.4 billion, or 2.6 percent, over FY06.\1\ Non-
    security R&D funding grows by $1.1 billion or 1.8 percent. Funding is
    heavily weighted toward development, which would increase by $4.88
    billion, or seven percent).\2\ Basic research is up slightly ($357
    million, or one percent) and applied research is cut significantly
    ($1.83 billion, or seven percent).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ A complete federal R&D spending table is provided at the end of
    the charter in Appendix II.
        \2\ Defense development is by far the largest factor in the overall
    R&D increase, accounting for $3.1 billion in added spending.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal Science and Technology Budget
        The Federal Science and Technology (FS&T) budget, is a method the
    National Academy of Sciences recommended to evaluate the impact of the
    budget on true research (as opposed to large development projects that
    build on the results of research that has already been completed). In
    the FY07 budget proposal, funding for FS&T declines by one percent, or
    $594 million, to $59.8 billion. Many of the cuts that contribute to
    that number reflect the Administration's zeroing out of FY06 earmarks.
    Earmarking has been increasing rapidly in recent years, and some of the
    earmarks are for projects that are entirely unrelated to the work of
    the program being earmarked.
    American Competitiveness Initiative
        The American Competitiveness Initiative calls for doubling the
    combined (not necessarily the individual) budgets of NSF, NIST and the
    DOE Office of Science over the next 10 years, and the FY07 budget
    proposals represent the down-payment to begin that process.
        In addition to those funding increases, the Initiative includes
    education and tax programs. The President's budget request proposes
    $380 million for new programs at the Department of Education to improve
    science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education at the K-12
    levels. Specifically, the programs are designed to enable more teachers
    to teach Advanced Placement courses, to bring math and science
    professionals into the classroom to evaluate approaches to teaching
    math and science, and to improve math instruction at the elementary and
    middle school levels. Despite the Initiative, the overall discretionary
    budget for the Department of Education drops by about $2 billion in the
    President's budget.
        Finally, as part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, the
    President has also proposed making the R&D tax credit permanent and
    working with Congress to modernize the rules companies may use to
    calculate how much of their R&D spending is eligible for the tax
    credit. At a cost of about $86 billion over 10 years, the tax credit is
    by far the most expensive aspect of the Initiative.
    Earmarking
        The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has
    calculated that Congressional earmarks in R&D programs totaled $2.36
    billion in the FY06 appropriations.\3\ This is 13 percent higher than
    in FY05 and 63 percent higher than in FY03. The Administration removes
    earmarks from an agency's base funding before developing the next
    year's budget. (The Administration does not necessarily use the same
    definition of earmark as does AAAS, and the Administration sometimes
    classifies as ``earmarks'' whole programs created by Congress, even if
    they are truly open to all qualified parties.) Moreover, earmarks can
    be for activities that an agency would otherwise undertake but not
    necessarily at the earmarked location, for activities related to an
    agency's programs, or for activities with little connection to an
    agency's activities. NIST's construction account, for example, has been
    earmarked for projects that have no relationship whatsoever to that
    laboratory.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Note that the $2.36 billion underestimates the total impact of
    earmarking on science agencies and programs, as it does not include
    earmarking of research accounts to pay for non-R&D expenditures. AAAS
    analysis of earmarks is available at http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/
    earm06c.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Primary Issues

        Here are some key questions raised by the FY07 budget request along
    with relevant background:

    Overall Funding Levels and Balance
        The American Competitiveness Initiative reflects the calls from
    leaders in industry and higher education to increase spending for
    physical science research, which has lagged for years behind the
    bounding growth for biomedical research. Most notably, the report the
    National Academy of Sciences released last November, Rising Above the
    Gathering Storm, recommended increasing federal funding for long-term
    basic research for 10 percent a year for seven years, with emphasis on
    the physical sciences, including in the basic research programs of DOD,
    and other reports have made similar recommendations.
        The issues raised by the overall approach to R&D funding are:

            1)  Does the budget set the appropriate priorities for R&D
            funding and fund them adequately? The budget does provide
            additional funding for the physical sciences, far in excess of
            the overall growth in the budget. However, some critics note
            that the funding increases are less than those called for in
            various reports and are below the levels authorized in laws
            that originated in the Science Committee, such as the National
            Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 and the Energy
            Policy Act of 2005.

            2)  Does the budget provide adequate funding for agencies not
            considered a priority? The greatest budget disputes are likely
            to revolve around funding for NIH and other agencies that do
            not receive increases. As noted earlier, most of those agencies
            have increased more rapidly in recent years.

            3)  Will the proposed investments ensure future U.S.
            competitiveness? Critics of increased spending may argue that
            holding the line on more spending and focusing on regulatory or
            other changes would have a greater impact on U.S. ability to
            fend off international competition. Supporters of the spending
            increases have varying ideas on how to target the funding (in
            terms of scientific disciplines, areas of technology, and the
            riskiness of research) to get the best results. Ideas about
            targeting could be part of future authorizing legislation. For
            example, many reports recommend that some research funds should
            be set aside for riskier, more cross-disciplinary research that
            may not be selected through normal peer review processes.

    Applied Energy Research
        Funding for applied research in the FY07 budget is focused on long-
    range initiatives, such as the President's hydrogen initiative, while
    shorter payoff areas of research are de-emphasized. For example, energy
    efficiency R&D is slated to decline by 11 percent, and some deployment
    programs are eliminated. Does the budget appropriately balance funding
    for technologies that could reduce energy dependence in the near term
    with research on technologies with longer-term expected payoffs, such
    as hydrogen and fusion? The budget includes a proposal to promote
    nuclear energy worldwide called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
    Included in this effort are design efforts for three new projects.
    These projects would require large outyear funding, in addition to
    existing outyear funding commitments to the Next Generation Nuclear
    Plant. Given the future budget outlook, how will DOE manage these large
    outyear funding commitments? The budget also proposes the elimination
    of DOE's oil and gas R&D, and to repeal the mandatory funding authority
    for the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas program created
    by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Should these programs be eliminated?

    NSF Education Funding
        The FY07 budget increases the Education and Human Resources (EHR)
    Directorate at NSF by 2.5 percent to $816 million. While this is a
    significant improvement over the FY06 request of $737 million, it is
    still below the FY04 level of $938 million. Within the proposal,
    elementary, secondary and undergraduate education programs are reduced,
    while graduate education and human resource development programs are
    increased. No money for new grants is proposed for the Math and Science
    Partnership Program, which the Administration seeks to phase out at
    NSF, while preserving the program at the Department of Education. Is
    the funding for NSF education programs adequate, and what is NSF's role
    in science and math education compared to that of the Department of
    Education?

    Technology Programs at NIST
        While the internal programs of NIST receive healthy increases in
    the President's budget, the budget proposes again to eliminate the
    Advanced Technology Program (ATP), which funds research at private
    firms, and to halve the budget for the Manufacturing Extension
    Partnership program (MEP), which runs centers across the country to
    counsel smaller companies. Both programs were created by Congress in
    1988. MEP centers generally receive one-third of their funding from the
    Federal Government, with the remainder equally divided between states
    and fees charged to companies that use the centers. Should ATP be
    eliminated? Can MEP function effectively with sharply reduced federal
    funding? How high a priority are they compared to other government
    activities designed to promote applied technology development and U.S.
    manufacturing competitiveness?

    5. Interagency Research Activities

        Budget tables for select interagency programs are provided in
    Appendix I. The Administration has not proposed any new interagency R&D
    initiatives for FY07.

    National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI): Between FY01 and FY06,
    spending on federal nanotechnology R&D has nearly tripled, rising from
    $464 million in FY01 to $1.3 billion in FY06. The FY07 budget requests
    an estimated $1.28 billion for the program in FY07, a decrease of $24
    million, or 1.8 percent, from the estimated FY06 level.\4\ Requested
    funding for the five agencies\5\ authorized in the 21st Century
    Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (P.L. 108-153) is $751
    million, a 10.1 percent increase over the FY06 level, but below the
    $955 million authorized for these agencies for FY07 in the Act. Of
    particular note is the proposed near doubling of funding, from $5
    million to $9 million, for EPA to work on potential environmental and
    safety issues associated with nanotechnology. The Committee held a
    hearing in the fall at which both industry and environmental groups
    called for increased research on the potential environmental
    consequences of nanotechnology.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ The Administration notes that the FY06 NNI funding includes
    over $100 million in earmarks at DOD and over $10 million in earmarks
    at NASA. When those are removed, the request for NNI is for an increase
    of 7.2 percent.
        \5\ The five agencies authorized by the Act are: NSF, DOE, NASA,
    EPA, and NIST. The total funding authorized by the Act for these
    agencies is $3.7 billion over four years.

    Networking and Information Technology R&D (NITRD): NITRD is an
    interagency program coordinating information technology (IT) R&D across
    twelve agencies. Areas of emphasis include high-end computing systems
    and software, networking, software design, and human-computer
    interaction. In addition, for the first time in FY07, cyber security
    and information assurance research activities will be included in the
    interagency coordination effort. Information technology research has
    played a critical role in U.S. economic strength over the past several
    decades, and consistent with the President's prioritization of areas
    that impact U.S. competitiveness, the budget request recommends $3.07
    billion for NITRD programs in FY07, a 7.7 percent increase over FY06. A
    significant part of that increase is designated for expanded work on
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    high-performance computing at NSF, the DOE Office of Science, and NOAA.

    Cyber Security R&D: Significant increases are requested for cyber
    security R&D programs in FY07 at NSF, NIST, and DHS. While funding for
    cyber security activities at NSF and NIST is still below the levels
    authorized in the Cyber Security Research and Development Act (P.L.
    107-305),\6\ both agencies have directed considerable portions of their
    overall increases to their cyber security research programs. At NSF,
    the budget requests $94 million for cyber security R&D (up 27 percent),
    and keeps cyber security-focused education programs flat at $14
    million. At NIST, the request is $21 million for cyber security R&D (up
    11 percent from FY06). Within a flat budget at the DHS Science and
    Technology (S&T) Directorate, the cyber security R&D program was one of
    a very few programs in which funding is requested to start new projects
    in FY07; the budget proposes $24.9 million for cyber security R&D, up
    50 percent from the FY06 level.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ For FY07, NSF cyber security programs are authorized at $142
    million and NIST cyber security programs are authorized at $92 million.
        \7\ DHS also supports operational cyber security programs, such as
    tracking computer and network vulnerabilities and coordinating the
    monitoring of government networks for cyber incidents. Located in the
    National Cyber Security Division of the DHS Preparedness Directorate,
    operational cyber security receives $92 million in FY07, the same as in
    FY06.

    Climate Change Research: The FY07 budget requests $1.7 billion for the
    interagency Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), about the same level
    as enacted in FY06. There is an $18 million (two percent) decrease in
    NASA's contribution to CCSP, offset primarily by a $23 million (14
    percent) increase in NOAA and a $5 million (four percent) decrease in
    DOE's contributions to the program. The request for CCSP includes $200
    million for the interagency Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI),
    about the same level as enacted in FY06. CCRI is intended to target
    critical scientific uncertainties and deliver results in three to five
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    years.

    The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP): NEHRP is an
    interagency effort aimed at reducing earthquake hazards through
    activities such as seismic and engineering research, earthquake
    monitoring, and code development and adoption. It includes NIST, NSF,
    the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency (FEMA). While the complete NEHRP budget for FY07 is not
    currently available, NIST requests $1.7 million (up $0.8 million), NSF
    requests $54.7 million (up $1.0 million), and USGS requests $55.4
    million (up $1.6 million) for earthquake activities. Included in the
    USGS NEHRP budget is $8.1 million for the Advanced National Seismic
    System (ANSS). The FEMA request is not available.\8\ NIST is the lead
    agency for NEHRP and it is funded at about $10 million below the
    authorized level.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ The NEHRP agencies are authorized to receive a total of $160.55
    million in FY07, including $12.10 million for NIST, $40.31 million for
    NSF, $22.28 million for FEMA, and $85.86 million for USGS (of which $36
    million is designated for the ANSS).

    The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP): NWIRP,
    authorized in October 2004, is an interagency effort to improve
    scientific understanding of wind hazards and developing cost-effective
    measures to reduce their impact on lives and property through
    atmospheric research, code development, and creation of risk assessment
    tools. The participating agencies include NSF, NIST, FEMA, and NOAA.
    While a plan for program implementation was due to Congress in October
    2005, it has not yet been received, and proposed spending levels for
    this program in FY07 have not been provided to the Committee. The
    authorized appropriations for FY07 total $25 million--$9.4 million for
    FEMA, $9.4 million for NSF, $4 million for NIST, and $2.2 million for
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NOAA.

    6. Agency R&D Highlights

    Department of Energy (DOE)
        The FY07 request for civilian R&D at DOE of $6.3 billion represents
    an increase of nine percent\9\ from FY06 enacted levels. The
    Administration's top funding priorities are the Office of Science and
    nuclear energy research focused on reprocessing of nuclear waste to
    reduce its toxicity, make more fuel available for future use, and
    reduce the volume of waste requiring disposal.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ These figures do not include a proposed cancellation of
    balances in the dormant Clean Coal Technology account.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Office of Science
        As part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, the budget
    requests $4.1 billion for the Office of Science, an increase of $505
    million or 14 percent. The budget seeks to strike a balance between
    support for researchers (45 percent) and the operation of national
    scientific user facilities (38 percent). Major increases in research
    support are provided for university-based nuclear physics (up 17
    percent to $64.5 million), the development of advanced computing
    software (up 51 percent to $50 million) and research at the nanoscale
    (up 62 percent to $158 million). Office of Science funding for the
    President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative increases 54 percent to $50
    million.
        Funding requested for facility operations allows the Office of
    Science to operate its suite of scientific user facilities at 96
    percent of the optimal number of operating hours, compared to 88
    percent in FY06. The request also allows DOE to bring into full
    operation the new Spallation Neutron Source and four of five new
    Nanoscale Science Research Centers. An additional $20 million is
    provided for project engineering and design for the National
    Synchrotron Light Source II project at Brookhaven National Laboratory.
    In addition, resources are nearly doubled from $54 million to $102
    million to acquire and upgrade the leadership computing facilities at
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory.
        The budget requests neither R&D nor construction funding explicitly
    for the Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA), a nuclear physics facility
    accorded relatively high priority in the Office of Science's 20-year
    facilities plan. The budget does request $4 million to continue exotic
    beam R&D, which are the capabilities RIA or a RIA-like machine would
    deliver.
        The request includes $60 million for FY07 in the Fusion program for
    ITER, an international partnership to build a large-scale fusion
    reactor. A significant fraction of that $60 million is a research
    effort at domestic fusion facilities in support of the ITER program.
    Direct ITER project costs are slated to increase only $21 million,
    while the Fusion program overall increases $31 million. The request
    provides fusion facilities with 51 percent of optimal operating hours.
        The request for Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program
    is the only major program area in the Office of Science with a cut: the
    requested budget declines $70 million, or 12 percent. However, the
    request for BER rises to $510 million, a $59 million (13 percent)
    increase after deducting $130 million of FY06 Congressional earmark.
    Within BER, climate change research is reduced $6.6 million, including
    reductions to ocean carbon sequestration research (down $4.9 million)
    and climate modeling (down $1.5 million).
                Applied Energy Programs
        The FY07 request for applied energy programs reflects a series of
    trade-offs to accommodate the Advanced Energy Initiative. Overall, in
    ongoing accounts,\10\ the budget for applied energy programs increases
    one percent or $17 million, from $2.14 billion to $2.16 billion. The
    Nuclear Energy program shows the largest increases, the Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy program is flat, and the Fossil Energy
    and Electricity Distribution and Energy Reliability programs both are
    proposed for funding reductions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ The budget proposes to rescind $203 balances in the old Clean
    Coal Technology account. The statutory authority for this account does
    not permit new project starts, but a similar demonstration program in
    the Fossil Energy R&D account has been active for several years.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the Office of Nuclear Energy, after some accounting changes in
    infrastructure are included, total funding for programs in the
    jurisdiction of the Science Committee increases $95 million, or 21
    percent to $554 million. The biggest funding increase occurs in the
    Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), which is tripled from $79
    million to $243 million. AFCI is the program to develop fuel
    reprocessing and recycling technology, and therefore a key component of
    the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (see below). Conversely,
    university support, previously funded at $27 million, is terminated;
    Generation IV is down by $23 million (down 42 percent to $31 million),
    including a $16.6 million cut to the Next Generation Nuclear Plant.
    Nuclear hydrogen R&D also is cut by $6 million (down 25 percent to $19
    million). The Nuclear Energy office is now responsible for all of Idaho
    facilities management, which is cut by $4 million (down four percent to
    $95.3 million). Radiological facilities management is cut $4.3 million
    (down eight percent to $50 million).
        DOE also announced the creation of the Global Nuclear Energy
    Partnership (GNEP), a program to promote the use of nuclear power
    worldwide. The program would manage nuclear fuel through international
    agreements as a strategy to reduce proliferation risks. GNEP also will
    include a domestic nuclear fuel reprocessing and recycling component to
    reduce the need for additional long-term waste storage capacity. While
    the GNEP activities will be carried out in various programs throughout
    DOE, the major new funding effort is directed toward accelerating
    activities in AFCI.
        There are major shifts in the Office of Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy (EERE), which overall sees an increase of 0.2 percent
    (up $3 million to $1,176 million). However, R&D programs are up $81
    million (up nine percent to $1,012 million). Reflecting new initiatives
    announced in the State of the Union address, Solar Energy programs are
    slated for a $65 million increase (up 78 percent to $148 million),
    Biomass programs would increase $58 million (up 65 percent to $150
    million), Hydrogen programs would increase $40 million (up 26 percent
    to $196 million), and Wind programs would increase $5 million (up 13
    percent to $44 million).
        The other item mentioned in the State of the Union, battery
    research for plug-in hybrids, standard hybrids, and fuel cell vehicles,
    increases $6.2 million (up 427 percent to $7.6 million), but overall
    funding for Vehicle research is slated to decrease.
        On the Energy Efficiency side, research programs face a proposed
    total decrease of $36 million (down 11 percent to $289 million). In the
    largest single cut in EERE, weatherization grants are cut $78 million
    (down 32 percent to $164 million). This program is not an R&D program,
    but improves energy efficiency in low-income homes; the reduction will
    amount to about 30,000 fewer homes being weatherized in FY07. The
    Vehicles budget is proposed to be cut $23 million (down 12 percent to
    $166 million); the Buildings budget is proposed to be cut $2 million
    (down two percent to $77 million); and the Industries budget is
    proposed to be cut $11 million (down 20 percent to $46 million).
        Looking at subaccounts, the largest reduction in Vehicles R&D is to
    earmarked projects; Materials Technology is proposed to be reduced and
    as is much of the work on Heavy Vehicles throughout the program. In
    Buildings, there is a proposed $4 million increase in Building America
    (program with a goal to achieve zero energy homes by 2020) and a
    proposed $1.2 million increase to commercial buildings R&D; decreases
    come from a cancellation of earmarks and some redistribution of other
    funds.
        In the Office of Fossil Energy, the R&D account is proposed to be
    cut $122 million from FY06 levels (down 21 percent to $470 million)
    with the majority of the savings from the proposed termination of the
    Natural Gas Technology and Oil Technology programs ($33 million and $32
    million in FY06 respectively). An additional $44 million reduction
    (down 90 percent to $5 million) is proposed in funding for the Clean
    Coal Power demonstration program. DOE has explained this reduction by
    noting that there is over $500 million allocated to the program in
    prior years, most of which has not yet been spent. This reduction is
    characterized as temporary, ``so that the program can take steps to
    improve the use of funds already provided for projects.'' In addition
    to the cancellation of the Oil and Gas technology programs, the budget
    proposes to repeal the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas
    and Other Petroleum Research program through a future legislative
    proposal, consistent with the decision to terminate the discretionary
    Oil and Gas programs. This program was passed as part of the Energy
    Policy Act of 2005; the proposal would result in the rescission of a
    projected $50 million in mandatory funding.
        The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability was again
    substantially reorganized and then cut $37 million (down 23 percent to
    $125 million) with the R&D programs taking the lion's share of the
    cuts, down $40 million (down 30 percent to $96 million). These programs
    include superconductivity research, power grid reliability and research
    on distributed energy systems.

    National Science Foundation (NSF)
        The National Science Foundation is the primary source of federal
    funding for non-medical basic research conducted at colleges and
    universities and serves as a catalyst for science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics education reform at all levels. As
    previously mentioned, NSF is one of the research agencies that the
    President has proposed to double over the next 10 years as part of the
    American Competitiveness Initiative. The FY07 budget request for NSF,
    therefore, is $6.02 billion, an increase of 7.9 percent, or $439
    million over the FY06 level.
        The funding increase in the FY07 budget mainly goes to scientific
    research programs and research facilities and is spread fairly evenly
    among all fields NSF supports, including engineering, non-biomedical
    life sciences, physics, and geosciences. New programs begun with the
    increased research funding include $50 million to begin the acquisition
    of a leadership-class high performance computer and $20 million
    requested to support leading edge sensor and related research to help
    predict and detect explosives and related threats. Some of the new
    funding is allotted to the expansion of existing high-priority
    programs, such as a $29 million increase for nanotechnology research
    and $20 million increase for cyber security research. For research
    facilities, the account that funds construction of large user
    facilities increases by $50 million, and NSF requests funding to begin
    building three new facilities.\11\ Finally, the overall funding
    increase allows NSF to request $50 million in additional funds for
    various research and education initiatives associated with the
    International Polar Year, an international activity for which NSF is
    the lead U.S. agency.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Funding ($81 million) is requested to start construction on
    Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV), Ocean Observatories Initiative
    (OOI), and National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). (NSF has
    requested funding for NEON in past budgets, but no construction funding
    has been appropriated to date.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As noted above, the FY07 budget requests an increase (2.5 percent)
    for the Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate, bringing the
    total funding to $816 million. Additional funds are proposed for
    graduate education, human resource development (activities to broaden
    participation in STEM fields), and the new Discovery Research K-12 (DK-
    12) program, which will focus on the grand challenges in education,
    such as the development of quality math and science assessments and the
    translation of cutting edge research into classroom practice. K-12 and
    undergraduate education programs would be reduced.
        In FY06, the responsibility for the costs of the icebreakers that
    support scientific research in the polar regions was transferred to NSF
    from the U.S. Coast Guard, and the budget request proposes that NSF
    continue in this role in FY07. The actual cost for services and ship
    maintenance will be negotiated with the Coast Guard, but the estimated
    cost is $57 million for FY07 (a slight decrease from FY06); this money
    will all be transferred back to the Coast Guard. In addition, NSF plans
    to, as in FY06, purchase ice-breaking services on the open market for
    an additional cost of roughly $10 million.
        NSF continues to receive high marks from the Office of Management
    and Budget for the quality of its management and the excellence of its
    programs. NSF is one of only three agencies (of the 26 evaluated) to be
    awarded at least four green lights on the Executive Branch Management
    Scorecard, which rates agencies with green, yellow and red lights in
    areas such as financial management, e-government, and human capital
    management. In addition, ten NSF programs have been examined to date
    using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART),\12\ and all ten
    programs received ratings of ``effective,'' the highest possible
    rating. NSF remains the only agency in the Federal Government to
    receive the highest rating on every program that was ``PART-ed.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ PART is described by the budget as a tool ``developed to
    assess and improve program performance so that the Federal Government
    can achieve better results. A PART review helps identify a program's
    strengths and weaknesses to inform funding and management decisions
    aimed at making the program more effective.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Issues/Questions Raised by the FY07 Request for NSF

    Education and Human Resource (EHR) Directorate

        The increase (2.5 percent) for the EHR Directorate is not
    distributed evenly among the variety of education areas supported by
    NSF. In graduate education, increased funding will enable NSF to
    maintain its current stipend of $30,000 for top graduate students and
    further broaden participation in these programs, and the proposed $26
    million increase for human resource development will provide expanded
    support for programs and activities that expand opportunities for
    traditionally under-served populations. The Math and Science
    Partnership (MSP) Program, envisioned as part of the President's No
    Child Left Behind Initiative and enacted by the NSF Authorization Act
    of 2002, continues to decline, from $140 million in FY04 to $46 million
    in FY07. Without additional resources, the amount proposed will be used
    to fund existing grants only.
        NSF reorganized the EHR Directorate in FY06, masking some
    additional downward funding trends. Specifically, while a notable
    increase ($11 million) is proposed for a newly formed DK-12 program,
    the three K-12 programs\13\ that were merged into DK-12 suffered
    significant cuts from FY05 to FY06. This year's proposed increase does
    little to restore those reductions. In addition, research and
    evaluation activities\14\ have declined each of the past two years and
    are down $25 million overall. Finally, undergraduate education programs
    have also declined over the same period. While workforce development
    programs, such as the Advanced Technological Education, Noyce
    Scholarships, and STEP (a.k.a. Tech Talent), have grown slightly,
    capacity-building programs have fallen appreciably in the past two
    years-for example, the Curriculum, Course, and Laboratory Improvement
    program would decline by $8 million between FY05 and FY07.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ The Instructional Materials Development Program, the Teacher
    Professional Continuum Program, and the Centers for Learning and
    Teaching Program were combined to form the new Discovery Research K-12
    (DK-12) Program in FY06.
        \14\ ``Research and evaluation activities'' refer to the Research,
    Evaluation and Communication Program (REC), which was renamed the
    Research and Evaluation on Education in Science and Engineering (REESE)
    and shifted from a stand-alone program into the new Division of
    Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL).

    Homeland Security R&D

    Homeland Security R&D at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
        The vast majority of R&D at DHS is funded by the Science and
    Technology (S&T) directorate. Proposed funding for S&T is $1.0 billion,
    a decrease of $485 million (33 percent) below the FY06 enacted level.
    This decrease reflects the transfer of almost all nuclear and
    radiological programs to the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO),
    which reports directly to the Secretary. In addition, the program to
    develop countermeasures to shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles will
    be concluding in FY07. Accounting for these changes, the FY07 request
    is a $47 million reduction (4.5 percent) from FY06.
        S&T directorate funding is split among various technical portfolio
    areas, such as biological countermeasures, standards, critical
    infrastructure protection, and support of DHS component agencies (such
    as Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Secret Service). A
    complete list of portfolios and their funding is provided in Table 4.
        Within the relatively flat budget, a few new initiatives are
    proposed. An additional $8.3 million is proposed for cyber security R&D
    for Internet security projects, cyber security testbeds and data sets,
    and research on identity management. Also, a Joint Agro-Terror Defense
    Office will be created within the Biological Countermeasures portfolio
    to enhance the interagency coordination of advanced development of
    agro-defense countermeasures.
        A number of portfolios will receive significant decreases. Of
    greatest concern is the 23 percent decrease in the Standards portfolio,
    which is responsible for activities that include coordinating the
    development of metrics for equipment performance and certification,
    protocols for testing and training, and evaluation of equipment. This
    decrease will hamper DHS's ability to provide standards and guidelines
    for existing commercial technologies as well as for novel products
    being developed by other DHS programs. Another area being cut deeply is
    the Emergent and Prototypical Technologies portfolio, a combination of
    basic research on emerging threats and rapid prototyping of new
    technologies. The $18 million (41 percent) decrease in this portfolio
    will limit DHS's ability to tackle potential threats outside the
    existing portfolios, perform basic research for vulnerability
    characterization and countermeasure identification, and quickly address
    DHS-specific requirements for technologies.
        Despite the decrease in funding for the DHS S&T directorate, the
    overall funding devoted to R&D at DHS does not drop appreciably, as a
    substantial increase is requested for DNDO (up $221 million). DNDO now
    includes all the radiological and nuclear countermeasures activities
    formerly within DHS S&T, including development and evaluation of
    detection equipment and forensics, attribution, and standards programs.
    Of the $536 million requested for DNDO for FY07, $103 million ($46
    million above the FY06 level) is for transformational research and
    development projects to be conducted at universities and national
    laboratories and in industry.

    Homeland Security R&D at Other Agencies
        Approximately $3.4 billion is proposed for homeland security R&D
    programs in departments and agencies outside of DHS (Table 10). The
    bulk of this funding, $1.8 billion (up 6.3 percent from FY06), is for
    bio-defense programs at NIH, such as basic research on infectious
    microbial agents, applied research on diagnostics, vaccines, and
    therapeutics, and construction of bio-containment facilities. The
    remaining funds (approximately $1.7 billion) go to a number of other
    agencies, such as: EPA, which has been sharply increasing its funding
    for research on detection of chemical and biological agents in the
    water supply, microbial risk assessment and environmental
    decontamination; NSF, for research related to critical infrastructure
    protection, microbial genomics, and a new program for sensor
    technologies; the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), for research
    on animal disease diagnostics and vaccines; DOD for detection systems,
    protective gear, and medical countermeasures for biological and
    chemical agents; and DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration for
    research on detection and attribution of radiological and nuclear
    materials.
        In addition to individual agency programs, a number of cooperative
    efforts between DHS and other agencies exist: NSF and DHS jointly fund
    a cyber security testbed; DHS provides funding to NIST for standards
    work in a number of areas, such as standards for radiation detectors;
    and EPA and DHS co-fund a university center on microbial risk
    assessment.

    Issues/Questions Raised by the FY07 Request for DHS

    Balance of DHS S&T Programs: Most of the work of the S&T directorate is
    heavily weighted toward development. Relatively little goes to fund
    longer-term, more basic research. As a result, relatively little of the
    funding is available to universities, although DHS S&T does fund
    several university centers. Whether this shorter-range focus is optimal
    for U.S. long-term security has been a matter of debate.

    Priorities across Threat Areas: DHS S&T has to balance research
    priorities across a wide range of different kinds of threats--from
    cyber attacks to dirty bombs to foot and mouth disease--as well as
    supporting technology adoption in a wide variety of environments,
    including new inter-operable communications systems for first
    responders and stand-alone laboratories that can safely receive and
    identify unknown hazardous substances. Yet for the first time since DHS
    was formed in FY03, funding for the S&T directorate has decreased. In
    these circumstances, robust risk assessment methodologies both within
    and across portfolios are needed.

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
                NIST's Laboratory Programs
        The FY07 budget requests $467 million for a wide range of research
    conducted at NIST laboratories in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and Boulder,
    Colorado. The request is $67 million (17 percent) above the FY06
    enacted level of $399 million and is $41 million above the FY06
    request. The request also includes $68 million for construction and
    renovation of NIST's scientific facilities.
        The increase in laboratory programs for FY07 comprises 12
    initiatives that span a range of scientific and engineering
    disciplines. Two of the initiatives are major upgrades and enhancements
    of NIST national research facilities: the NIST Center for Neutron
    Research (NCNR) and the Center for Nanoscale Research and Technology
    (CNRT, located within NIST's Advanced Measurements Laboratory). One
    initiative is to expand NIST's existing presence at the National
    Synchrotron Light Source (NSLS) at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The
    other nine initiatives are increases to NIST laboratory and technical
    programs that are directed at solving measurement and other technical
    problems in energy, medical technology, manufacturing, homeland
    security, and public safety.

    Issues/Questions Raised by the FY07 Request for NIST

    Impact of Proposed Elimination of the Advanced Technology Program
    (ATP): The FY07 budget request proposes to eliminate ATP (funded at $80
    million in FY06). Moreover, ATP funded an estimated $8 million worth of
    R&D conducted at the NIST laboratories in FY06. Therefore, the proposal
    to end ATP could result in a reduction in research funding to the NIST
    laboratories, eating up a portion of the proposed increase under the
    American Competitiveness Initiative.

    Impact of Scaling Back the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)
    Program: The FY07 request for MEP is $46.3 million, which represents a
    56 percent cut from the FY06 enacted level of $106 million. At this
    level, it is unclear how the MEP program would function as a national
    network.

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
        The FY07 budget requests $3.7 billion for NOAA, a decrease of $227
    million (six percent) compared to the FY06 enacted level of $3.9
    billion. However, NOAA's FY06 budget includes approximately $600
    million worth of earmarked projects. If these earmarks are removed from
    the FY06 baseline, then the President's budget could be construed as
    proposing an additional $345 million (10 percent increase) for NOAA in
    FY07.
                National Weather Service
        The FY07 budget requests $882 million for the National Weather
    Service (NWS), an increase of $33.6 million (four percent). The
    increase includes $29 million to develop, operate, and maintain a
    variety of warning and forecast systems such as the Tsunami Warning
    Program, the Air Quality Forecasting Program, and the Wind Profiler
    Network which improves tornado, severe storm, and flash flood
    forecasting.
                Satellite Acquisition
        The FY07 budget requests $1.03 billion for satellite programs at
    NOAA, an $82 million (8.6 percent) increase over the FY06 enacted level
    of $952 million. The proposed increase is for procurement and
    construction of the next generation of geostationary and polar weather
    satellites, and it is in line with the original budget plans for these
    satellite systems. In FY07, NOAA expects to let the prime contract for
    its next generation of geostationary satellites, ``GOES-R.'' The
    geostationary satellites provide a constant watch for severe weather
    conditions such as tornadoes, flash floods, hail storms, and
    hurricanes, and they are important for short-term (between real-time
    and two days) weather forecasts. In contrast, NOAA's polar-weather
    satellites are essential for long-term (between three and seven days)
    weather forecasts, tracking of severe weather, and climate
    observations.
                Hurricane Research
        The FY07 budget includes requests for $13 million for high
    performance computing (a 100 percent or $6.5 million increase over FY06
    enacted levels) and also includes $2.5 million in new funds to
    accelerate hurricane research programs. Both requests will help NOAA
    improve its hurricane forecast models, in particular, its models of
    hurricane intensity.

    Issues/Questions Raised by the FY07 Request for NOAA

    Weather Satellite Program Management: NOAA's next generation polar
    weather satellite program, National Polar-orbiting Operational
    Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), is currently running as much
    as $3 billion (more than 25 percent) over budget and as many as three
    years behind schedule. Since NPOESS is a joint NOAA-DOD program, this
    large cost increase triggered a review under the DOD's Nunn-McCurdy
    process. The review will finish in May or June. Currently, no increased
    funding is anticipated (or requested) in the FY07 budget as a result of
    the review, but increased funding will be required in future years.
    This could force NOAA to take resources away from other important
    missions at the agency.

    7. Witnesses Questions

        All of the witnesses have been asked to:

            1.  Review the R&D budget request in the context of the
            Administration's overall priorities in science and technology.

            2.  Describe the mechanisms that the Administration uses to
            determine priorities across scientific disciplines.

            3.  Describe the mechanisms the Administration uses to
            coordinate its scientific research and technical development
            activities with other federal agencies.

        In addition, Dr. Bodman has been asked to:

            1.  Describe how the budget request will contribute to the
            development of climate change technologies.

        Chairman Boehlert. This hearing will come to order. I want
    to welcome everyone here today for our first hearing of the new
    year, which is also the first hearing in Congress to bring
    together all the research agencies that will be participating
    in the American Competitiveness Initiative. I want everyone in
    this room and everyone viewing this hearing to remember that
    phrase, American Competitiveness Initiative. This is one of the
    most important topics that can be discussed at any place at any
    time.
        It is a rare thing to think of a budget hearing as a time
    of celebration, but I think that that's how we should view this
    morning's proceedings. For a long time, a long time, many of
    us, particularly on this committee, have been calling for a
    renewed emphasis on research in the physical sciences. The
    commitment that would be demonstrated, not with rhetorical
    feints, but with genuine investments. The eloquent words in the
    State of the Union, recited by the President of the United
    States, had to be followed by meaningful deeds, when the budget
    was submitted by the Congress and the American people, and they
    were.
        Perhaps more importantly, the Nation's leaders in industry
    and higher education have been calling for such an investment,
    because they see it as a must, if the United States is to
    retain its competitive edge. One might say that there has been
    a gathering storm of lobbying on this subject, as an increasing
    number of leaders have issued thundering statements about the
    need to rethink our research and education and energy policies.
    But now that the storm can abate a bit, or at least blow over
    Capitol Hill, because in the Executive Branch our words have
    been heard and they have been heeded. And I want especially to
    thank Dr. Jack Marburger and Secretary Sam Bodman for their
    tireless efforts to bring the American Competitiveness
    Initiative into being. I have to say to Secretary Bodman that I
    didn't think I'd ever see a cabinet officer have such an
    immediate visible and positive impact on a department. I salute
    you, sir.
        And let me just tell everyone, there's a new dynamic and we
    should all be thrilled with that new dynamic. In the past, the
    Science Committee would beat a path to a door of the decision-
    makers and say you must, absolutely must, invest more in
    science on the part of the United States Government. And we
    would say to those same leaders of government, you must, you
    must invest more and do it better in providing quality
    educational training, starting at the very earliest level in
    science and math. You must do that.
        And then people like Tom Friedman issue a book and goes to
    number one in the bestseller list. But the new dynamic is this:
    it's not just those of us on the Science Committee promoting
    science, or scientists promoting science, because the people on
    the other end listening, say well, that's sort of self-serving.
    You want to broaden your portfolio. Or you're after your
    special interest. And it's not just the education people saying
    we must invest more in K through 12 science and math education.
    They'd say well, you've got vested interest. The new dynamic is
    that the business community is providing leadership. They are
    engaged, in a sense ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' that
    outstanding report issued by the National Academy of Science.
    Business all over is saying you know what? We've got to be
    involved. And you know what? They have to be involved, and the
    good news is that they are, so I couldn't be happier.
        Now it's our job in Congress to follow through. We're
    calling for leadership, but there better darn well be
    followership, because we've got to be on the same page and
    we've got to move forward and I think we will. I know that
    everyone on this committee will be devoted to that effort.
    We've already been in contact with our colleagues on the
    Appropriations Committee, and Chairman Wolf and Chairman Hobson
    share our enthusiasm, and I couldn't be happier about that. How
    refreshing it is for veterans of Capitol Hill to look up here
    and to see authorizers and appropriators marching hand in hand
    in common cause. That is really refreshing. We all understand
    that the future employment and prosperity of the American
    people are at stake. In my speeches around the country, I say
    the same thing: we're still number one. That's a position I
    like, but we used to be so far ahead of the others that when we
    looked over our shoulder, the second and third place and beyond
    were way back. We could hardly see them even with binoculars.
    Now we can't take a nanosecond to just glance over our
    shoulder, because the competition is breathing down our neck.
    And boy, if that's not a signal, I don't know what is. So we've
    got to move and I'm confident we will.
        On this committee, we will also pass and enact whatever
    authorizing legislation will help make the proposed funding a
    reality both this year and years to come. That's a pledge.
    That's a commitment and it's not just from me, and it's not
    just a Republican Chairman, where the Republicans enjoy the
    majority. It's the Democrats, with Congressman Gordon providing
    real leadership. We're all working together in common cause and
    that is very, very helpful. But I don't want to pass bills that
    are a laundry list of new or duplicative programs that will
    never come into being. I want to focus on a few key issues and
    programs that will help promote and wisely use additional
    appropriations, and I'm sure that we'll be working more
    publicly on all this next month.
        In developing legislation and a hearing agenda, we will be
    looking at the Advanced Energy Initiative as well as the
    American Competitiveness Initiative. The Energy Initiative is
    just as important and just as promising as the efforts to
    increase research funding in the basic sciences, but I remain
    concerned that our nation still lacks a sensible energy policy.
    We still haven't got it right, in my estimation, and we need to
    get beyond the illusion that pouring money into technology
    development, which we need to do, is enough to transform our
    energy portfolio. The market will not adequately value a
    collective need to become more energy independent before prices
    become intolerable. So the Energy Initiative is a necessary but
    hardly sufficient step in the right direction.
        Now while today's hearing is a celebration, I don't want to
    leave the impression that there are no problems with the
    proposed budget. Keep in mind, I'm from the Legislative Branch.
    We want to have our say. I expect that Mr. Gordon won't leave
    that impression any way, but I do have concerns, such as the
    inadequate funding for education programs at the National
    Science Foundation. We've got to deal with that. But we can get
    to those in questions and in other statements, and I won't
    belabor those points now. I think it's important that our main
    message this morning be one of victory, because we need to
    communicate that message to our colleagues concerning the
    American Competitiveness Initiative in reality. We're not going
    to declare victory and go home. We're not going to put up a
    sign, mission accomplished. Rather, we need to think of it this
    way: we won the battle and now it's time to win the war.
        I look forward to working with today's witnesses and with
    all of my colleagues to do just that, and I thank you for your
    indulgence. I went over my five-minute limit, but I have the
    advantage of being the Chair and I control the clock. Mr.
    Gordon.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

        I want to welcome everybody here today for our first hearing of the
    year, which is also the first hearing in Congress to bring together all
    the research agencies that will be participating in the American
    Competitiveness Initiative.
        It's a rare thing to think of a budget hearing as a time of
    celebration, but I think that that's how we should view this morning's
    proceedings. For a long time, many of us have been calling for a
    renewed emphasis on research in the physical sciences--a commitment
    that would be demonstrated not with rhetorical feints, but with genuine
    investments.
        Perhaps more importantly, the Nation's leaders in industry and
    higher education have been calling for such an investment because they
    see it as a ``must'' if the United States is to retain its competitive
    edge. One might say that there has been a ``gathering storm'' of
    lobbying on this subject, as an increasing number of leaders have
    issued thundering statements about the need to rethink our research and
    education and energy policies.
        But now that storm can abate a bit--or at least blow over to
    Capitol Hill--because in the Executive Branch our words have been heard
    and they have been heeded. And I want especially to thank Dr. Marburger
    and Secretary Bodman for their tireless efforts to bring the American
    Competitiveness Initiative into being. I have to say to Secretary
    Bodman that I don't think I ever seen a cabinet officer have such an
    immediate, visible and positive impact on a department.
        Now it's our job in Congress to follow through. And I think we
    will. I know that everyone on this committee will be devoted to that
    effort. We have already been in contact with our colleagues on the
    Appropriations Committee, and Chairman Wolf and Chairman Hobson share
    our enthusiasm--which should come as no surprise given their
    longstanding positions on science funding. We all understand that the
    future employment and prosperity of the American people are at stake.
        On this committee, we will also pass and enact whatever authorizing
    legislation will help make the proposed funding a reality both this
    year and in years to come, and whatever legislation will help ensure
    that any additional funds are spent as wisely as possible. We are
    currently reviewing all the ideas that have been offered up around this
    town, as well as our own, and we will develop bipartisan legislation on
    funding, education and energy.
        But I don't want to pass bills that are laundry lists of new or
    duplicative programs that will never come into being. I want to focus
    on a few key ideas and programs that will help promote and wisely use
    additional appropriations. And I'm sure that we'll be working more
    publicly on all of this next month.
        In developing legislation and a hearing agenda, we will be looking
    at the Advanced Energy Initiative as well as the American
    Competitiveness Initiative. The energy initiative is just as important
    and just as promising as the effort to increase research funding in the
    basic sciences.
        But I remain concerned that our nation still lacks a sensible
    energy policy, and we need to get beyond the illusion that pouring
    money into technology development--which we need to do--is enough to
    transform our energy portfolio. The market will not adequately value
    the collective need to become more energy independent before prices
    become intolerable. So the energy initiative is a necessary, but hardly
    sufficient step in the right direction.
        Now while today's hearing is a celebration, I don't want to leave
    the impression that there are no problems with the proposed budget. I
    expect that Mr. Gordon won't leave that impression anyway. But I do
    have concerns, such as the inadequate funding for education programs at
    the National Science Foundation (NSF). But we can get to those in
    questions and in other statements, and I won't belabor those points
    now.
        I think it's important that our main message this morning be one of
    victory because we need to communicate that message to our colleagues
    to turn the American Competitiveness Initiative into reality. We're not
    going to ``declare victory and go home.'' Rather, we need to think of
    it this way: we've won the battle, now it's time to win the war.
        I look forward to working with today's witnesses and with all my
    colleagues to do just that. Thank you.

        Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first
    compliment you on your very sincere passion and energy into
    this competitive agenda. You have been tireless in your--not
    only your rhetoric, but also trying to make things happen, and
    I say that sincerely. I also share your concerns about the lack
    of funding, in terms of the K to 12 science portion, for
    education, within the NSF, but simply looking at this budget, I
    can't share your optimism. I am concerned that we're going to
    have a situation similar to when the President rolled out his
    lunar Mars mission. It was a big splash one day, but then the
    money didn't come and we haven't heard anything about it since.
    So I guess, what did your--our President say, for us to verify?
    I think we're going to have to do our part to try to verify and
    make sure that there is follow up. So I want to join you in
    welcoming our distinguished panel to this morning's hearing.
    I'm glad to see all of you again. However, I think it's
    unfortunate that we have all of you here for just one day of
    hearings. I'm afraid that the Committee is once again
    acquiescing its oversight responsibility not holding individual
    hearings for each of the five important agencies before us
    today.
        The good in this budget request is the proposed increase in
    the Federal R&D. The bad news is that that increase is less
    than the projected rate of inflation. So once again we're
    investing less than the rate of inflation at a time when many
    of our international competitors are increasing their
    investment in science and technology at faster rates than ever
    before. Even more alarming is the fact that the
    Administration's science and technology investment is actually
    decreasing. The Federal S&T budget is the best method to
    evaluate research funding. S&T represents the amount of funding
    directed toward creation of new knowledge and technologies as
    opposed to development activities. Dr. Marburger himself has
    stated that the Federal R&D is an imperfect measure of
    evaluating science and technology funding, and most agree that
    the S&T is the correct metric.
        A lot of numbers will be thrown around this morning to put
    a pretty face on the budget, but the fact of the matter is that
    the Administration's own table, 5-2, clearly shows, and I'll
    show you here, a one percent decrease in the Federal S&T
    investment for fiscal year 2007. And knowing the fact and being
    aware that Dr. Marburger's statements in recent budget
    hearings, in the spirit of the Olympics, Dr. Marburger, I would
    like to nominate you for a gold medal. The category would be
    statistical gymnastics for making a one percent decrease look
    like a one percent increase, despite the fact that it's almost
    $600 million less than fiscal year 2006 funding and $1 billion
    less than the Administration requested last year, according to
    their own budget document. So in the same breath, the
    Administration decries the earmarks in last year's budget, but
    then counts earmarks when showing how much the S&T budget has
    increased during the Administration, from 2001 to 2007.
        As for the National Science Foundation fiscal year 2007
    funding, I'm very pleased that the Administration has proposed
    an eight percent increase. In 2002 the Congress passed and the
    President signed into law an authorization bill doubling NSF
    funding over five years. However, the President's request for
    NSF since that signing ceremony are still $3.8 billion short of
    that commitment. And when we dig deeper, we find, at least in
    my opinion, misguided priorities. I was very disappointed to
    see a continued de-emphasis of the K to 12 science education at
    the National Science Foundation. Even as the NSF budget grows,
    the Administration proposes a seven percent cut to the K to 12
    programs, on top of already 37 percent cuts. NSF has been a
    leader in improving science and math education for over 50
    years. I do not understand how ignoring NSF's expertise in
    education helps our competitiveness.
        From my point of view, competitiveness is about keeping our
    good jobs and creating even more and better jobs. Yet the
    Administration proposes to cut MEP funding by 56 percent. MEP
    is the only federal program designed specifically to assist
    small manufacturers. MEP is the only program that has a proven
    track record in creating and retaining manufacturing jobs.
    We've lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs since 2001. This year
    alone we've lost 55,000 manufacturing jobs. I don't see how
    cutting MEP by 56 percent, and NIST overall by 23 percent,
    increases American competitiveness. The bipartisan National
    Association of Governors has wholeheartedly endorsed the MEP
    Program. So yes, there are winners, but unfortunately there are
    also many losers.
        Now hopefully, as our nation becomes more familiar with the
    Augustine Report, we will all recognize that when we talk about
    science funding, it's more than just welfare for people in lab
    coats looking through microscopes. It's not an academic
    exercise, knowledge for the sake of knowledge. It's about jobs,
    competing in the global, in our kids, in our grandkids'
    standard of living.
        As the Augustine Commission pointed out, ``the thrust of
    our findings is straightforward. The standard of living of
    Americans in the years ahead will depend to a large extent on
    the quality of jobs that they are able to hold. Without quality
    jobs, our citizens will not have the purchasing power to
    support the standard of living which they seek and to which
    many have become accustomed. Tax revenues will not be generated
    to provide for strong national security and health care, and
    the lack of a vibrant domestic consumer market will provide a
    disincentive for either U.S. or foreign companies to invest in
    jobs in America.'' That means we must invest in S&T, but I'm
    afraid this budget simply does not make an adequate investment.
        However, bipartisan legislation in the Senate includes many
    of the recommendations of the Augustine Commission. I've also
    introduced legislation that will incorporate the education and
    energy recommendations of the Augustine report. So I'm hopeful
    that we can mount a bipartisan, bicameral effort, together with
    Executive Branch cooperation, to improve this budget into
    something that truly helps our nation remain strong
    economically now and long into the future. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Representative Bart Gordon

        Thank you Mr. Chairman. I join you in welcoming our distinguished
    panel to this morning's hearing. It's good to see you all again.
    However, I do think it's unfortunate that we have you all here for only
    one day of hearings.
        I'm afraid that this committee is once again acquiescing its
    oversight responsibilities by not holding individual hearings for each
    of the five important agencies in front of us today.
        The good news in this budget request is the proposed increase in
    federal R&D. The bad news is that that increase is less than the
    projected rate of inflation. So, once again, we are investing less than
    the rate of inflation at a time when many of our international
    competitors are increasing their investment in science and technology
    at faster rates than ever before.
        Even more alarming is the fact that the Administration's science
    and technology investment is actually decreasing. The federal S&T
    budget is the best method to evaluate research funding. S&T represents
    the amount of funding directed towards the creation of new knowledge
    and technologies as opposed to development activities.
        Dr. Marburger himself has stated that federal R&D is an imperfect
    measure for evaluating science and technology funding and most agree
    that S&T is the correct metric.
        A lot of numbers will get thrown around this morning to put a
    pretty face on the budget but the fact of the matter is that the
    Administration's own Table 5-2 clearly shows a one percent decrease for
    Federal S&T investment for FY07 (see attachment).
        Knowing that fact and being aware of Dr. Marburger's statements in
    recent budget briefings, in the spirit of the Olympics, I'd like
    nominate to Dr. Marburger for a gold medal in the category of
    statistical gymnastics for making a one percent decrease look like a
    one percent increase despite the fact that it's almost $600 million
    less than FY06 funding and $1 billion less than what the Administration
    requested last year according to their own budget documents.
        So, in the same breath, the Administration decries earmarks in last
    year's budget but then counts earmarks when showing how much the S&T
    budget has increases during their administration from 2001-2007.
        As for NSF FY07 funding, I'm glad that the Administration has
    proposed an eight percent increase. In 2002, the Congress passed, and
    this President signed into law, an authorization bill doubling NSF
    funding over five years. However, the President's requests for NSF
    since that signing ceremony are still $3.8 billion short of their
    commitment.
        When we dig deeper we find, at least in my opinion, misguided
    priorities. I was very disappointed to see a continued de-emphasis of
    K-12 science education at NSF. Even as the NSF budget grows, the
    Administration proposes a seven percent cut to K-12 programs.
        NSF has been a leader in improving science and math education for
    over 50 years. I do not understand how ignoring NSF's expertise in the
    education component of the President's initiative helps
    competitiveness.
        From my point of view competitiveness is about keeping our good
    jobs and creating even more and better jobs. Yet, the Administration
    proposed to cut MEP funding by 56 percent. MEP is the only federal
    program designed specifically to assist small manufacturers. MEP is the
    only program with a proven track record in creating and retaining
    manufacturing jobs right now. We have lost 2.8 million manufacturing
    jobs since 2001. This last year alone, we lost another 55,000
    manufacturing jobs.
        I don't see how cutting MEP 56 percent, and NIST overall by 23
    percent, increases American competitiveness. The bipartisan National
    Association of Governors has wholeheartedly endorsed MEP.
        So Yes, there are winners but unfortunately there are too many
    losers.
        That's the reason we have hearings and hopefully as we go through
    the legislative process we be able to realign some of these priorities
    in ways that increase our nation's competitive edge.
        As people become more familiar with the Augustine Report, they will
    recognize that when we talk about science funding, it's more than just
    welfare for people in lab coats looking though microscopes. It's not an
    academic exercise--knowledge for the sake of knowledge--it's about
    jobs, competing in the global market and our kids and our grandkids'
    standard of living.
        As the Augustine Commission pointed out, ``The thrust of our
    findings is straightforward. The standard of living of Americans in the
    years ahead will depend to a very large degree on the quality of the
    jobs that they are able to hold. Without quality jobs our citizens will
    not have the purchasing power to support the standard of living which
    they seek, and to which many have become accustomed; tax revenues will
    not be generated to provide for strong national security and health
    care; and the lack of a vibrant domestic consumer market will provide a
    disincentive for either U.S. or foreign companies to invest in jobs in
    America.''
        That means we must invest in S&T. But I'm afraid this budget simply
    does not make an adequate investment.
        However, bipartisan legislation in the Senate includes many of the
    recommendations of the Augustine commission. I also have introduced
    legislation that will incorporate the education and energy
    recommendations of the report.
        I hope we can mount a bipartisan, bi-cameral effort together with
    executive branch cooperation to improve this budget into something that
    truly helps our nation remain strong economically now and long into the
    future.
        Thank you and I yield back to the Chairman.

        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, particularly for
    your close. Eloquent words and I think you'll find that we're
    all in agreement with those words. And let me observe this. I,
    too, wish we had just more than one hearing with this very
    distinguished panel, but guess what? The reality is, these
    people, everyone wants their time. We're getting them first and
    we're having a good opportunity for a thorough dialogue, a
    meaningful dialogue, and then, as in all previous years, we'll
    have our subcommittees go into play and deal with each of the
    agencies in a meaningful way.
        Secondly, and I know this because we've participated in
    many joint sessions where we have one or more of these
    distinguished guests sitting down over a cup of coffee in the
    office and after we get talking about baseball--tomorrow's the
    first day of spring training--then we get down to serious
    business. But these are very busy people and we're fortunate to
    have them. These are the lead-off hitters. We're anxious to
    hear from them and I think today will be a very important start
    of something really significant, not just for this
    Administration or this committee, but for our beloved country.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Chairman Ken Calvert

        I welcome our honored witnesses today and look forward to their
    testimony. In the State of the Union Address, the President committed
    $5.9 billion in the upcoming fiscal year, and more than $136 billion
    over ten years to increase our nation's investment in R&D, to
    strengthen education and to encourage entrepreneurship and innovation.
    The centerpiece of the American Competitiveness Initiative will help to
    ensure our global leadership by doubling over 10 years, our investment
    in key federal agencies that support basic research in the physical
    sciences and engineering. Your agencies are the recipients of this
    critical investment and now have a mandate to keep our country
    competitive globally.
        We all expect this to be a tough budget year, but I believe there
    is strong bipartisan support for this initiative and I plan to work
    with the President and my colleagues to ensure strong funding for our
    science programs and science agencies, including NASA, in order to
    retain our global competitiveness and to grow our economy through the
    next generation.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

        The President's FY 2007 budget request reflects several pressing
    national priorities, including the continuing war on terrorism,
    facilitating economic stimulus, and maintaining fiscal responsibility.
    The Congress will have many difficult choices to make in order to
    balance these priorities, control the deficit and implement our
    considerable domestic spending commitments.
        In making these choices, we must not overlook the fact that
    scientific research and development underpins all of these priorities.
    Scientific research and development forms the foundation of increased
    innovation, economic vitality and national security. Scientific
    research is an investment that promises, and has historically
    delivered, significant returns on that investment.
        I strongly support the President's call to maintain the competitive
    ability of the United States in an increasingly innovative world
    economy. His American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) requests focused
    funding on areas that will improve STEM education and promote domestic
    innovation and economic productivity.
        Our investment in physical science research has been slipping, and
    our overall national investment in research and development is at a
    rate much slower when compared to other growing economies. Furthermore,
    Congress has actually reduced the appropriated funds for the physical
    sciences in recent years, compared to the request.
        I want to particularly emphasize three science research and
    development programs that have garnered the attention of the President
    and deserve Congress' utmost attention: the National Institute of
    Standards and Technology, the National Science Foundation, and the
    Department of Energy's Office of Science.
        I am pleased that the budget request includes $467 for the core
    NIST laboratory programs arid facilities in FY07, a 17 percent increase
    over FY06 enacted. This increase includes $72 million for new research
    initiatives and enhancements to NIST's user facilities. I believe it is
    very important to support this request, as it represents a significant
    yet sensible investment in programs that give the U.S. a significant
    head start in several fields of emerging technology in quantum physics
    and nanotechnology that will ultimately have great economic impacts.
        While I am pleased that the President has included NIST labs in his
    ACI, I am very concerned about other manufacturing programs at NIST.
    The President's FY 2007 budget request cuts the Manufacturing Extension
    Partnership (MEP) program by over 50 percent to $46 million. I have
    worked very hard over the years to help my colleagues in Congress
    understand that MEP is vital to retaining American competitiveness and
    American jobs, and I believe they appreciate the value of this program.
    Furthermore, I continue to support the Advanced Technology Program
    (ATP) and am disappointed that the Administration has again included no
    funds for the program in the budget request. ATP is NIST's only
    extramural research grant program, funding high-risk, high-return
    technology research and development on a cost-shared basis with U.S.
    industry, and as such can make a major contribution to the American
    Competitiveness Initiative.
        The NSF's FY 2007 budget request of $6.0 billion is an eight
    percent increase over FY 2006 appropriations, the first year in a ten-
    year commitment to double its budget. This marks a shift from previous
    budget requests, as the NSF budget has been stagnant in recent years,
    and even cut in FY 2005. The request is still well below the authorized
    funding level necessary to complete the commitment Congress made to
    double NSF funding in 2002, but I am confident that this request is the
    start of a new doubling path that we can follow.
        While I am heartened by the commitment the Administration's request
    shows for the fundamental research budget at NSF, I would like to
    register my concern that the education programs at the Foundation have
    not been included in the ACI. NSF is the primary federal supporter of
    science and math education; it underwrites the development of the next
    generation of scientists and engineers. In the FY 2007 budget request,
    many of the education programs at the K-12 and undergraduate level will
    be cut. I am particularly concerned about the trend of the current
    budget request that restructures the Education and Human Resources
    (EHR) budget at the Foundation and eliminates three programs critical
    to our nation, including the Math and Science Partnership program.
    These budget choices seriously undercut the ACI's goals to improve math
    and science education and to ensure that America has an educated
    workforce capable of competing in the global economy.
        The Department of Energy's Office of Science funds 40 percent of
    our nation's physical science research. To maintain our economic,
    technical, and military preeminence, the Federal Government must
    continue to support research in alternative energy sources,
    nanotechnology and supercomputing. I am pleased that the Office of
    Science is included in the President's ACI and that the FY 2007 budget
    request for the Office of Science is $4.1 billion--an increase of 14
    percent from the FY 2006 enacted level. Last year the Office endured
    significant cuts that, in part, led to layoffs and the delay of many
    important instruments. As part of the American Competitiveness
    Initiative, the Office of Science is not only important to the future
    of U.S. science, but also our competitiveness and energy security.
        FY 2007 will be another tough budget year. Significant sacrifices
    and compromises in spending must be made. We must not, however,
    sacrifice the research and education which future generations will need
    to ensure their economic prosperity and domestic security. I look
    forward to working with my colleagues and the witnesses testifying
    today to bolster American research and education.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello

        Good morning. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before
    our committee to discuss the President's FY07 Budget for research and
    development. Today's hearing serves as an opportunity for oversight of
    certain departmental programs.
        Although I am pleased with the Administration's strong commitment
    to the FutureGen Initiative and the Biofuels Initiative, I am
    disappointed to learn that important jobs programs were severely cut
    and the fossil energy research and development budget was decreased.
        First, as part of the Administration's ``American Competitiveness
    Initiative,'' the President's budget proposes significant increases to
    support basic research in physical sciences for the Department of
    Energy (DOE) Office of Science, National Science Foundation (NSF) and
    parts of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
    While I am pleased there are increases in this area, the majority of
    science and technology programs are faced with significant losses in
    the FY07 budget. For instance, the overall federal science and
    technology budget has been targeted for a decrease again this year by
    the Administration.
        Competitiveness is about job creation and retention. Yet, the
    single best government program to provide immediate help to U.S.
    manufacturers, the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP), is severely
    cut again this year. MEP is the only federal program with a proven
    track record in creating and retaining manufacturing jobs; yet, the
    Administration proposes to cut MEP by 56 percent. Annually, the
    Illinois Manufacturing Extension Center (IMEC) provides assistance to
    about 450 small and mid-sized manufacturers. These companies reported
    an average cost savings of $179,000 with IMEC's assistance. Year after
    year, MEP Centers struggle to survive rather than focus on what they do
    best: helping businesses increase efficiency and productivity in order
    to be competitive in the global marketplace.
        Additionally, the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) is targeted for
    elimination. Both MEP and ATP have widespread Congressional and private
    sector support because they help in job creation now and in the future
    and reduce the loss of jobs overseas. The lack of funding for these
    jobs programs shows complete disregard for important domestic
    priorities, such as maintaining high-skill, high-wage jobs for hard
    working Americans.
        Second, the Department of Energy's Fossil Energy Research and
    Development programs make prudent investments in long-range research
    and development that help protect the environment through higher
    efficiency power generation, advanced technologies and improved
    compliance and stewardship operations. These activities safeguard our
    domestic energy security. This country will continue to rely on
    traditional fuels for the majority of its energy requirements for the
    foreseeable future, and the activities funded through this account
    ensure that energy technologies continue to improve with respect to
    emissions reductions and control and energy efficiency. The Fossil
    Energy Research and Development program impacts my congressional
    district because the coal industry is of great importance to the
    economy and livelihood of my constituents in Southern Illinois.
    Therefore, I am disappointed to learn that coal programs within fossil
    energy and research and development received $330 million in FY07, a
    decrease of $46 million from FY06. I have been a strong advocate for
    developing technology that focuses on carbon sequestration and am proud
    of the $7.6 million increase it received in the President's budget.
    However, I would like to see a future increase of advanced research and
    coal-based fuel programs and will work with my Democratic and
    Republican colleagues to accomplish these goals.
        Third, I applaud the Administration's strong commitment to launch a
    public-private partnership, FutureGen, to develop a coal-based facility
    that will produce electricity and hydrogen with essentially zero
    atmospheric emissions. This budget includes $54 million in FY07 and
    proposes an advance appropriation of $203 million for the program in
    FY08. I am committed to working with the Department of Energy, the
    Committee, and appropriators from both sides of the aisle to secure
    funding for FutureGen. I strongly believe the project is a great
    national investment and Illinois stands ready to provide the resources
    and expertise needed to operate this state-of-the-art coal-fired power
    plant.
        I have led the effort to locate FutureGen in Illinois, including a
    bipartisan effort in the House to secure funding for the project. The
    Illinois delegation has sent a letter to Secretary Bodman, expressing
    our strong support for locating the FutureGen project in Southern
    Illinois.
        Lastly, the FY07 budget proposes $149.7 million for a Biomass and
    Biorefinery Systems Research and Development program to support the new
    Biofuels Initiative to develop cost competitive ethanol from cellulosic
    materials (agricultural wastes, forest residues, and bioenergy crops)
    by 2012. With the enactment of the Energy bill last August, the
    Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) was signed into law, and it is expected
    to double ethanol production and use by 2012. Illinois ranks second in
    U.S. corn production and corn grown and Illinois is used to produce 40
    percent of the ethanol consumed in the United States. We are in a
    unique position to service this demand. I support the Biofuels
    Initiative because it will boost ethanol production in my state, and
    will work towards achieving the ultimate goal of reducing our
    dependence on foreign sources of oil.
        I welcome our panel of witnesses and look forward to their
    testimony.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
        I would like to welcome all of the witnesses who are here today.
    The agencies you represent shape our federal science and technology
    enterprise.
        For the fourteen years that I have been a Member of Congress, I
    have advocated for federal leadership in S&T and sustained, strong
    federal investment in agencies such as the Department of Energy,
    Department of Commerce, National Science Foundation and the Department
    of Homeland Security.
        It is unfortunate that the current federal leadership has
    overlooked the potential of the physical sciences when it comes to
    national prosperity. While the biological sciences have received
    funding increases in recent years, the physical sciences have not been
    supported. As a result, our national competitiveness has suffered.
        The President's recent State of the Union address contained
    promising language suggesting that a more favorable science budget
    authority is on the horizon. I am interested in the details.
        The details will reveal the true commitment--or lack thereof--when
    it comes to support of the physical sciences.
        Again, I thank all of the witnesses for coming today to discuss
    details with us. I know you walk a fine line of science advocacy that
    can be particularly challenging during years of budget constraint. I
    appreciate your leadership and encourage you to continue to take a
    stand for science.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Representative Michael M. Honda

        I thank Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon for holding
    this important hearing today, and I thank our distinguished panel of
    witnesses for making the time to be here.
        In his State of the Union address, President Bush said some things
    that sounded pretty good--he proposed an American Competitiveness
    Initiative and said we need to break our addiction to oil.
    Unfortunately, this budget request does not live up to the lofty
    expectations set in that address. Instead, it cuts funding for other
    science and technology programs to fund the Initiative, doesn't invest
    sufficiently in the kind of energy programs we will need to break our
    addiction to oil, falls short of what is needed to create an educated
    and skilled workforce for the future, proposes to kill the very federal
    programs which are able to create jobs, and even places its funding
    initiatives in peril by coupling them with cuts to popular programs
    that Congress is likely to restore.
        Despite a purported focus to end our oil addiction, the budget for
    some programs with the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy office
    would decrease by 18 percent. Increases in programs such as solar and
    biomass come at the expense of wind, down two percent; energy
    efficiency, down 13 percent; weatherization, down 27 percent, and
    hydropower and geothermal, which are eliminated. The NSF Math and
    Science Partnerships Program is cut by 27 percent, and the
    undergraduate education program is reduced seven percent. These
    reductions, coupled with the President's proposal to eliminate 42
    education programs and cut the Department of Education budget by the
    largest dollar amount ever, are incompatible with the President's
    rhetoric about the importance of educating our future workforce.
        Two of the most effective government programs at helping to create
    and maintain high tech jobs in the U.S. are the Manufacturing Extension
    Partnership (MEP) Program and the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). In
    a departure from the MEP authorization bill passed by this committee
    last year, the budget would cut the funding for the program by 56
    percent. And once again, like a broken record, the budget proposes
    eliminating ATP. This year the rationale is that the program isn't
    needed ``due to the growth of venture capital and other financing
    sources.'' While VCs raised a great deal of money last year, their
    investments did not go up appreciably, and in 2005, VCs cut their seed
    funding by 54 percent from the 2004 level, from $118.3 million down to
    $54.3 million. This is the stage of technology development that ATP
    funds, and it is clearly needed to fill a growing gap in private sector
    funding.
        Finally, I am worried that in the shell game that this budget is,
    DOE science will ultimately be short changed. The budget is able to
    increase funding for this by making unrealistically low requests in
    other areas, such as the Army Corps of Engineers budget. Congress is
    sure to restore the Corps funding, and since those programs are in the
    same appropriations bill as the DOE research funding, I see serious
    obstacles to getting the total research funding appropriated.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Representative Russ Carnahan

        Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon, thank you for hosting
    this hearing. Dr. Marburger, Dr. Bodman, Dr. Sampson, Dr. Bement, and
    Dr. McQueary, thank you for taking the time to share your perspectives
    on the science-related components of the President's annual budget.
        Many of us were delighted to hear President Bush declare a national
    focus on science and math education and a renewed interest in
    cultivating an innovative workforce in the United States. As a co-
    sponsor of Congressman Gordon's three bills to implement the Augustine
    Report recommendations, I am strongly supportive of efforts to get our
    nation's STEM education and workforce back on pace.
        However, I am saddened to realize that many of the same budget cuts
    proposed last year in the area of science have been again included in
    the President's budget request. In particular, the funding for the
    Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, an invaluable program that
    helps small manufacturers improve productivity through new technologies
    has been slashed by 56 percent.
        While the Department of Energy's Efficiency and Renewable Energy
    Resources line item has remained relatively level in this budget, I am
    aware that major energy efficiency programs, including LIHEAP,
    weatherization and electricity have seen significant cuts in an effort
    to boost up other programs. I look forward to discussing these choices
    as well during this hearing.
        Finally, I am greatly concerned with funding for the National
    Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) because my congressional
    district resides along the New Madrid fault line. While it appears that
    portions of the NEHRP budget have been increased, NIST, the lead agency
    for NEHRP is funded at about $10 million below the authorized level.
        Thank you for your time today. I look forward to hearing your
    testimony.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee

        Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, thank you for organizing
    this important hearing to discuss the federal research and development
    budget for the 2007 fiscal year. Clearly, you have compiled an
    impressive panel of witnesses from some of the top agencies affected by
    this budget. The five panelists here represent some of the brightest
    and hardest working minds in America and I look forward to working with
    all of them in the future to improve our nation's scientific and
    technological capabilities.
        I wholeheartedly support the work of the science community, and the
    goal of President Bush's ``American Competitiveness Initiative.'' In
    spite of claims that this 2007 budget includes $5.9 billion for this
    initiative, however, the picture for science and technology looks
    bleak. $4.6 billion of the $5.9 billion simply extends the existing
    research and development tax credit. I applaud the increases in basic
    research at the DOE, NSF and NIST, but I am upset that President Bush's
    Administration decided it was necessary, in order to pay for these
    increases, to make severe cuts to other research areas, including
    applied research.
        Overall, when you exclude research for weapon systems (called the
    Federal Science and Technology Budget), the budget for research is
    actually cut by one percent.
        As Chair of the Congressional Children's caucus, I am especially
    aware of the effect the government's budget can have on children. Cuts
    across the board in the President's budget are especially hurtful to
    our children, including to Head Start, No Child Left Behind, and
    children's health care, will undermine the President's goals of
    ensuring our country remains a competitive nation in the global economy
    into the future. A good amount of money has been redistributed to help
    science and math education, but those truly concerned with the
    preservation of our technological dominance on the world stage agree
    that we must go much further to help the advancement of our children,
    especially young women and minorities.
        Further, this Administration's budget continues to pass record
    deficits on to our children and continues the same bad choices that
    have led to huge deficits and mounting debt during the last four years.
    For the fourth year in a row, the Administration's budget contributes
    to record deficits, and offers no real plan to put the budget in
    balance. This deficit hasn't materialized because our Administration
    has invested so much into the science and technology budget; instead,
    money is funneled to fund tax cuts for the rich. Sadly, with the
    exception of a few well deserving agencies, the overall budget does not
    fund programs that advance our future interests. I strongly agree with
    Ranking Member Gordon's comment that although recognition was given in
    the State of the Union address to the importance of the research and
    development budget, the rhetoric does not match the reality.
        The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) FY07
    request is also well below its authorized level. I am appalled by the
    Administration's effort to slash funding to the Manufacturing Extension
    Program (MEP) and eliminate the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) in
    the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) budget. The
    MEP is a successful federal/State partnership designed to help small
    manufacturers retain their competitive edge. The Administration's
    request of $46.8 million is less than one-half of what is required to
    maintain a fully operational national network of MEP Centers. MEP helps
    smaller manufacturers take advantage of the latest technology.
    Similarly, the ATP provides grants to companies for pre-competitive
    research; this program is now being completely eliminated from the Bush
    Administration budget. This is no way to help the crisis we face in the
    great loss of manufacturing jobs in this nation. In spite of these
    tremendous job losses, this Administration chooses to basically
    eliminate two successful government job creation programs. I find this
    kind of fiscal mismanagement to be baffling, and hope our committee can
    address some of these problems forward.
        Four years ago, the President signed P.L. 107-368, doubling the
    National Science Foundation (NSF) funding over five years.
    Unfortunately, the requests for NSF since the signing ceremony have
    been lackluster at best. As a result of these deficient funds, NSF is
    still $3.8 billion (39 percent) below its FY 2007 authorized target.
        Shortly after this year's horrific hurricane season ended, we sat
    in this room during a hearing and heard how the only agency that
    performed well during the response to Hurricane Katrina was the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The President
    has rewarded their hard work by again cutting their budget, down to
    $3.68 billion from $3.85 billion in FY06 and from $3.91 billion in
    FY05.
        Research and development cuts in this budget also target programs
    within the Federal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office at the
    Department of Energy (an 18 percent cut) and the Environmental
    Protection Agency (a seven percent cut).
        Despite the great deals of flaws in the President's budget and the
    woeful lack of funding for R&D, I remain hopeful. I remain hopeful
    because we still have many tremendous R&D programs that can impact the
    lives of the American people in so many different ways. I look forward
    to seeing our scientific community continue to make advances and
    improve upon our technological infrastructure. I also look forward to
    working with fellow Members of the Science Committee in defending these
    programs for which we all care so much. I am excited to hear from our
    distinguished panel about how their agencies will accomplish the lofty
    standards they have set for themselves, the achievement of which we are
    all so proud. Thank you very much.

        Chairman Boehlert. And with that, let me introduce our
    distinguished panel; Dr. John H. Marburger III, Director of the
    Office Science and Technology Policy, affectionately referred
    to as Science Advisor to the President; Dr. Samuel W. Bodman,
    Secretary of Energy; Dr. David A. Sampson, Deputy Secretary of
    Commerce; Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science
    Foundation; and for his farewell presentation, Dr. Charles E.
    McQueary, Under Secretary for Science and Technology,
    Department of Homeland Security.
        And, Dr. McQueary, let me say to you, I know you announced
    last week that you've submitted your resignation. We are going
    to miss you and we thank you for your significant contribution
    to shaping responsible public policy and having that
    responsible public policy implemented. It has been a delight to
    work with you and we wish you well.
        With that, gentlemen, let's go forward. We'll put the clock
    on but ignore the lights. I mean, but just when the red light
    goes on after the five minutes, just say well, maybe I better
    think about wrapping it up. And I'm always offended. You know,
    we have some of the greatest talent in the world. Nobel
    laureates before the Committee. We have some of the most
    dedicated and effective public servants in the world, cabinet
    officers and people who are developing public policy for the
    Nation, and we ask them on Capitol Hill to summarize, in 300
    seconds or less, what they want to tell us. So I couldn't agree
    more with Bart Gordon. I mean, we'd liked to have more of your
    time, but we've got to deal with the reality. With that, Dr.
    Marburger, you're first up.

      STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN H. MARBURGER III, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
                     SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

        Dr. Marburger. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
    Ranking Member Gordon and Members of the Committee. Thanks for
    inviting me to testify again this year on the President's
    research and development budget, and I have submitted a written
    statement, a very detailed statement for the record, so I can
    be brief. And now, thanks to your remarks, Mr. Chairman,
    everyone here does know that President Bush's State of the
    Union message last month spoke to the importance of basic
    research for America's future economic strength, and launched a
    new American Competitiveness Initiative in that speech.
        The initiative includes multi-year increases in funding for
    three agencies, whose programs support high-impact basic
    research in the physical sciences: the National Science
    Foundation, the Department of Energy Office of Science, and the
    National Institute of Standards and Technology. And the figure
    that's showing on your screen shows how their budgets would
    increase over a decade. These prioritized agencies enjoy a
    collective increase of 9.3 percent in this fiscal year 2007
    request, and a commitment to double their total over the next
    decade, which would require an average increase of seven
    percent per year.
        This initiative also includes enhanced incentives for
    corporate investments in research, improvements in immigration
    policy for highly qualified technical workers and students,
    programs to improve the quality of math and science education,
    experience, and pre-college education, and expansion of worker
    training programs for 21st century careers. There's a copy of a
    brochure describing this initiative. It's been distributed to
    the Members of the Committee and others. It's widely available.
    And I direct your attention to that brochure for further
    information, although we will certainly answer questions about
    it.
        The President also announced the Advanced Energy Initiative
    in his State of the Union message, and my colleague, Secretary
    Bodman, will have more details about that in his testimony.
        I want to emphasize that while this initiative identifies
    priorities, it does not abandon or diminish the importance of
    other areas of science and technology, such as biomedical
    research or space science. The case for increased funding for
    the ACI priority agencies is documented in many reports and
    studies that link strong physical sciences research to progress
    in all fields. And I want to thank the organizations like the
    President's own Council of Advisors on Science and Technology,
    the Council on Competitiveness, and the National Academy of
    Sciences for their excellent reports and advocacy on themes
    that the President's initiative addresses.
        Your own actions, Mr. Chairman, as well as those of other
    Committee Members and Members from both parties of the House
    and the Senate, have added significantly to the favorable
    reception of this initiative and will continue to be important
    as it works its way through Congress. My colleagues on today's
    panel will speak to the impact of this initiative on their
    agencies, but the President's proposal maintains significant
    strength across the breadth of science and adds new funding
    where it is most needed to sustain America's highly successful
    innovation economy.
        Now a superficial examination of the R&D section of the
    President's fiscal year 2007 budget will show that funding
    proposed for some key science areas is lower than appropriated
    amounts for the current year, fiscal year 2006. In nearly all
    cases, this difference is due to the removal of so-called
    earmarks that agencies did not request for fiscal year 2006 and
    that do not contribute to the highest priority needs of their
    programs. The budget proposal before you responds to agency
    priorities as determined by careful planning and consultation
    with scientists, engineers and educators who are experts in
    their fields. This Administration believes strongly that the
    best way to spend public funds for science is through a process
    that judges the merits of proposals from scientists by
    independent panels of experts. I ask this committee's
    assistance in ensuring the best use of these scarce dollars for
    research upon which our future quality of life depends.
        Well, overall, this year's R&D budget exceeds last year's
    by 2.6 percent, establishing a new all-time high of $137
    billion, an increase of 50 percent since 2001, and the figure
    that's now on the screen shows the trend in non-defense R&D in
    constant dollar outlays. It is true that there is a more
    meaningful measure of our investment in science and technology,
    the Federal Science and Technology budget category. As the
    Ranking Member noted, that category is down by one percent,
    relative to 2006 appropriations, but it's up by 3.7 percent
    when earmarks are set aside. The request number, by the way,
    shows--which is a slightly different number. We need more gold
    medals for statistics. There's many of us that have to be
    experts in order to interpret this budget. But the reason for
    the specific number that Congressman Gordon referred to is due
    to a change in the category of applied research within NASA for
    the Crew Exploration Vehicle to development. As that program
    matures, the nature of the work changes and there was more than
    $2 billion transfer in categories that affect the bottom line
    FS&T number.
        I regret to say that earmarks in the category, Federal
    Science and Technology, are now estimated to be $2.7 billion,
    which is five percent of the entire Federal Science and
    Technology budget. Actually, since the NIH and NSF budgets are
    thankfully spared from this practice, that $2.7 billion is
    approximately 10 percent of those budgets that are earmarked.
    Multi-agency initiatives such as the National Nanotechnology
    Initiative and Networking and Information Technology R&D also
    received increases in the President's budget, excluding
    earmarks. Our office produces a detailed budgetary supplement
    document for each of these programs, which we will deliver to
    Congress as soon as possible. One of them is available today on
    the Networking and Information Technology R&D Program. I'm glad
    that we were able to get that out so timely. The next one will
    be ready soon.
        Moving on to other agencies. The $28.4 billion top-line
    budget for the 27 NIH institutes and centers is being held
    constant in this proposal, at a level that exceeds the original
    NIH doubling figure by $1.2 billion. The President strongly
    supports the priorities and distribution of funds within NIH,
    advocated by Director Zerhouni and his forward-looking roadmap
    process. NASA's top line, the 2006 to 2010 five-year budget, is
    also maintained at the $86.4 billion in last year's request,
    while NASA science increases 1.5 percent with, or 2.1 percent
    without, earmarks. I want to say that these two agencies have
    outstanding directors, who enjoy the confidence of this
    Administration. I would point out that research budgets for
    NASA and NIH have been more commensurate with the opportunities
    in their fields, than have budgets of other agencies with
    significant basic physical science research missions.
        One other important physical science and engineering agency
    is the Department of Defense, whose basic and applied research
    budget is severely earmarked with more than $1 billion of
    designated funding not requested by the DOD agencies. The
    President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposes and increase of
    eight percent for DOD 6.1 and 6.2 research, relative to its own
    earmarked base.
        Mr. Chairman, the President's research and development
    budget for fiscal year 2007 demonstrates a significant
    commitment to science essential for the future leadership of
    our country. I look forward to working with you and your
    Committee to begin delivery on that commitment during the
    coming months, and I thank you for this opportunity.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Marburger follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of John H. Marburger III

        Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Minority Member Gordon, and Members of
    the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you once again to discuss
    the President's research and development (R&D) budget. This is my fifth
    year coming before you soon after the budget release to discuss the
    President's commitment to research and development. Once again, let me
    say that I greatly appreciate the effective working relationship
    between our office and your committee, which I believe has resulted in
    good outcomes for the Nation's science and technology enterprise.
        One of these outcomes has been recognition by this Administration
    of the critical nature of research as the foundation to our nation's
    economic competitiveness. This is a message that the President has
    elevated through his American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which
    received prominent attention during his State of the Union Address, and
    in many of his speeches and remarks since then.
        I will discuss the ACI in a moment, but first I want to provide
    some overall context for this year's budget.
        President Bush has made it very clear that his top budget priority
    is to cut the deficit in half by 2009 by continuing the President's
    strong pro-growth economic policies and limiting the growth in federal
    spending. The President's FY 2007 Budget does what is required to
    achieve this goal by reducing non-Department of Defense, non-Homeland
    Security discretionary spending by one-half of one percent. Of course,
    a budget is all about priorities. And while winning the war on terror
    and securing the homeland are the top two, investing in America's
    future competitiveness through research and development is also of
    critical importance to this Administration. The proof of this is a two
    percent increase in non-defense R&D within a declining overall non-
    defense budget. Under the FY 2007 Budget, R&D is 14.3 percent of non-
    defense discretionary budget authority, compared to 13.7 percent in
    2001 when the President took office. At a record $59 billion, non-
    defense R&D is up $1.1 billion in this year's request.

    MAXIMIZING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF RESEARCH FUNDING

        Before I get into specifics about this year's budget, I want to
    draw your attention to the very serious impact of earmarking on the
    science budget. I do this with some trepidation here, but I believe the
    problem has escalated in recent years and threatens to harm the
    effectiveness of our nation's science if it is not addressed.
        R&D earmarks have been increasing at a rate much faster than the
    growth in the overall R&D budget. The American Association for the
    Advancement of Science (AAAS), which uses a narrow definition of
    earmark, recently estimated that R&D earmarks total $2.4 billion in
    2006, an increase of 13 percent over the Association's 2005 estimate.
    The total has increased by about 63 percent since 2003. Other
    organizations have estimated even higher levels of R&D earmarking. This
    serious problem is noted in the President's Budget: ``Notwithstanding
    the recent progress in restraining discretionary spending, there is a
    widespread public perception that the number of earmarked spending
    items is excessive, and that too many of them are difficult to justify
    on the merits. The large number of earmarks, the lack of transparency,
    and the lack of a rigorous justification process make it difficult to
    assure taxpayers that their dollars are being spent wisely.''
        This administration supports awarding research funds based on merit
    review through a competitive process refereed by scientists, engineers,
    or other relevant experts. Such a system has the best prospects for
    ensuring that the most important research is supported. Research
    earmarks signal to potential investigators that there is an acceptable
    alternative to creating quality research proposals for merit-based
    consideration. Fortunately, Congress has not traditionally earmarked
    the budgets of the National Science Foundation or the National
    Institutes of Health. But major portions of other important science
    budgets are directed outside the agency advisory, planning, and
    evaluation processes. The problem is particularly serious within the
    Department of Defense, where the basic and applied research budgets
    have been subject to earmarks in excess of a billion dollars this year.
    The consequences of excessive earmarking go beyond underfunding the
    best possible science--it also impacts agency jobs and stability. For
    example, just last week the Department of Energy's Renewable Energy
    Laboratory (NREL) was forced to reduce its staff by 32 people to meet
    budget shortfalls caused by earmarked funding.
        The existence of earmarks also affects the interpretation of the
    numbers that appear in the FY 2007 Budget. To maximize the impact of
    competitive, merit-based programs, the Administration often does not
    request funds for projects that had been earmarked the previous year.
    The existence of earmarks in the FY 2006 estimates and their absence in
    the FY 2007 request means that it can appear that the 2007 Budget
    requests less funding for programs, even in instances where relevant
    program content actually is increasing. The fact that a significant
    fraction of an agency's appropriated funds may be unavailable for the
    agency's mission needs deserves much wider attention. In the NIST
    budget, for example, the FY 2006 appropriated budget includes $137
    million in earmarks, many of which do not contribute to NIST's mission.
    This is a huge amount compared to NIST's total budget of about $400M.
    The President is requesting a 24 percent increase for the NIST core
    budget, which amounts to $104M, but since this is less than the
    earmarks the total appearing in the budget documents for NIST appears
    to be a reduction of 5.8 percent from the current year.
        President Bush has called upon Congress to ensure that funds
    provided under the American Competitiveness Initiative are free of
    earmarks. As we discuss the importance of pursuing the best science to
    contribute to U.S. competitiveness, I hope the Congress will join with
    us to encourage competition for research funding by rejecting research
    earmarks in the FY 2007 appropriations process.

    THE PRESIDENT'S FY 2007 R&D BUDGET

        Given the overall environment of fiscal discipline, it is notable
    that President Bush once again proposes a record R&D budget--over $137
    billion, $3.4 billion more than this year's funding level. This
    represents an increase of more than 50 percent during this
    Administration. Funding proposed for basic research is $28.2 billion in
    2007, up from $21.3 billion in 2001--a 32 percent increase. While this
    year much focus is justifiably being placed on the President's words in
    his State of the Union address and the American Competitiveness
    Initiative, it is important to emphasize that the President's budgets
    have consistently supported research and development at levels
    commensurate with other major priorities throughout this
    Administration. Real five-year growth in the conduct of the R&D budget
    has exceeded 40 percent for each of the last two years, the first time
    five-year inflation adjusted R&D outlays have topped 40 percent since
    1967 and the Apollo era.

    AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE (ACI):

        American economic strength and national security depend on our
    nation's rich tradition of innovation. To strengthen our technological
    leadership in the world and build on the Administration's record of
    results, President Bush announced the American Competitiveness
    Initiative (ACI) in his State of the Union address. The ACI commits
    $5.9 billion in FY 2007, and more than $136 billion over 10 years, to
    increase investments in R&D, strengthen education, and encourage
    entrepreneurship and innovation.
        The centerpiece of the American Competitiveness Initiative is the
    President's proposal to double, over ten years, priority basic programs
    emphasizing the physical sciences and engineering. Physical sciences
    research develops and advances knowledge and technologies that are used
    by scientists in nearly every other field. President Bush seeks to
    strengthen federal investments in this area by providing three key,
    innovation-enabling research agencies with landmark initial investments
    in 2007: the National Science Foundation (NSF)--$6 billion; the
    Department of Energy's Office of Science (DOE SC)--$4.1 billion; and
    the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and
    Technology (NIST) core programs--$535 million. In addition to the
    collective doubling effort at these agencies, the President's Budget
    also prioritizes the similarly high-leverage basic and applied research
    at the Department of Defense in 2007 by requesting $5.9 billion, $442
    million (eight percent) more than last year's request.
        In 2007, the ACI proposes overall funding increases for NSF, DOE SC
    and NIST core of $910 million, or 9.3 percent. To achieve ten-year
    doubling, overall annual increases for these agencies will average
    roughly seven percent. This amounts to a total of $50 billion in new
    investments in high-leverage, innovation-enabling research that will
    underpin and complement shorter-term R&D performed by the private
    sector. To encourage private investment in innovation to be equally
    bold, President Bush continues to propose making the R&D tax credit
    permanent and supports modernizing it to make it even more effective.
        While the President has prioritized and focused physical science
    funding in past budgets through such coordinated programs such as the
    Networking Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD)
    program, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and others, the
    ACI represents an elevation of the role of the physical sciences
    contributing to national competitiveness and a significant ramping up
    of funding over a sustained budget period. This is good news for the
    science community and is a recognition and endorsement of the
    importance of the physical sciences and math and science education.
    Members of Congress--including many on this committee--have helped to
    bring attention to these issues in our national discourse. Many other
    groups also deserve credit for highlighting the importance of
    investment in this area, including the President's Council of Advisors
    on Science and Technology (PCAST), the Council on Competitiveness and
    the National Academy of Sciences. It is a rare day when so many
    different organizations speak with one voice. I am optimistic that with
    your help and the support of the scientific community, we can provide
    funding for ACI with a minimum of research earmarks.
    Networking Information Technology R&D (NITRD)
        A key interagency priority related to ACI is the Networking and
    Information Technology R&D (NITRD). President Bush's 2007 Budget
    contains $2.8 billion for NITRD and represents an increase of nine
    percent over 2006 and a 57 percent increase since 2001. This brings
    total investment in this area over six years to more than $13.7
    billion. Tools and capabilities that result from research in networking
    and information technologies propel advances in nearly every area of
    science and technology, and enhance the Nation's competitiveness.
    Agencies participating in the NITRD program actively coordinate their
    research programs, making these programs far more productive than if
    they were independent.
        High-end computing (HEC) continues to be a major focus of NITRD.
    DOE's Office of Science (DOE SC), NSF and NASA are all engaged in
    developing and/or operating leadership class computing systems as
    recommended in the 2004 Federal Plan for High-End Computing, with the
    goal of deploying petascale computing systems by the year 2010. The DOE
    SC 2007 investment of $103 million in leadership class computing,
    coupled with NSF's investment of $50 million in their Office of Cyber
    Infrastructure, will ensure that U.S. scientists and researchers have
    access to the most powerful computational resources in the world.
    Similarly, NASA continues to emphasize high-end computing within its
    NITRD portfolio through the operation of the Project Columbia
    supercomputer. All three agencies have pledged to make a portion of
    their leadership class computing systems available to other federal
    users and the larger research community. A nine percent increase in
    support for advanced networking research in 2007, primarily by NSF,
    DARPA and DOE SC, will ensure that large-scale networking technologies
    will keep pace with the rapid development of petascale computing
    systems, so that the results of petascale computations are immediately
    accessible for analysis.
        The 2007 Budget also includes significant increases in long-term
    fundamental research in cyber security and information assurance, as
    recommended by the President's Information Technology Advisory
    Committee.

    National Nanotechnology Initiative
        The President's 2007 Budget also provides over $1.2 billion for
    another key ACI interagency priority, the National Nanotechnology
    Initiative (NNI). The FY 2007 NNI request brings the total investment
    since the NNI was established in 2001 to over $6.5 billion and nearly
    triples the annual investment since the first year of the Initiative.
    This sustained investment is advancing our understanding of the unique
    phenomena and processes that occur at the nanometer scale and expedite
    the responsible use of this knowledge to achieve advances in medicine,
    manufacturing, high-performance materials, information technology, and
    energy and environmental technologies.
        Critical, broad-ranging investments continue to be made by NSF,
    reflecting the agency's mission in supporting fundamental research
    across all disciplines of science and engineering, whereas the DOD
    investment emphasizes development of materials, devices, and systems
    that address the department's mission. DOE is in the process of
    completing five Nanoscale Science Research Centers that will make
    advanced research facilities and instrumentation, as well as technical
    expertise of DOE laboratory staff, available to researchers from across
    the scientific research community.
        In addition to supporting the development of nanotechnology for
    beneficial uses, the NNI funds research on the human and environmental
    health implications of nanotechnology and methods for managing
    potential risks. The funding within the EPA will nearly double in 2007
    and additional efforts in this area are funded by NSF, HHS, NIST, DOD,
    and USDA.
        In response to recommendations by the President's Council of
    Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in its May 2005 report
    assessing the NNI, the Departments of Labor and Education have become
    participants in the interagency group that manages the NNI, thereby
    facilitating progress toward the education and workforce goals of the
    Initiative.
    Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI):
        In his State of the Union address, President Bush outlined the
    Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) in pursuit of a national goal of
    replacing more than 75 percent of U.S. oil imports from the Middle East
    by 2025. Since 2001, nearly $10 billion has been invested by the
    Federal Government to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable
    alternative energy sources. The AEI provides a 22 percent increase for
    certain clean-energy R&D programs at the Department of Energy (DOE).
    The Initiative will accelerate breakthroughs in two vital areas.
        The Administration will work to diversify energy sources for
    American homes and businesses through: the President's Coal Research
    Initiative, with $281 million in FY 2007 for development of clean coal
    technologies--nearly completing the President's $2 billion commitment
    four years ahead of schedule; the FutureGen project, a key part of the
    Coal Research Initiative, with $54 million in 2007 to support the
    partnership between government and the private sector to build a near-
    zero atmospheric emissions demonstration coal plant that captures the
    carbon dioxide it produces and stores it in deep geologic formations;
    the President's new $148 million Solar America Initiative--an increase
    of $65 million over FY 2006--to accelerate the development of
    semiconductor materials that convert sunlight directly to electricity;
    $44 million for wind energy research--a $5 million increase over the
    2006 level; and clean and safe nuclear energy under the new $250
    million global nuclear energy partnership.
        The President also proposes acceleration of the development of
    domestic, renewable alternatives to gasoline and diesel fuels through:
    $150 million for the Biofuels Initiative--a $59 million increase over
    FY 2006--to help develop bio-based transportation fuels such as
    ``cellulosic ethanol'' from agricultural waste products, such as wood
    chips, stalks, or switch grass; $31 million to speed the development of
    advanced battery technology to extend the range of hybrid vehicles and
    make possible ``plug-in'' hybrids and electric cars--a 27 percent
    increase over FY 2006; and $289 million for the President's Hydrogen
    Fuel Initiative.

    Climate Change Science and Technology
        The Administration is also carrying out two important climate
    change programs that represent a continuation of our commitment to
    understanding the climate system and developing technologies that will
    lead to cleaner, cheaper and more reliable alternative energy sources.
        The U.S. Global Change Research Program, authorized by the Global
    Change Research Act of 1990, and the President's Climate Change
    Research Initiative of 2001 are integrated in the comprehensive U.S.
    Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The CCSP published the Strategic
    Plan for the U.S. Climate Science Program in 2003, describing a
    strategy for developing knowledge of climate variability and change and
    for application of this knowledge. The 2007 CCSP budget sustains the
    level enacted in 2006. The CCSP comprises over 13 agencies, but nearly
    90 percent of the CCSP funding is distributed among NASA, NSF, NOAA and
    DOE. The Climate Change Research Initiative, a focused component of
    CCSP, is sustained at $200 million in 2007.
        The U.S. Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) supports
    research, development, deployment, and voluntary programs to reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions via renewable energy, fossil energy and
    nuclear energy, and also to improve efficiency and carbon
    sequestration. Led by DOE, CCTP recently published a Vision and
    Framework for Strategy which outlines six strategic goals that will
    guide the CCTP strategy planning and interagency coordination. These
    goals are:

              Reduce Emissions for Energy End-Use and
            Infrastructure

              Reduce Emissions from Energy Supply

              Capture and Sequester Carbon Dioxide

              Reduce Emissions of Non-CO2 Greenhouse
            Gases

              Improve Capabilities to Measure and Monitor GHG
            Emissions

              Bolster Basic Science Contributions to Technology
            Development

        CCTP will work toward these goals by employing several core
    approaches that will stimulate participation by others and ensure
    progress in this important area. These approaches include strengthening
    climate change technology research and development by helping to
    coordinate and prioritize ongoing activities, creating new
    opportunities for partnerships and international collaboration, and
    providing technology policy recommendations.

    AGENCY BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS

    National Science Foundation (NSF):
        Funds are requested to increase the budget for NSF by 7.9 percent
    to $6.02 billion in FY 2007, 36 percent above 2001's $4.4 billion
    level. Similar investments in the past have yielded important
    scientific discoveries, which boost economic growth and enhance
    Americans' quality of life.
        The centerpiece of the American Competitiveness Initiative is
    President Bush's plan to double investment over a 10-year period in key
    federal agencies that support basic research programs emphasizing in
    physical sciences and engineering. NSF is one of the three key
    agencies, as it is the primary source of support for university and
    academic research in the physical sciences, funding potentially
    transformative basic research in areas such as nanotechnology, advanced
    networking and information technology, physics, chemistry, material
    sciences, mathematics and engineering. The NSF funding derived from the
    ACI initiative is expected to support as many as 500 more research
    grants in 2007 and provide opportunities for upwards of 6,400
    additional scientists, students, post-doctoral fellows and technicians
    to contribute to the innovation enterprise.
        NSF leads two previously mentioned Administration priority research
    areas that promise to strengthen the Nation's economy: the National
    Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and the Networking and Information
    Technology R&D program (NITRD). NSF-funded nanotechnology research,
    proposed at $373 million in FY 2007, an 8.4 percent increase over 2006
    and 149 percent since 2001, has advanced our understanding of materials
    at the molecular level and has provided insights into how innovative
    mechanisms and tools can be built atom by atom. This emerging field
    holds promise for a broad range of developing technologies, including
    higher-performance materials, more efficient manufacturing processes,
    higher-capacity computer storage, and microscopic biomedical
    instruments and mechanisms. NSF's investments in NITRD, funded at $904
    million in 2007, up $93 million over 2006 and 42 percent since 2001,
    support all major areas of basic information technology (IT) research.
    NSF also incorporates IT advances into its scientific and engineering
    applications, supports using computing and networking infrastructure
    for research, and contributes to IT-related education for scientists,
    engineers, and the IT workforce.
        Continuing concerns about the vulnerability of computers, networks
    and information systems have prompted increased NSF investments in
    cyber security research, education and training. The NITRD investment
    includes $35 million, an increase of $10 million, for Cyber Trust, a
    cutting-edge research program to ensure that computers and networks
    underlying national infrastructures, as well as in homes and offices,
    can be relied upon to work even if faced with cyber attacks. Cyber
    Trust is part of a larger NSF Cyber Security and Information Assurance
    research effort totaling $97 million, an increase of 26 percent for FY
    2007.
        NSF will invest $20 million in fundamental research on new
    technologies for sensors and sensor systems to improve detection of
    explosives, including Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).
        The Foundation, in close cooperation with other agencies, will also
    address policy-relevant Science Metrics with a new research effort
    funded at $6.8 million. The goal is to develop the data, tools and
    knowledge needed to establish an evidence-based `science of science
    policy' as a means for informing policy-makers about opportunities and
    to encourage innovation.
        The FY 2007 Budget will continue NSF's efforts to prepare U.S.
    students for the science and engineering workforce. The new Discovery
    Research K-12 program will invest $104 million to strengthen K-12
    science, technology, engineering and mathematics education by
    supporting the development of effective science and math assessments,
    improving learning in K-12 education and introducing cutting edge
    discoveries into K-12 classrooms.
    Department of Energy (DOE):
        DOE is the lead agency for the President's Advanced Energy
    Initiative, highlighted above. The 2007 Budget proposes:

              $148 million for the Solar America Initiative (an
            increase of $65 million over FY06) to accelerate development of
            cost-effective photovoltaic materials;

              $150 million for the Biofuels Initiative (a $59
            million increase over FY06), to help enable cellulosic ethanol
            to be practical and competitive within six years;

              $31 million for development of high-energy, high-
            power batteries (a $6.7 million increase over FY06) for hybrid-
            electric and ``plug-in'' hybrid vehicles (includes $1.4 million
            for the Department of Transportation);

              $289 million for the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative (an
            increase of $53 million over FY06) to accelerate development of
            hydrogen fuel cells and affordable hydrogen-powered cars;

              $44 million for wind energy research (a $5 million
            increase over FY06) to help improve the efficiency and lower
            the costs of wind technologies for use in low-speed wind
            environments; and

              $54 million for the FutureGen Initiative (an increase
            of $36 million over FY06) to develop technologies for a coal
            gasification plant with near-zero atmospheric emissions.

        The 2007 budget also proposes $250 million for the Global Nuclear
    Energy Partnership (an increase of $171 million over FY06), with the
    goals to demonstrate advanced fuel cycle technologies, to expand the
    domestic use of nuclear power, and to provide for safe, environmentally
    responsible global nuclear energy systems that support non-
    proliferation objectives.
        The Office of Science in DOE (DOE-SC) is one of the three priority
    agencies in the President's American Competitiveness Initiative,
    supporting scientific studies and infrastructure for a wide range of
    R&D related to economically significant innovations. Within DOE-SC, the
    new funding from ACI is expected to support approximately 2,600 new
    researchers. Highlights of the FY07 budget proposal within DOE-SC
    include:

              completion of the Center for Integrated
            Nanotechnology and the Center for Functional Nanomaterials;

              maximum capacity operations of the full suite of
            major x-ray light source and neutron research facilities;

              support for project engineering and design and R&D
            for the National Synchrotron Light Source II;

              upgrade of the leadership class computing facilities
            at Oak Ridge and Argonne;

              upgrade of the NERSC supercomputer facility at LBNL;

              full operations for the high-energy physics
            facilities at SLAC and Fermilab;

              increase in support for R&D towards a potential
            linear collider;

              robust operations for the nuclear physics facilities
            at TJNAF and RHIC;

              project engineering and design towards an accelerator
            upgrade for the facility at TJNAF;

              full funding for ITER;

              increase in operations over FY06 for the domestic
            fusion facilities;

              optimum operations of the BER facilities;

              increase in support for the GTL research.

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST):
        National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) ``core''
    programs receive $535 million, an increase of 24 percent after earmarks
    are excluded from the enacted FY 2006 level, but a decrease of 5.8
    percent relative to 2006 appropriated funds. In 2007, the American
    Competitiveness Initiative proposes overall funding increases for NIST
    to focus on meeting the Nation's most urgent measurement science and
    standards to speed innovation and improve U.S. competitiveness. The FY
    2007 request is a 55 percent increase over 2001. The Administration
    continues to insist on the highest priority for NIST lab research which
    is producing the scientific foundation for new technologies and
    providing essential technical support through its standards activities
    for industrial development and commercialization of new and emerging
    technologies, in such areas as advanced manufacturing,
    nanomanufacturing and nanometrology, homeland security, biosystems and
    health, and quantum computing.
        To improve efficiency, the Budget also streamlines administrative
    layers within the Technology Administration (TA). The Budget reflects
    TA's intent to evaluate its current operating practices and incorporate
    methods to improve the effectiveness of its operations.

    Department of Defense (DOD):
        DOD's FY 2007 R&D budget is over $74 billion. This level of funding
    will support the Department's transforming commitment to reorient its
    capabilities and forces for greater agility, while enabling effective
    responses to asymmetric and uncertain challenges of future conflicts.
        These funds will also help address emergent threats through
    countermeasures to biological agents and novel technologies to detect
    and neutralize improvised explosive devices, mines, rockets and
    mortars.
        The Science and Technology (S&T) component of the overall DOD R&D
    budget includes basic research (6.1), applied research (6.2), and
    advanced technology development (6.3). At $11.1 billion in the FY 2007
    Budget, DOD S&T exceeds last year's request by $442 million. From 2000
    to 2006, Congressional adds to DOD S&T quadrupled. For 2006, there were
    over 1,300 of these adds (totaling $3.1 billion) that must be
    identified and tracked down, advertised in a way specific to the
    Congressional mark, evaluated, negotiated and awarded, all separate
    from other potential awards. This means that those awards consume
    several times the staff and management resources of the average
    research award, and may not even target a military-specific need. A
    total of $5.9 billion is provided for DOD basic and applied research.
    This is $738 million less than the FY 2006 enacted level in this
    category, but $561 million greater than the FY 2006 budget request. The
    struggle continues over Congressional earmarks and true DOD priorities.
    The Administration wishes to work with Congress to align Legislative
    and Executive priorities for funding the best scientific research
    possible to support our military forces.
        Events of the last few years, including the Global War on Terror
    and federal assistance to disasters in the U.S. and around the world,
    have emphasized the importance of continuing our investment in next
    generation command, control and communication technologies and our
    ability to integrate with sensor platforms. Specific high potential S&T
    programs relating to these challenges have been increased in this
    budget by $42.3 million (30 percent over 2006 enacted levels).
        The DOD also understands the importance of continued investment in
    power and energy technologies. These efforts span a range of topics--
    from novel battery technologies to reduce the weight burden that
    soldiers must carry to power their critical equipment--to research on
    advanced propulsion technologies to enable revolutionary aerospace
    capabilities. These aerospace propulsion investments include an
    additional $33 million (13 percent above 2006 enacted) in certain
    applied research and advanced technology development programs.
        The S&T needs of the DOD are diverse and highly challenging,
    drawing upon the best minds in the Service labs, industry and academia.
    The development of the future workforce to support defense S&T remains
    an important challenge. We continue to confront issues relating to
    training the next generation, attracting the best candidates and
    rewarding top performers. Important programs such as the National
    Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship program and
    the Science, Mathematics and Research for Transformation (SMART)
    Defense Scholarship program allow us to provide support and incentive
    to graduate and undergraduates to enter into DOD-relevant research
    careers. In fact, this budget virtually doubles the SMART program
    funding to $19.5 million.

    Department of Homeland Security (DHS):
        The President's FY 2007 request includes $1 billion for the DHS
    Directorate of Science and Technology (including funding for research
    at TSA, Coast Guard and Secret Service) and $536 million for the
    Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.
        R&D at DHS S&T is focused on countering the threat of terrorism
    through improved threat awareness and infrastructure protection, as
    well as the development of countermeasures against chemical and
    biological agents, explosives, and other catastrophic threats. The
    President's FY 2007 budget request will provide $86.5 million for R&D
    projects to address the threat from conventional explosives used in the
    form of improvised or vehicle born explosive devices, which remain one
    of the most accessible weapons available to terrorists to attack and
    cripple critical infrastructure, or to inflict severe casualties.
        To continue to develop the tools necessary to prevent the terrorist
    use of a nuclear weapon against the United States, the President's FY
    2007 Budget supports aggressive R&D and operational programs for
    nuclear defense with a 70 percent increase over FY 2006 funding to
    expand and support the capabilities of the Domestic Nuclear Detection
    Office (DNDO) DNDO is working to develop and deploy a comprehensive
    system to detect and mitigate any attempt to import, assemble or
    transport a nuclear explosive device, fissile material or radiological
    material intended for illicit use within the United States.
        The Administration is also eager to protect civilian and commercial
    aviation from the threat of man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS).
    The government has developed a multi-layered defense against this
    threat consisting of risk reduction at major airports, counter
    proliferation efforts, and development of new countermeasures. In the
    2007 Budget the President has requested $6 million to complete DHS's
    counter-MANPADS program. The final phase of this program calls for
    actual live testing of the two systems under development.
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA):
        Two years ago, the President outlined a bold vision for sustained
    and affordable human and robotic exploration of space, with the Moon as
    a first step toward human missions to Mars and beyond. NASA instituted
    various organizational and programmatic steps to pursue this vision in
    the initial months after its release. Over the last year, NASA has
    continued working to redirect its existing human space flight
    programs--the Space Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS)--
    toward the goal of supporting the vision. Further, it has determined
    the launch and spacecraft architecture requirements necessary to
    implement the vision in earnest. An exciting array of space science
    missions is also being planned that will enhance our understanding of
    the solar system, the complex interaction between the Earth and space
    and its impact on our environment, and the origin, structure,
    evolution, and destiny of the universe.
        In support of these goals, the President has requested $16.8
    billion in his 2007 budget for NASA, a 3.2 percent increase over the
    enacted 2006 level (excluding one-time supplementals), reflecting a
    strong commitment by the Administration to continued pursuit of the
    exploration vision. Of this amount, the budget provides $5.33 billion
    for earth and space science activities 1.5 percent increase in FY 2007
    over FY 2006 in order to continue advancing our knowledge of the Sun,
    Earth, planets and broader universe. Further, the budget requests $3.98
    billion for the new vehicles and technologies necessary to move forward
    on the exploration activities contained in the vision. Such activities
    include beginning development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (which
    will eventually carry astronauts to the Moon), pursuing the lunar
    robotic exploration program, and researching other critical new
    technologies to support exploration. The budget also proposes $6.23
    billion for operating the Space Shuttle and continuing assembly and
    operations of the ISS. With regard to this activity, NASA has selected
    a configuration for the ISS that is consistent with the President's
    vision and meets the needs of our international partners, while
    employing the minimum number of Shuttle flights required to complete
    assembly of the ISS before Shuttle retirement in 2010. I should note
    here that, of necessity, the budget for NASA also makes some difficult
    decisions, canceling some projects with high technical risk and/or
    whose cost would have led to the certain delay or cancellation of other
    important programs.
        In addition to supporting a broad range of space activities, the
    President has requested $724 million for NASA's aeronautics program.
    NASA is restructuring its aeronautics activities in order to dedicate
    itself to the mastery and intellectual stewardship of the core
    competencies of aeronautics in all flight regimes, as well as ensuring
    that research is focused on appropriate areas that are unique to NASA's
    capabilities. NASA will implement a completely replanned Airspace
    Systems Program in FY 2007 that aligns with key research requirements
    of the Next Generation Air Transportation System, and is working with
    the DOD to take a strategic, national asset view of aeronautics
    facilities such as wind tunnels.
        NASA is also working with the DOD to take a strategic, national
    asset view of aeronautics facilities such as wind tunnels.
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
        For the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in
    the Department of Commerce, the FY 2007 Budget provides $338 million
    for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), an 8.6 percent reduction
    from 2006 enacted, due mostly to earmarks. This investment provides for
    ongoing research on climate, weather, air quality, and ocean processes.
    For NOAA programs that support the climate change science program, $181
    million is provided, and the National Sea Grant College Program is
    sustained at the 2006 level of $55 million.

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
        The FY 2007 request for science and technology funding at EPA is
    $788 million, approximately eight percent above the FY 2006 level, even
    before accounting for earmarks. This investment supports core Agency
    programs and strengthens high priority program areas, including
    maintaining and improving our nation's water collection and
    distribution systems, understanding the potential environmental impacts
    of nanotechnology, and expanding EPA's computational toxicology
    program. In addition, the FY 2007 request continues to support the
    Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and the Science to Achieve
    Results (STAR) program. (OMB version)

    Department of Transportation (DOT):
        The FY 2007 Budget request for highway-related research is $562
    million, which is $38 million more than 2006. Highway research includes
    the Federal Highway Administration's transportation research and
    technology contract programs and National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration research and analysis. These research programs include
    the investigation of ways to improve safety, reduce congestion, improve
    mobility, reduce life cycle construction and maintenance costs, improve
    the durability and longevity of highway pavements and structures,
    enhance the cost-effectiveness of highway infrastructure investments,
    and minimize negative impacts on the natural and human environment.
        The 2007 Budget request for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
    Research, Engineering, and Development is $130 million, including $88
    million for continued research on aviation safety issues. The remaining
    research funding is for mobility and environmental issues, including
    $18 million for the Joint Planning and Development Office for the
    advancement of the Next Generation Air Transportation System.
        In addition, the 2007 Budget requests $8.2 million for the Research
    and Innovative Technology Administration to coordinate and advance the
    pursuit of transportation research that cuts across all modes of
    transportation, such as hydrogen fuels and remote sensing. DOT research
    programs also support the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the U.S.
    Climate Change Technology Program, and the President's Hydrogen Fuel
    Initiative.

    CONCLUSION

        Making choices is difficult even when budgets are generous, but
    tight budgets have the virtue of focusing on priorities and
    strengthening program management. This year's R&D budget proposal
    maintains levels of funding that allow America to maintain its
    leadership position in science and move ahead in selected priority
    areas. The American Competitiveness Initiative and Advanced Energy
    Initiative properly focus R&D investments in areas that will increase
    our economic competitiveness decrease our dependence on foreign oil,
    and accelerate development of clean energy technologies.
        America currently spends one and a half times as much on federally
    funded research and development as Europe, and three times as much as
    Japan, the next largest investor. Our scientists collectively have the
    best laboratories in the world, the most extensive infrastructure
    supporting research, the greatest opportunities to pursue novel lines
    of investigation, and the most freedom to turn their discoveries into
    profitable ventures if they are inclined to do so.
        We lead not only in science, but also in translating science to
    economically significant products that enhance the quality of life for
    all people.
        This budget will sustain this leadership and maintain science and
    technology capabilities that are the envy of the world. I would be
    pleased to respond to questions.

                      Biography for John H. Marburger III

        John H. Marburger III, Science Adviser to the President and
    Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, was born on
    Staten Island, N.Y., grew up in Maryland near Washington D.C. and
    attended Princeton University (B.A., Physics 1962) and Stanford
    University (Ph.D. Applied Physics 1967). Before his appointment in the
    Executive Office of the President, he served as Director of Brookhaven
    National Laboratory from 1998, and as the third President of the State
    University of New York at Stony Brook (1980-1994). He came to Long
    Island in 1980 from the University of Southern California where he had
    been a Professor of Physics and Electrical Engineering, serving as
    Physics Department Chairman and Dean of the College of Letters, Arts
    and Sciences in the 1970's. In the fall of 1994 he returned to the
    faculty at Stony Brook, teaching and doing research in optical science
    as a University Professor. Three years later he became President of
    Brookhaven Science Associates, a partnership between the University and
    Battelle Memorial Institute that competed for and won the contract to
    operate Brookhaven National Laboratory.
        While at the University of Southern California, Marburger
    contributed to the rapidly growing field of nonlinear optics, a subject
    created by the invention of the laser in 1960. He developed theory for
    various laser phenomena and was a co-founder of the University of
    Southern California's Center for Laser Studies. His teaching activities
    included ``Frontiers of Electronics,'' a series of educational programs
    on CBS television.
        Marburger's presidency at Stony Brook coincided with the opening
    and growth of University Hospital and the development of the biological
    sciences as a major strength of the university. During the 1980's
    federally sponsored scientific research at Stony Brook grew to exceed
    that of any other public university in the northeastern United States.
        During his presidency, Marburger served on numerous boards and
    committees, including chairmanship of the governor's commission on the
    Shoreham Nuclear Power facility, and chairmanship of the 80 campus
    ``Universities Research Association'' which operates Fermi National
    Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago. He served as a trustee of
    Princeton University and many other organizations. He also chaired the
    highly successful 1991/92 Long Island United Way campaign.
        While on leave from Stony Brook, Marburger carried out the mandates
    of the Department of Energy to improve management practice at
    Brookhaven National Laboratory. His company, Brookhaven Science
    Associates, continued to produce excellent science at the lab while
    achieving ISO14001 certification of the lab's environmental management
    system, and winning back the confidence and support of the community.

        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Dr. Marburger.
    Secretary Bodman.

      STATEMENT OF DR. SAMUEL W. BODMAN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
                                 ENERGY

        Secretary Bodman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member Gordon. I'm very happy to be here. I'm very proud to be
    here representing the Department of Energy today, and I hardly
    need to tell you that there is a great sense of excitement and
    enthusiasm within the entire Department of Energy, and in
    particular the Office of Science, which deals with the subject
    of this morning's activities, or at least some of the subjects
    of this morning's activities.
        Our Office of Science is responsible for 10 world-class
    national laboratories and is the primary builder and operator
    of large scientific facilities in the United States, and this
    office plays a critical role in ensuring the continued American
    leadership as well as contributions to our overall economic
    well-being. Investments in these facilities is a lot more than
    just bricks and mortar. It is an investment in, if you will, in
    discovery, in the future of our country. As you've heard in the
    State of the Union and has been talked about, the President
    announced several new priorities in the energy area, including
    two new Presidential initiatives. We believe that these
    initiatives will significantly change the future of science in
    this country and will be a bold statement to our science
    colleagues around the world. All of this is spelled out in
    detail in my formal written remarks.
        Let me just take this opportunity, while I have the floor,
    to mention a few highlights. As a part of the ACI, the 2007
    budget includes a $505 million increase for the Office of
    Science in the Department of Energy. That is a 14 percent
    increase up to a level of $4.1 billion. Frankly, we are
    thrilled with that and we think we know exactly how to put that
    money to work. This reflects the President's commitment to
    double the federal investment in the most critical basic
    research programs in the physical sciences over the next ten
    years. Developing revolutionary science-driven technology is at
    the heart of the Department of Energy's mission. And to ensure
    that America remains at the forefront in our very increasingly
    competitive world, our department is pursuing what we have come
    to call transformational new technologies in the cutting edge
    scientific fields that will be important in this next century,
    areas like nanotechnology, material science, biotechnology, and
    high speed computing.
        The President has also announced the new Advanced Energy
    Initiative, to increase spending on clean energy sources that
    will transform our transportation sector. It will literally
    transform our entire economy and reduce our dependence on
    imported fossil fuel. Specifically, the 2007 budget request
    proposes $149 million for biomass and biofuel programs, and a
    like amount, $148 million, for solar energy. Both are increases
    of about $50 million, so very sizable percentage increases.
        In addition, the budget requests a total $288 million to
    support implementation of the President's Hydrogen Fuel
    Initiative, and provide $60 million for U.S. participation in
    the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER,
    as we have come to call it. The goal of ITER is to tap nuclear
    fusion as an enormous source of energy, a plentiful and
    environmentally safe energy. All of that is true, but it is a
    long-term investment that will take, it is expected, a number
    of decades.
        As part of the President's Advanced Energy Initiative, the
    department's 2007 budget also features $250 million to begin
    investments in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. This is a
    groundbreaking new international effort to help meet the
    world's rapidly growing electricity needs with safe emissions-
    free nuclear power, while enhancing our ability to keep nuclear
    technology and material out of the hands of those who seek to
    use it for non-peaceful purposes.
        Mr. Chairman, that's just a brief outline of the science
    and research activities that are part of this budget and that
    we're engaged in. I look forward to discussing any of these
    matters or other issues in the budget with you. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Bodman follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Samuel W. Bodman

        Good morning, Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon and Members
    of the Committee. I am pleased to appear before you today along with my
    Administration colleagues to discuss the President's FY 2007 budget
    request for the Department of Energy (DOE) and the role that DOE plays
    in the President's science and energy initiatives.
        In his State of the Union address on January 31 President Bush laid
    out an ambitious and exciting path for the Administration when he
    unveiled his American Competitiveness Initiative and the Advanced
    Energy Initiative. The American Competitiveness Initiative will invest
    in and reverse a trend of static funding for research and development
    in the physical sciences; as a result we in the Energy Department
    believe this initiative is a real landmark. The proposal will double
    the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in
    the physical sciences over the next ten years; a total of $50 billion
    of new funding through DOE's Office of Science, the National Science
    Foundation, and the Department of Commerce's National Institute of
    Standards and Technology. This historic commitment will significantly
    change the future of science in this country and will be a bold
    statement to our science colleagues around the world. An important
    element of the Advanced Energy Initiative is the Global Nuclear Energy
    Partnership, a comprehensive strategy to enable the safe and secure
    expansion of nuclear energy around the world. We in the Energy
    Department are excited about this vision and mission and the role we
    will play in it. I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify before
    you today to urge the Science Committee to join us in this initiative.
        The Department of Energy's budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 follows
    the blueprint laid out by the President's new initiatives. The $23.5
    billion budget request seeks to address America's short-term energy
    needs while positioning our country for the future. The budget request
    makes bold investments to improve America's energy security while
    protecting our environment, puts policies in place that foster
    continued economic growth, spurs scientific innovation and discovery,
    and addresses and reduces the threat of nuclear proliferation.
        Most notably, this budget request contains:

              A Landmark Investment in Scientific Research

               The FY 2007 budget includes a $505 million increase in DOE's
            Science programs, which is part of a commitment to double
            funding for certain high-leverage science agencies over the
            next ten years. The American Competitiveness Initiative
            recognizes that scientific discovery and understanding help
            drive economic strength and security. Developing revolutionary,
            science-driven technology is at the heart of the Department of
            Energy's mission. The increase proposed for the Department's
            Science programs reflects the significant contribution DOE and
            its world-class research facilities make to the Nation.

              Strategic Investments to Reduce America's Dependence
            on Foreign Oil and Develop Clean Energy Technologies

               The President's Advanced Energy Initiative provides a 22
            percent increase for research that can help reduce America's
            dependence on foreign oil and advance clean energy
            technologies. The FY 2007 Budget proposes $149.7 million for
            Biomass and Biorefinery Systems Research and Development (R&D)
            program to support the new Biofuels Initiative to develop cost
            competitive ethanol from cellulosic materials (agricultural
            wastes, forest residues, and bioenergy crops) by 2012.

               In addition, the budget request continues to pursue the
            vision of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the
            development of a hydrogen economy. The FY 2007 Budget requests
            a total of $289.5 million (including $1.4 million requested by
            the Department of Transportation) to support implementation of
            the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. The FY 2007 Budget
            also provides a 27 percent increase for advanced battery
            technologies that can improve the efficiency of conventional
            hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) and help make ``plug-in'' HEV's
            commercially viable.

               To help develop clean electricity, the FY 2007 Budget funds
            diverse technology R&D programs. The FY 2007 Budget includes
            $148.4 million for a new Solar America Initiative to develop
            cost competitive solar photovoltaic technology by 2015. The FY
            2007 Budget also provides $60.0 million for U.S. participation
            in International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), an
            international experimental reactor program that has the
            potential for putting us on a pathway to tap nuclear fusion as
            an enormous source of plentiful and environmentally safe
            energy. The FY 2007 Budget advances the Administration's
            commitment to the FutureGen project, which will establish the
            capability and feasibility of co-producing electricity and
            hydrogen from coal with near-zero atmospheric emissions of
            pollutants and greenhouse gasses.

              Strategic Investments to Enable Nuclear Energy
            Expansion in a Cleaner, Safer Manner

               The Department's FY 2007 budget features $250 million to
            begin investments in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
            (GNEP). GNEP is a comprehensive strategy to enable an expansion
            of nuclear power in the U.S. and around the world, to promote
            non-proliferation goals, and to help resolve nuclear waste
            disposal issues.

               The Energy Information Administration projects that over the
            next 25 years, demand for electricity in the United States
            alone will grow by over 40 percent. Nuclear power is an
            abundant, safe, reliable and emissions-free way to help meet
            this growing demand for energy throughout the world. As part of
            the GNEP strategy, the United States will work with key
            international partners to develop and demonstrate new
            proliferation resistant technologies to recycle spent nuclear
            fuel to reduce waste. To help bring safe, clean nuclear power
            to countries around the world, the international GNEP partners
            will also develop a fuel services program to supply developing
            nations with reliable access to nuclear fuel in exchange for
            their commitment to forgo developing enrichment and recycling
            technologies.

               As a complement to the GNEP strategy, the Department will
            continue to pursue a permanent geologic disposal site for
            nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, and the FY 2007 budget
            includes $544.5 million to support this goal. Based on
            technological advancements that would be made through GNEP, the
            volume and radio-toxicity of waste requiring permanent disposal
            at Yucca Mountain could be greatly reduced, delaying the need
            for an additional repository indefinitely. It is important to
            emphasize, however, that GNEP does not diminish in any way the
            need for, or the urgency of, the nuclear waste disposal program
            at Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain is still required under any
            fuel cycle scenario. Even with the successful development of a
            recycling program, there will remain a significant amount of
            ``once-through'' spent nuclear fuel that will require final
            disposal in a repository. In addition, the residual material
            from the recycling program also will require final disposition
            in a repository. The GNEP will affect the longer-term scope of
            the repository program, but not the near term need for the
            Department to put in place a program to begin accepting spent
            nuclear fuel for disposal as quickly as feasible.

               GNEP builds upon the successes of programs initiated under
            President Bush's leadership to encourage the construction of
            new nuclear power plants here in the United States. The FY 2007
            budget includes $632.7 million for nuclear energy programs, a
            $97.0 million increase above the FY 2006 appropriation. In
            addition to the $250 million for GNEP, Generation IV (Gen IV)
            research and development ($31.4 million) will improve the
            efficiency, sustainability, and proliferation resistance of
            advanced nuclear systems and Nuclear Power 2010 ($54.0
            million), will lead the way, in a cost-sharing manner, for
            industry to order new, advanced light-water reactors by the end
            of this decade. In addition, ongoing implementation of the
            Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) will establish federal
            insurance to protect sponsors of the first new nuclear power
            plants against the financial impact of certain delays during
            construction or in gaining approval for operation that are
            beyond the sponsors' control.

    PROMOTING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION

        As the millennium unfolds, we stand on the threshold of scientific
    revolutions in biotechnology and nanotechnology, in materials science,
    in fusion energy and high-intensity light sources, and in high-
    performance computing, to touch on only a few important fields. The
    nations that lead these scientific revolutions will likely dominate the
    global high-tech economy for the foreseeable future. We are on the
    verge of major new discoveries about the nature of our universe,
    solutions to some of the deepest mysteries of the cosmos and the
    fundamental understanding of matter--insights that will transform the
    way we think about ourselves and our world.
        The President's American Competitiveness Initiative will encourage
    American innovation and bolster our ability to compete in the global
    economy through increased federal investment in critical areas of
    research, especially in the physical sciences and engineering. This
    initiative will generate scientific and technological advances for
    decades to come and will help ensure that future generations have an
    even brighter future.
        Twenty-first century science requires sophisticated scientific
    facilities. In many fields, private industry has neither the resources
    nor the near-term incentive to make significant investments on the
    scale required for basic scientific research to yield important
    discoveries. Indeed, in recent years, corporate basic research has
    declined. That is why the Department's Office of Science, which is
    responsible for ten world-class U.S. national laboratories and is the
    primary builder and operator of scientific facilities in the United
    States, plays such a critical role. Investment in these facilities is
    much more than bricks and mortar: it is an investment in discovery and
    in the future of our nation. The Office of Science is also educating
    and training our next generation of scientists and engineers. Roughly
    half of the researchers at Office of Science-run facilities are
    university faculty or graduate or postdoctoral students (who work side
    by side with scientists and researchers employed directly by the labs),
    and about a third of Office of Science research funds go to
    institutions of higher learning. In addition, the National Nuclear
    Security Administration (NNSA) operates three world-class national
    laboratories which greatly advanced the frontiers of science in
    connection with their national security mission and which have many
    interactions with universities.
        I am pleased to inform the Committee that the Department is already
    achieving meaningful scientific results with our latest high end
    supercomputing systems, including Blue Gene L and Purple at Lawrence
    Livermore National Laboratory and our Red Storm supercomputer at Sandia
    National Laboratory. Within a month of coming online, weapons designers
    at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos, working jointly, have discovered
    key physics that are important to weapons design that could not have
    been identified using less capable computers. This discovery is
    critically important to predicting the behavior of weapons, and, as a
    result, our ability to be responsive to national needs. Because of the
    interrelationships among the Department's science-based programs, these
    new, remarkably powerful computers are already having a major, positive
    effect on science in several of our laboratories.
        The President's FY 2007 budget request of $4.1 billion for the
    Office of Science will move us forward on several scientific fronts
    designed to produce discoveries that will strengthen our national
    competitiveness. Final international negotiations are close to being
    completed with our international partners in ITER, the fusion
    experimental reactor designed to demonstrate the scientific and
    technological feasibility of fusion as a plentiful, environmentally
    benign source of energy. A request of $60.0 million in FY 2007 provides
    funding for the second year of the ITER project. The return on
    investment will expand across international borders and has the promise
    of tremendous economic opportunity and development.
        The FY 2007 budget also includes $105.9 million to enable us to
    continue construction of the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS), the
    world's first x-ray free electron laser. The LCLS will allow us to
    watch matter in action, one molecule at a time, and witness chemical
    reactions at the microscopic level in real time. The structural
    knowledge obtained with x-rays holds the key to understanding the
    properties of matter such as mechanical strength, magnetism, transport
    of electrical currents and light, energy storage, and catalysis.
    Likewise, in biology much of what we know about structure and function
    on a molecular level comes from x-ray studies. Such knowledge forms the
    basis for the development of new materials and molecules and the
    enhancement of their properties, which in turn will advance technology,
    fuel our economy, and improve our quality of life. In addition, the FY
    2007 Budget seeks $19.2 million in FY 2007 for the first full year of
    operations of each of four facilities for nanoscience research and
    $19.4 million to continue with construction of a fifth.
        The FY 2007 budget provides $171.4 million for the Spallation
    Neutron Source (SNS), which enters its first full year of operation as
    the world's foremost facility for neutron scattering.
        The FY 2007 budget request also includes $135.3 million for the
    Genomes: GTL research, which will help us understand how nature's own
    microbial communities can be harnessed to remove carbon from the
    atmosphere, generate hydrogen for fuel, and turn cellulose into
    ethanol.
        Within the $4.1 billion FY 2007 budget request for Science, $143.3
    million is provided to support near full operation of the Relativistic
    Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), which gives us a lens into the early
    universe, and $80.0 million is allocated to allow near full operation
    of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF), which
    will give new insight on the quark-structure of matter. Early studies
    of nuclear and particle physics provided the foundation for
    technologies that have changed our daily lives, giving us televisions,
    transistors, medical imaging devices, and computers, and has enormous
    potential to lead to unexpected discoveries. The Large Hadron Collider
    (LHC) at CERN, in Switzerland, is scheduled to be completed in 2007,
    will open a new chapter in illuminating the structure of matter, space
    and time. At this new energy frontier, qualitatively new phenomena of
    nature should emerge. There are many possibilities--supersymmetry,
    extra space dimensions, or unexpected new symmetries of nature--but
    finding out which, if any, are true can only be settled by experiment.
    In FY 2007, $56.8 million is requested to support U.S. participation in
    the LHC research program. The new results anticipated at the LHC can be
    significantly advanced by discoveries at a potential next generation
    International Linear Collider (ILC) which would break new ground in our
    understanding of nature. In FY 2007, funds for ILC research and
    development are doubled with a funding request of $60.0 million.
        The budget also includes $318.7 million to solidify America's
    leadership in the economically vital field of high-performance
    computing, a tool increasingly integral not only to advanced scientific
    research, but also to industry. The budget will provide the pathway
    toward the development of computational systems that enable researchers
    to attack a wide range of currently intractable scientific problems
    through modeling and simulation, enabling the U.S. to extend our
    leadership in this strategic area. Additionally, from development of
    the suite of scientific software and applications for the petascale
    computers, U.S. industry will be able to accelerate innovation,
    potentially saving billions in development costs and giving our economy
    untold competitive advantages.
        We are on the verge of a revolution across multiple sciences as
    profound as any humanity has witnessed--one that will transform our
    vision of nature and, ultimately, our industry and economy.

    ADVANCING AMERICA'S ECONOMIC AND ENERGY SECURITY

        The Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed by President Bush on August
    8, 2005, advances the United States towards a secure energy future. The
    FY 2007 budget request of $2.6 billion to support energy programs
    fulfills President Bush's pledge to promote a strong, secure economy
    and expand our nation's energy supply by developing a diverse,
    dependable energy portfolio for the future.
        The President has proposed the Advanced Energy Initiative to help
    reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of oil and accelerate
    development of clean energy technologies through targeted increases in
    federal investment. This initiative has served as the blueprint for
    DOE's FY 2007 budget proposal.
        The FY 2007 budget request of $1.2 billion for energy efficiency
    and renewable energy includes two initiatives to emphasize technologies
    with the potential for reducing our growing reliance on oil imports and
    for producing clean electricity with reduced emissions. The FY 2007
    budget proposes $149.7 million for the Biofuels Initiative to develop
    by 2012 affordable, domestically-produced bio-based transportation
    fuels, such as ethanol, from cellulosic feedstocks (such as
    agricultural wastes, forest residues, and bioenergy crops), and
    accelerate the development of biorefineries. Biomass has the promise to
    deliver a plentiful domestic energy resource with economic benefits to
    the agricultural sector, and to directly displace oil use. The
    President's Solar America Initiative is proposed to be funded at $148.4
    million, a substantial increase of $65.3 million above FY 2006 funding.
    The increase accelerates the development of solar photovoltaics, a
    technology that converts energy from the sun directly into electricity.
    The goal of this R&D initiative is to make this emissions-free
    technology cost-competitive with other electricity generation sources
    by 2015.
        The President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative is funded at $289.5
    million and includes $195.8 million for DOE's Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy program, $23.6 million for DOE's Fossil Energy
    program, $18.7 million for DOE's Nuclear Energy program, $50.0 million
    for DOE's Science program, and $1.4 million for the Department of
    Transportation. Hydrogen and fuel cell technology holds the promise of
    an ultra-clean and secure energy option for America's energy future.
    The increase of $40.2 million above the FY 2006 appropriation
    accelerates activities geared to further improve the development of
    hydrogen production and storage technologies, and evaluate the use of
    hydrogen as an emissions-free transportation fuel source.
        While the budget proposes increases for Biomass, Solar and Hydrogen
    research, the Geothermal Program will be closed out in FY 2007 using
    prior year funds. The 2005 Energy Policy Act amended the Geothermal
    Steam Act of 1970 in ways that should spur development of geothermal
    resources without the need for subsidized federal research to further
    reduce costs.
        Nuclear power, which generates 20 percent of the electricity in the
    United States, contributes to a cleaner, more diverse energy portfolio.
    In FY 2007 a total of $632.7 million is requested for nuclear energy
    activities. Within the total, $250 million will support the Global
    Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). GNEP is a comprehensive strategy to
    enable an expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. and around the world,
    to promote nuclear nonproliferation goals; and to help resolve nuclear
    waste disposal issues.
        GNEP will build upon the Administration's commitment to develop
    nuclear energy technology and systems, and enhance the work of the
    United States and our international partners to strengthen
    nonproliferation efforts. GNEP will accelerate efforts to:

              Enable the expansion of emissions-free nuclear power
            domestically and abroad;

              Reduce the risk of proliferation; and

              Utilize new technologies to recover more energy from
            nuclear fuel and dramatically reduce the volume of nuclear
            waste.

        Through GNEP, the United States will work with key international
    partners to develop new recycling technologies that do not result in
    separated plutonium, a traditional proliferation risk. Recycled fuel
    would then be processed through advanced burner reactors to extract
    more energy, reduce waste and actually consume plutonium, dramatically
    reducing proliferation risks. As part of GNEP, the U.S. and other
    nations with advanced nuclear technologies would ensure developing
    nations a reliable supply of nuclear fuel in exchange for their
    commitment to forgo enrichment and reprocessing facilities of their
    own, also alleviating a traditional proliferation concern.
        GNEP will also help resolve America's nuclear waste disposal
    challenges. By recycling spent nuclear fuel, the heat load and volume
    of waste requiring permanent geologic disposal would be significantly
    reduced, delaying the need for an additional repository indefinitely.
        The Administration continues its commitment to open and license
    Yucca Mountain as the Nation's permanent geologic repository for spent
    nuclear fuel, a key complement to the GNEP strategy. Managing and
    disposing of commercial spent nuclear fuel in a safe and
    environmentally sound manner is the mission of DOE's Office of Civilian
    Radioactive Waste Management (RW).
        To support the near-term domestic expansion of nuclear energy, the
    FY 2007 budget seeks $54.0 million for the Nuclear Power 2010 program
    to support continued industry cost-shared efforts to reduce the
    barriers to the deployment of new nuclear power plants. The technology
    focus of the Nuclear Power 2010 program is on Generation III+ advanced
    light water reactor designs, which offer advancements in safety and
    economics over the Generation III designs. If successful, this seven-
    year, $1.1 billion project (50 percent to be cost-shared by industry)
    could result in a new nuclear power plant order by 2009 and a new
    nuclear power plant constructed by the private sector and in operation
    by 2014.
        Funding of $1.8 million is provided in FY 2007 to implement a new
    program authorized in the recently enacted Energy Policy Act of 2005.
    The program will allow DOE to offer risk insurance to protect sponsors
    of the first new nuclear power plants against the financial impact of
    certain delays during construction or in gaining approval for operation
    that are beyond the sponsors' control. This program would cover 100
    percent of the covered cost of delay, up to $500 million for the first
    two new reactors and 50 percent of the covered cost of delay, up to
    $250 million each, for up to four additional reactors. This risk
    insurance offers project sponsors additional certainty and incentive to
    provide for the construction of a new nuclear power plant by 2014.
        The FY 2007 budget request includes $31.4 million to continue to
    develop next-generation nuclear energy systems known as Generation IV
    (GenIV). These technologies will offer the promise of a safe,
    economical, and proliferation resistant source of clean, reliable,
    sustainable nuclear power with the potential to generate hydrogen for
    use as a fuel. Resources in FY 2007 for GenIV will be primarily focused
    on long-term research and development of the Very-High Temperature
    Reactor.
        The University Reactor Infrastructure and Educational Assistance
    program was designed to address declining enrollment levels among U.S.
    nuclear engineering programs. Since the late 1990s, enrollment levels
    in nuclear education programs have tripled. In fact, enrollment levels
    for 2005 have reached upwards of 1,500 students, the program's target
    level for the year 2015. In addition, the number of universities
    offering nuclear-related programs also has increased. These trends
    reflect renewed interest in nuclear power. Students will continue to be
    drawn into this course of study, and universities, along with nuclear
    industry societies and utilities, will continue to invest in university
    research reactors, students, and faculty members. Consequently, federal
    assistance is no longer necessary, and the 2007 Budget proposes
    termination of this program. The termination is also supported by the
    fact that the program was unable to demonstrate results from its
    activities when reviewed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool
    (PART), supporting the decision to spend taxpayer dollars on other
    priorities. Funding for providing fresh reactor fuel to universities is
    included in the Research Reactor Infrastructure program, housed within
    Radiological Facilities Management.
        Recognizing the abundance of coal as a domestic energy resource,
    the Department remains committed to research and development to promote
    its clean and efficient use. U.S. coal accounts for twenty five percent
    of the world's coal reserves. For the last three years, the Department
    has been working to launch a public-private partnership, FutureGen, to
    develop a coal-based facility that will produce electricity and
    hydrogen with essentially zero atmospheric emissions. This budget
    includes $54 million in FY 2007 and proposes an advance appropriation
    of $203 million for the program in FY 2008. Funding for FutureGen will
    be derived from rescinding $203 million in balances no longer needed to
    complete active projects in the Clean Coal Technology program. Better
    utilization of these fund balances to support FutureGen will generate
    real benefits for America's energy security and environmental quality.
        The budget request for FY 2007 includes $4.6 million to support
    Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline activities authorized by Congress in late
    2004. Within the total amount of $4.6 million, $2.3 million will be
    used to support an Office of the Federal Coordinator and the remaining
    $2.3 million will support the loan guarantee portion of the program.
    Once constructed, this pipeline will be capable of delivering enough
    gas to meet about 10 percent of the U.S. daily natural gas needs.
        The budget request proposes to terminate the oil and gas research
    and development programs, which have sufficient market incentives for
    private industry support, to other energy priorities.
        The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a new mandatory oil and
    gas research and development (R&D) program, called the Ultra-Deepwater
    and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Research program,
    which would be funded from federal revenues from oil and gas leases
    beginning in FY 2007. These R&D activities are more appropriate for the
    private-sector oil and gas industry to perform. Therefore this budget
    proposes to repeal the program through a future legislative proposal.
        The FY 2007 budget includes $124.9 million for a refocused
    portfolio of energy reliability and assurance activities in the Office
    of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. This will support
    research and development in areas such as high temperature
    superconductivity, and simulation work needed to enhance the
    reliability and effectiveness of the Nation's power supply. This office
    also operates the Department's energy emergency response capability and
    led DOE's support effort during and after the Gulf Coast hurricanes.

    ENSURING A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT

        The Bush Administration is laying a strong technological foundation
    to develop cost-effective options to meet clean development and climate
    objectives. While maintaining core programs in renewable energy, energy
    efficiency, nuclear power, fusion, and other areas, the Administration
    has launched important new initiatives and programs, including
    President Bush's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, the FutureGen advanced clean
    coal project, and advanced nuclear power. Internationally, the U.S. has
    initiated a number of technology collaborations, including the Asia-
    Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate, the Carbon
    Sequestration Leadership Forum, the International Partnership for a
    Hydrogen Economy, the Generation IV International Forum, and the
    Methane to Markets Partnership, and it joined the ITER fusion project.
        The United States leads the world in the development of climate-
    friendly technologies and spends more on climate change science and
    technology development--$2 billion and $3 billion in FY 2006,
    respectively--than any other country. As a result of technological
    progress, we are on track to meet the President's goal of reducing GHG
    intensity by 18 percent by 2012. For FY 2007, the President is
    proposing, through the Advanced Energy Initiative announced during the
    State of the Union Address, large increases in funding for solar,
    bioenergy, hydrogen, nuclear, and advanced clean coal R&D to change the
    way we produce power for our homes and automobiles and to reduce oil
    imports. The Department's FY 2007 budget also reflects our continuing
    strategy to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the American
    economy. A vital part of this strategy is the Climate Change Technology
    Program (CCTP). CCTP was established within the Department of Energy in
    the fall of 2002 and was authorized by Congress as part of the Energy
    Policy Act of 2005. The goal of CCTP is to accelerate the development
    of advanced, cost-effective technologies that reduce, avoid, or capture
    and sequester GHG emissions. Through leadership in research,
    development, demonstration and deployment, the U.S. approach aims to
    build on America's strengths in innovation and technology and inspire
    others, at home and abroad, to participate in an ambitious
    technological undertaking to address climate change concerns.

    CONCLUSION

        The Administration recognizes that science and energy are central
    to our economic and national security. Indeed, energy helps drive the
    global economy and has a significant impact on our quality of life and
    the health of our people and our environment. The FY 2007 Budget
    Request balances the need to address short-term challenges while
    planning for long-term actions as the President outlined in his new
    initiatives, the American Competitiveness Initiative and the Advanced
    Energy Initiative. The request reflects our belief that basic science
    research must remain strong if we are to remain competitive with our
    global partners. The request contains bold new initiatives in nuclear,
    biomass, and solar energy. It continues the President's strong
    commitment to clean coal, hydrogen, and fusion. The request honors our
    commitment to deal with civilian nuclear waste, as well as legacy waste
    from the Cold War, and to further our already successful
    nonproliferation programs in order to help ensure a safer world for
    generations to come.

                         Biography for Samuel W. Bodman

        Samuel Wright Bodman was sworn in as the 11th Secretary of Energy
    on February 1, 2005 after the United States Senate unanimously
    confirmed him on January 31, 2005. He leads the Department of Energy
    with a budget in excess of $23 billion and over 100,000 federal and
    contractor employees.
        Previously, Secretary Bodman served as Deputy Secretary of the
    Treasury beginning in February 2004. He also served the Bush
    Administration as the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Commerce
    beginning in 2001. A financier and executive by trade, with three
    decades of experience in the private sector, Secretary Bodman was well
    suited manage the day-to-day operations of both of these cabinet
    agencies.
        Born in 1938 in Chicago, he graduated in 1961 with a B.S. in
    chemical engineering from Cornell University. In 1965, he completed his
    ScD at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. For the next six years he
    served as an Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT and
    began his work in the financial sector as Technical Director of the
    American Research and Development Corporation, a pioneer venture
    capital firm. He and his colleagues provided financial and managerial
    support to scores of new business enterprises located throughout the
    United States.
        From there, Secretary Bodman went to Fidelity Venture Associates, a
    division of the Fidelity Investments. In 1983 he was named President
    and Chief Operating Officer of Fidelity Investments and a Director of
    the Fidelity Group of Mutual Funds. In 1987, he joined Cabot
    Corporation, a Boston-based Fortune 300 company with global business
    activities in specialty chemicals and materials, where he served as
    Chairman, CEO, and a Director. Over the years, he has been a Director
    of many other publicly owned corporations.
        Secretary Bodman has also been active in public service. He is a
    former Director of M.I.T.'s School of Engineering Practice and a former
    member of the M.I.T. Commission on Education. He also served as a
    member of the Executive and Investment Committees at M.I.T., a member
    of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, and a Trustee of the
    Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum and the New England Aquarium.
        Secretary Bodman is married to M. Diane Bodman. He has three
    children, two stepchildren, and eight grandchildren.

        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Dr.
    Sampson.

    STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID A. SAMPSON, DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
                              OF COMMERCE

        Dr. Sampson. Good morning, Chairman Boehlert and Ranking
    Member Gordon and Members of the Committee. I'm delighted to
    join my colleagues this morning to talk about the President's
    R&D budget request and the critical matter of American
    competitiveness. Like my colleagues, I'd also like to make a
    few brief comments and ask that my written testimony be a part
    of the hearing record.
        Let me say at the outset that American companies and
    workers are the most competitive and innovative in the world.
    We have the strongest and most diversified economy, so we begin
    this discussion from a position of strength. Over the past four
    years, the United States has experienced faster growth than any
    other major industrialized nation. Our unemployment rate of 4.7
    percent is one of the lowest. Payrolls are growing in almost
    every single state. And one of the major reasons for our
    success is the enormous improvements in worker productivity. In
    fact, U.S. productivity has had one of the fastest five-year
    periods of growth in almost 40 years, and the reason for that
    is that we are a nation of innovators. We have a reputation for
    coming up with new technologies that make us more productive.
        But the challenge is this: how do we maintain our
    leadership role in an increasingly competitive global economy?
    We need to attack this problem on a number of fronts, as
    outlined in President Bush's new and ambitious American
    Competitiveness Initiative. This initiative reflects many of
    the issues that were raised in December at a national summit on
    competitiveness that we hosted at the United States Department
    of Commerce. Chairman Boehlert and Subcommittee Chairman
    Ehlers, among many others, were very supportive of and
    participated in it. It was a highly successful meeting with
    over 50 CEOs and university presidents and officials from
    virtually every federal research agency participating.
        At the core of the President's competitiveness initiative
    are major increases in Federal R&D funding over the next 10
    years, and let me focus on what we're proposing at the Commerce
    Department for fiscal year 2007. First, at the National
    Institute of Standards and Technology, the President's budget
    calls for a 24 percent increase in funding, over $104 million
    for our core laboratory programs and the facilities to support
    them. This funding will allow scientists at NIST, who have won
    three Nobel prizes in recent years, to advance research in
    promising fields. For example, $72 million would go for cutting
    edge efforts in areas such as nanotechnology, hydrogen fuels
    and quantum information. These initiatives hold the promise of
    leading to new cancer therapies, fuel cells for pollution-free
    cars, or unbreakable codes to protect electronic transactions.
        We're planning to invest in critical national assets,
    notably the Center for Neutron Research, and we're also seeking
    $32 million to maintain and upgrade our labs, including the
    aging facilities in Boulder, Colorado.
        At the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
    we're requesting a $345 million increase to our base programs,
    in order to continue improving key predictions and warnings for
    a variety of weather, climate and water conditions, working
    towards sustainable fisheries and supporting safe and efficient
    transportation. Specifically, we're seeking increases in
    several high priority areas, including $112 million for the
    next generation of weather satellites that I know this
    committee has great interest in, $108 million for ecosystem
    management, $46 million for weather and water information,
    including $12 million to operate the Tsunami Warning Program,
    and $24 million for climate services to better predict and
    better inform the public about droughts.
        Mr. Chairman, President Bush, the Commerce Department and
    this Administration are committed to maintaining America's
    leadership in the global economy, and one of the best ways to
    do that is by creating an environment that encourages
    innovation and risk taking, and that focuses R&D spending on
    the most promising and productive fields. And we believe our
    R&D budget at the Department of Commerce significantly advances
    those goals. I look forward to working with the Committee as we
    move forward on what I believe is one of the most crucial
    issues we face as a nation and I obviously look forward to
    answering any questions that you or the Committee may have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Sampson follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of David A. Sampson

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to join you
    today as we examine the Administration's FY 2007 budget request for
    research and development at the Department of Commerce. I want to thank
    the Committee, especially Chairman Boehlert, for your continued support
    and leadership on innovation issues. You have been a constant and
    strong voice for the science and technology community, and I look
    forward to continuing our work together to ensure that America remains
    the world leader in the science and technology field.

    INTRODUCTION

        Innovation and competitiveness drive the Nation's economy. The
    Department of Commerce provides the tools to help maximize U.S.
    competitiveness and ensure the economic health of American industries,
    workers, and consumers.
        I was pleased to play a role in the National Summit on
    Competitiveness that was held at the Department of Commerce on December
    6, 2005. The purpose of the summit was to raise awareness about the
    seriousness of the global competitiveness challenge and to promote an
    action agenda to ensure continued U.S. leadership in innovation. Our
    major international competitors are committing significant resources to
    their scientific and technological infrastructure, and increasing their
    ability to compete with the United States. This has led to a growing
    concern among industry and academia that America should increase its
    response to the changing competitive landscape.
        The summit involved key leaders from Government including Commerce
    Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, Education
    Secretary Margaret Spellings, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and National
    Science Foundation Director Arden Bement. About 50 corporate CEOs and
    university leaders joined with these Government officials to discuss
    actions necessary to strengthen America's innovation capacity,
    particularly in science and technology research, education, workforce
    development, and the deployment of new technologies.
        In his State of the State of the Union address, President Bush made
    it clear that we are faced with a choice in responding to the
    increasingly global economy. We can pursue the path of isolationism or
    we can choose to compete with confidence. President Bush has chosen the
    latter path by announcing the American Competitiveness Initiative
    (ACI), which will help ensure that America meets this goal and remains
    a leader in science and technology advances. The centerpiece of the ACI
    is the President's strong commitment to double over 10 years investment
    in key federal agencies that support basic research programs in the
    physical sciences and engineering--the National Science Foundation, the
    Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the Department of
    Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
        Under the ACI, NIST is slated for $535 million for its laboratory
    research and facilities appropriations. This budget proposal includes a
    $104.1 million increase above NIST's FY 2007 base--or more than 24
    percent. If appropriated this would be the largest dollar increase ever
    for NIST's laboratory research.
        The increase reflects the importance of the work that NIST
    undertakes to promote competitiveness and innovation--with the aim of
    improving economic security and improving the quality of life. It also
    reflects the importance that this Administration places on improving
    the environment for innovation and competitiveness. This commitment--as
    evidenced by the NIST budget proposal--is extraordinary in a budget
    that is mindful of the need to be stringent and restrain federal
    spending and reduce the deficit.
        This funding will support the work of 3,900 scientists and
    engineers from Government, industry and universities--an increase of
    600 researchers over FY 2006. Their work in areas including
    nanotechnology, hydrogen and quantum information will lead to the
    innovations of tomorrow, such as much more efficient batteries, and
    smaller computer chips to power our digital devices, as well as fuel
    cells to power pollution-free cars and unbreakable codes to protect
    electronic financial transactions and video transmissions.
        The Department also proudly houses another extremely important
    science agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA). NOAA's mission is to understand and predict changes in the
    Earth's environment, as well as to conserve and manage wisely the
    coastal and marine resources to meet our nation's economic, social, and
    environmental needs. The work performed at NOAA touches the daily lives
    of every person in the United States and in much of the world. The
    agency:

              provides weather, water, and climate services;

              manages and protects marine resources and ecosystems;

              conducts atmospheric, climate, and ecosystems
            research;

              promotes efficient and environmentally safe commerce
            and transportation; and

              provides emergency response and vital information in
            support of homeland security.

        In addition to using science and technology to create jobs,
    stimulate innovation and improve economic prosperity, the Department is
    also directing resources toward disaster prediction and prevention, to
    better understand and minimize the loss of life and property from
    disasters.
        The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the busiest on record and
    extended the current period of increased hurricane activity which began
    in 1995--a trend likely to continue for years to come. This season
    shattered records that have stood for decades--the most named storms,
    most hurricanes and most category five storms. Arguably, it was the
    most devastating hurricane season the country has experienced in modern
    times.
        The devastation along the Gulf Coast from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita
    and Wilma is of historic proportions. It is catastrophic. However,
    without NOAA's forecasts and warnings, and its extensive recovery
    activities after the passage of each storm, the devastation and loss of
    life would have been far greater. As Chairman Ehlers himself has noted,
    NOAA ``alone pays for itself over and over in terms of the protection
    it gives to people and to property.''
        NOAA's forecasts and warnings for the 2005 Gulf hurricanes pushed
    the limits of state-of-the-art hurricane prediction. Our continuous
    research efforts, including observations, modeling, and expanded
    computational resources at NOAA, and in partnership with other federal
    agencies, have led to our current predictive capabilities and improved
    ways of describing uncertainty in prediction. But NOAA's work does not
    end there. NOAA assessed damage from storms, as well as the impact to
    the areas' fisheries. It continues to support hazardous materials
    containment and abatement efforts, provide necessary data critical for
    post-storm response and recovery operations, and assist dredging
    operations, allowing our nation's ports and waterways impacted by the
    storm to open.
        NOAA's science is just as critical to our understanding and
    management of our oceans. In December 2004, the Administration released
    the U.S. Ocean Action Plan (Plan), in response to the U.S. Commission
    on Ocean Policy's report entitled, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st
    Century. NOAA will continue to play a key role in implementing many of
    the Plan's ocean policy measures, including the establishment of a
    coordinated ocean governance structure. Chairman Ehlers has noted that
    ``these are critical issues crucial to the survival of humans on the
    planet when we consider the extent and the complexity of the oceans and
    life on the planet.'' Consistent with this approach, the Administration
    continues to support Commerce's leadership role in oceans policy and
    activities by promoting passage of a NOAA Organic Act.
        NOAA's global leadership extends to monitoring the planet through
    the development of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems
    (GEOSS). Last April, the United States released its first-ever plan to
    monitor the Earth. As a collaborative effort of 15 federal agencies and
    three White House offices, the 10-year Strategic Plan for the U.S.
    Integrated Earth Observation System will, over time, benefit people and
    economies around the world by improving the ability to monitor,
    understand and predict changes to the Earth. The completion of this
    plan marks a significant milestone in the ongoing development of GEOSS,
    involving nearly 50 other countries, the European Commission and 29
    international organizations. The GEOSS will provide NOAA and others
    with the tools to better understand our planet through an integrated,
    comprehensive, and sustained Earth-observation program.
        NOAA also serves as the lead coordinating agency for the U.S.
    Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) which integrates a broad range of
    climate-related observations, field studies and computer model
    projections sponsored by 13 federal agencies. CCSP has a goal of
    substantially improved understanding of both the causes and the
    potential effects of climate variability and change, on time scales
    extending from weeks to decades. NOAA's mission also includes the
    implementation of climate predictive and interpretive services for a
    wide range of applications, thereby providing significant benefits to
    users in several sectors of the economy.

    HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FY 2007 BUDGET REQUEST

        The FY 2007 President's budget request for the Technology
    Administration is $582.8 million, including $1.5 million for the Office
    of the Under Secretary and $581.3 million for NIST. TA and its various
    components seek to maximize technology's contribution to economic
    growth, high-wage job creation, and the social well-being of the United
    States. TA and NIST serve as advocates for technological innovation and
    analyze the factors that affect our competitiveness.
        For NOAA, we request a total of $3.684 billion. The request is an
    increase of $345 million or 10 percent above NOAA's FY 2007 base. This
    FY 2007 request reflects our continuing effort to better serve the
    American people by restraining spending and advancing only the most
    mission-critical services. The NOAA staff of dedicated professionals,
    working with extramural researchers and our international partners, is
    extending our knowledge of climate change, expanding meteorological
    prediction capabilities, improving coastal resource management,
    charting more of our oceans and coasts, and enhancing environmental
    stewardship.
        For the remainder of my testimony I would like to focus on the
    Department's science and technology budget priorities for the upcoming
    fiscal year as reflected in TA/NIST's and NOAA's requests. The Commerce
    Department's budget illustrates our commitment to preserve the core
    competencies of TA, NIST and NOAA, and to promote competitiveness,
    innovation and economic growth.
    Technology Administration Programs
        The Technology Administration and its various components--NIST, the
    National Technical Information Service, and the Office of the Under
    Secretary--seek to maximize technology's contribution to economic
    growth, high-wage job creation, and the social well-being of the United
    States.
                National Institute of Standards and Technology
        NIST has long been a center for high-impact basic research, as
    evidenced by the three Nobel Prizes that have been awarded to its
    scientists in the last decade. NIST research has led to innovations
    that we can see today, from the high-density magnetic storage
    technology that makes devices such as computer hard drives and mp3
    players so compact, to protective body armor for law enforcement
    officers and diagnostic screening for cancer patients.
                NIST's Scientific and Technical Research and Services
                        ($467.0 million)
        The NIST budget is divided into three appropriations, the first of
    which is $467.0 million covering Scientific and Technical Research and
    Services (STRS). This includes $459.4 million for NIST's laboratory
    research, which is the core of NIST's operations. Through these
    laboratories, NIST plays a unique role in the Nation's scientific,
    industrial and business communities. Scientists, engineers, health care
    professionals, manufacturers and business people compare and trade
    data, test results, manufactured goods, and commodities with greater
    confidence when NIST is present in the background--anchoring the
    national measurement and standards system that is the language of
    research and commerce.
        This is the oldest and one of the most important of NIST's long-
    standing missions. It affects every American who goes to the store,
    buys gasoline or pays a utility bill, because each year $4.5 trillion
    in wholesale and retail trade is measured against standards that are
    ultimately traceable to NIST. It affects:

              every American whose job depends on the ability of
            our industries to innovate and to compete in global trade--
            because product quality and productivity depend on the ability
            to measure and precisely control the production process, and
            because more and more high-tech and high-value products are
            subject to foreign regulations that require measurements
            traceable to internationally recognized standards;

              every American who relies on fundamental business
            services and communications devices--because so many of these
            services depend upon NIST measurements and standards in ways
            that are invisible to most consumers and service sector
            employees; and

              every American concerned with homeland security--
            because NIST is being called upon increasingly to provide the
            measurement assurance behind sensitive detection systems for
            chemical, biological, explosive or radiological weapons.

        It is a vital mission, and one that is far from static, because a
    modern, progressive, industrialized society imposes constant demands
    for improvements in its measurements and its standards. The pace of
    America's technological innovation both drives and is driven by our
    ability to observe and to measure, and NIST's infrastructure is vital
    to accelerating that innovation.
        NIST's reputation and past accomplishments are known worldwide
    because of its laboratory-based work, and its level of excellence is
    the goal for all measurement research institutions. NIST is
    increasingly focused on the most intriguing and challenging
    technologies and industries of the new century, and the measurements
    and standards that will be crucial if U.S. industry is to innovate,
    compete, and excel in the future.
        The requested increases for the NIST laboratories match the
    President's R&D priorities and the Nation's measurements and standards
    needs. Discoveries and advances in nanotechnology and manufacturing
    supply chain integration have the potential to dramatically transform
    manufacturing and business industries through innovation and
    productivity improvements. Similarly, developments and discoveries in
    quantum information science, hydrogen research, and new imaging
    techniques for materials and medical applications will potentially
    improve not only the life of every American, but will also have an
    impact on the future of people throughout the world. The ability of
    U.S. companies to sell their goods and services overseas to growing
    global markets will depend on NIST's work to open markets for U.S.
    workers and exporters. The complex information systems that are crucial
    for our daily lives will be more secure with the assistance of NIST's
    computer security expertise. These are the challenges and opportunities
    that face the Nation and NIST in the 21st Century, challenges that NIST
    will be better equipped to address as a result of this budget.
        The President's American Competitiveness Initiative for NIST totals
    $104.1 million in enhancements for the core NIST programs including the
    NIST laboratories and facilities improvements. The major NIST focus of
    the American Competitiveness Initiative includes the following:

              Targeting the most strategic and rapidly developing
            technologies ($45 million)

                      Enabling Nanotechnology from Discovery to
                    Manufacture ($20 million),

                      Enabling the Hydrogen Economy ($10 million),

                      Quantum Information Science: Infrastructure for 21st
                    Century Innovation ($9 million),

                      Innovations in Measurement Science ($4 million), and

                      Cyber Security: Innovative Technologies for National
                    Security ($2 million).

              Increasing the capacity and capability of critical
            national assets ($27 million)

                      NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) Expansion
                    and Reliability Improvements: A National Need ($22
                    million including $10 million in STRS for
                    instrumentation development and $12 million in CRF for
                    design of new guide hall), and

                      Synchrotron Measurement Science and Technology:
                    Enabling Next Generation Materials Innovation ($5
                    million).

              Meeting near-term needs ($12 million)

                      Manufacturing Innovation through Supply Chain
                    Integration ($2 million),

                      Structural Safety in Hurricanes, Fires, and
                    Earthquakes ($2 million),

                      International Standards and Innovation: Opening
                    Markets for American Workers and Exporters ($2
                    million),

                      Bioimaging: A 21st Century Toolbox for Medical
                    Technology ($4 million), and

                      Biometrics: Identifying Friend or Foe ($2 million).

              NIST facilities improvement plan ($20.1 million)

                      Phase I design of the renovation of the main
                    Building 1, in Boulder, Colorado ($6.3 million)

                      Design and limited renovation of Building 4 in
                    Boulder, Colorado ($3.8 million), and

                      Increasing the base for Safety, Capacity,
                    Maintenance and Major Repairs of NIST facilities ($10
                    million).

        I want to emphasize and provide additional information about
    several of these important initiatives, to explain why the President
    has decided that they merit such an investment in tight budget times.
                Enabling Nanotechnology from Discovery to Manufacture (+$20
                        million)
        Nanotechnology is anticipated to be the major breakthrough
    technology in the 21st century--with the nanotechnology-related market
    predicted to exceed $1 trillion globally by 2015. Within the next 10
    years, experts expect at least half of the newly designed advanced
    materials and manufacturing processes to be at the nanoscale. The
    United States is making significant investments in nanoscience and
    nanotechnology, and it is essential that we rapidly and efficiently
    transfer our basic scientific discoveries to practice within our
    manufacturing sector. Globally, no one country or region has a
    significant technological lead in this area--with the European Union,
    Japan, and other countries each investing about the same amount of
    government resources as the United States.
        Successfully translating nanoscale discoveries into manufactured
    products will be critically dependent on:

              developing process technologies to efficiently and
            reliably produce commercially significant quantities of
            nanomaterials,

              developing advanced measurement and process-control
            technologies--including standard reference materials--to
            monitor production processes and for quality control, and

              close cooperation and interaction between the
            research sector, the manufacturing sector, and the national
            measurement standards system.
                Enabling the Hydrogen Economy (+$10 million)
        President Bush issued a challenge to the Nation's scientists and
    engineers in his 2003 State of the Union speech to overcome technical
    obstacles so that ``the first car driven by a child born today could be
    powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.'' Hydrogen fuels are expected
    to reduce the environmental impact of energy use as well as lower
    dependence on foreign energy sources. NIST has the technical expertise,
    unique facilities, and the mandate from Congress needed to make
    substantial contributions toward a robust hydrogen economy.
        For the past 50 years, NIST has been a leading provider of data on
    the chemical and physical properties of hydrogen. NIST's Center for
    Neutron Research (NCNR) is a premier facility for the study of
    hydrogen. The NCNR already is being used in conjunction with major U.S.
    manufacturers to study the flow of hydrogen through operating fuel
    cells to help improve the efficiency and durability of these devices.
    NIST is, in fact, the lead agency for weights and measures for vehicle
    fuels and will need to develop physical reference standards,
    calibration services, and new consensus standards to help ensure
    equitable trade of hydrogen in the marketplace. The safe handling,
    production, and distribution of hydrogen presents significant
    challenges--which is why Congress has charged NIST with helping to
    develop standards for pipeline safety and reliability. NIST's expertise
    in building and fire research will be essential for developing model
    building codes that foster adoption of hydrogen technologies in local
    communities.
        Moreover, NIST's expertise in manufacturing will be critical for
    advancing hydrogen process control technologies and the design of fuel
    cells that can be manufactured cost-effectively. That is why the
    President is requesting additional funding for NIST's laboratory work
    in this area as part of the effort to achieve the vision of a hydrogen
    economy.
                Quantum Information Science: Infrastructure for 21st
                        Century Innovation (+$9 million)
        America's future prosperity and economic security may rely in part
    on the exotic properties of some of the smallest particles in nature to
    accomplish feats in physics, information science, and mathematics that
    are impossible with today's technology.
        Research in quantum information seeks to control and use these
    properties for scientific and societal benefits. Researchers are
    working toward quantum computers that can solve problems in seconds
    that today's best supercomputers could not solve in years. Much like
    the way computers of today greatly improved our quality of life,
    quantum computers of the future will solve problems beyond our current
    imagination. We do know that they will create unbreakable codes to
    protect commercial communications, including financial transactions and
    video transmissions, but we also believe they will do much more.
    Advances in quantum information science have the potential to expand
    and strengthen the U.S. economy and security in the 21st century just
    as transistors and lasers did in the last century.
        NIST is a leader in quantum research with several world-renowned
    scientists, including three Nobel laureates--and it is perfectly
    positioned to play a more critical role in advancing the quantum realm
    of science and harnessing its power to achieve benefits for the economy
    and for our security.
        Under the FY 2007 initiative proposed by the President, NIST will
    accelerate the field by expanding its in-house research efforts and by
    enhancing its effort to exploit the fundamental properties of quantum
    systems to develop new metrology tools and methods. Moreover, NIST will
    establish a Joint Quantum Institute to leverage NIST's own expertise
    and resources with those of a university and the National Security
    Agency. Specific, practical benefits will include: improved security
    for electronic commerce; maintenance of the U.S. lead in computing and
    information processing; improved accuracy for electrical and other
    standards based on better understanding of quantum systems; and
    establishment of U.S. industry as the leader in the emerging field of
    quantum engineering.
        It takes wonderful, talented people--the best in the world--to
    conduct the kind of Nobel Prize-winning, McArthur Genius Award-winning,
    National Medal of Science-winning work that is done by NIST. It also
    takes facilities where this work gets done, which is one reason that
    the President's Budget for 2007 includes $68 million--including a $32.1
    million program increase (including $12 million in the NIST Center for
    Neutron Research initiative and $20.1 million for the NIST Facilities
    Improvement Plan--for NIST's Construction and Research Facilities (CRF)
    account). Moreover, these investments at NIST also support industrial
    innovation and competitiveness by making available special research
    facilities used by scientists and engineers from industry,
    universities, and other agencies. Congress has helped NIST to tackle
    some of its most pressing facilities needs, resulting in two relatively
    new additions. The NIST campuses in Boulder, Colorado, and
    Gaithersburg, Maryland, are showing their age (50 and 40 years old,
    respectively). Additional investments are needed if these sites are to
    remain fully serviceable and allow the researchers that use these
    facilities to be as productive as possible.
        The President's proposal for CRF includes resources for safety,
    maintenance, repair, and facilities upgrades. The CRF request would
    fund:

              Construction and renovations at the NIST Center for
            Neutron Research, tied in with the parallel R&D initiative in
            STRS ($12 million),

              Increases for the NIST safety, capacity, maintenance
            and major repairs (SCMMR) budget to repair aging facilities
            ($10 million), and

              Building renovations at the agency's Boulder,
            Colorado, site ($10.1 million). This is a repeat request that
            we are making for these sorely needed renovations. We have been
            moving forward as quickly as possible to complete the needed
            projects.

        Finally, the President is requesting $46.3 million to fund the
    Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership program. This is a
    reduction from the FY 2006 level that would be made in order to address
    the Nation's most pressing funding needs in an austere fiscal
    environment. NIST will focus the FY 2007 funding to maintain an
    effective network of centers with an emphasis on activities that
    promote innovation and competitiveness in small manufacturers.
        The FY 2006 appropriations and estimated recoveries will be
    sufficient to meet all existing obligations of the Advanced Technology
    Program and to phase it out. Accordingly, no FY 2007 funds are
    requested.
                Office of the Under Secretary ($1.5 million)
        The key administrative and policy operations within the Office of
    the Under Secretary will be streamlined. TA will remain an effective
    advocate for technology within the Department of Commerce. TA, for
    instance, was the lead office at the Commerce Department responsible
    for working on the recent competitiveness summit hosted at the
    Department.
                National Technical Information Service (fee supported)
        The National Technical Information Service (NTIS), the third unit
    of the Technology Administration, is a repository of much of the
    Government's technical information that is used by the science and
    technical communities. NTIS maintains, sells and distributes a
    collection of scientific and technical information from various federal
    agencies. NTIS covers its operating costs through fees for its products
    and services; in keeping with past practice, there is no FY 2007
    appropriation request.
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Programs
        Americans look to NOAA for a wide variety of services and support
    ranging from the local weather forecast, to a sustainable supply of
    quality seafood, to the safe transport of millions of tons of water-
    borne cargo. Our scientists and managers also help keep the coastline
    safe and economically vibrant, and maintain detailed research on the
    climate from the frozen Arctic to the depths of the oceans.
        NOAA's budget proposes increases for the following high priority
    areas:

              Satellite Continuity (+$124 million for GOES-R and
            NPOESS)

              Ecosystem Management (+$108 million, including $19.7
            million for fisheries activities in the Gulf of Mexico and $6
            million for the Open Rivers Initiative)

              Weather and Water Information (+$46 million,
            including $12 million to complete and operate the Tsunami
            Warning System and $1.4 million to operate and maintain
            Hurricane Buoys)

              Climate Services (+$24 million, including $6.5
            million for High-Performance Computing and $4 million for the
            National Integrated Drought Information System)

              Commerce and Transportation (+$19.5 million,
            including $10.5 million to address nautical survey backlog and
            $5 million for critical mapping, charting, and data
            improvements)

              Improved facilities (+$30 million)

                Mission Support/People and Infrastructure
        The backbone of the NOAA infrastructure is our integrated
    observation effort, including building state-of-the-art satellite
    programs. NOAA serves with NASA and OSTP as lead for the Federal
    Government in developing our U.S. integrated observing strategy. Our
    efforts include state-of-the-art satellite programs, supported by a
    requested increase of $20.3 million for the tri-agency National Polar-
    orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (NPOESS) program, which
    will replace the Polar Orbiting System (POES) program after completion
    of the current K-N' series of satellites.
        As you are aware, the NPOESS program has encountered significant
    cost and schedule overruns, which are not included in the FY 2007
    request. NPOESS is currently undergoing a recertification review in
    accordance with Nunn-McCurdy DOD regulatory requirements. This review
    will shape the way forward, and consequently, the Administration's
    future budget requirements. The Department of Defense request for
    NPOESS matches the NOAA request for FY 2007, as part of the shared
    funding arrangement.
        We are also developing the next generation of geostationary
    satellites to maintain continuity of satellite data into the future.
    The FY 2007 NOAA budget requests $113.4 million to move the GEOS-R
    series satellites into the acquisition and operations phase of its
    procurement.
                Ecosystems ($107.6 million increase)
        The FY 2007 Budget request includes significant resources for
    NOAA's ocean and coastal programs, and fisheries and protected species
    activities in support of the President's U.S. Ocean Action Plan. NOAA's
    primary initiative is to advance ecosystem-based approaches to resource
    management. By applying innovative strategies to improve internal and
    external coordination and integration based on ecosystem principles,
    and by establishing baselines and integrated observations of ecosystem
    indicators, NOAA will increase the effectiveness of its many program
    activities intended to produce healthy and productive ecosystems that
    benefit society. Initiating ecosystem approaches to management requires
    better monitoring and characterization, and more effective integration
    and collaboration among NOAA programs and its external partners.
        Highlights of the FY 2007 request in this area include $19.7
    million to support fisheries programs in the Gulf of Mexico. As the
    Gulf region rebuilds, these programs will ensure that adequate science
    and management resources are available to promote sustainable
    fisheries. In addition, the request includes $6 million for the Open
    Rivers Initiative in support of cooperative conservation. This will be
    a competitive grant program that utilizes a community-based model to
    remove obsolete river barriers in coastal states. NOAA will also extend
    its Habitat Restoration Program to the Great Lakes, expand dedicated
    fishery access privilege programs, improve regional collaboration and
    planning of coastal state managers to improve management of coastal
    watersheds and marine resource areas, and enhance observing and
    information delivery systems to inform the public as part of the U.S.
    Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). These increases allow NOAA to
    meet our responsibilities as stewards of living marine resources for
    the benefit of the Nation, through science-based conservation and
    management and the protection of ecosystem health.
                Climate ($24.1 million increase)
        NOAA requests $24.1 million increase (for a total of $230 million)
    for programs and activities increasing our ability to predict and
    assess current and future impacts of climate events such as droughts,
    floods, and trends in extreme climate events. These programs provide
    vital information for farmers, utilities, land managers, weather risk
    industry, fisheries resource managers, and other customers to make
    better decisions. One such investment will enable NOAA to continue
    building the global component of the Integrated Earth Observing System.
    Advancing observing systems toward global coverage will allow NOAA to
    better understand the state of the climate system and improve climate
    predictions. Another key investment is the request for $4.0 million to
    go towards drought impact research for the National Integrated Drought
    Information System (NIDIS), which will aid decision makers faced with
    drought and water resource management issues. The request also includes
    $7 million to establish the capacity to produce consistent and
    continually updated climate analysis data, deliver regular and
    systematic explanations of the state of the climate system, and advance
    understanding and predictions of climate extremes.
        NOAA's FY 2007 Budget request includes an increase for Data Centers
    and Information Services, which provide access to the world's largest
    collection of data, including climate data, to more than 50,000 users
    per year. The request also includes an increase of $6.5 million for
    high-performance computing and communication, which will allow NOAA to
    use advanced computing power to forecast the Nation's weather and
    climate, to model ecosystems and the ocean, to and disseminate
    environmental information.
                Weather and Water ($46.1 million increase)
        The FY 2007 budget includes $46.1 million in increases to sustain
    and improve weather forecasts and warnings. NOAA's weather and water
    services make a tremendous contribution to the Nation's health and
    economic vitality. For instance, weather warnings protect the public
    from extreme environmental events while forecasts are essential to
    weather- and climate-sensitive industries, which account for one-third
    of the Nation's GDP. As an example of the benefits, during a typical
    hurricane season NOAA's efforts save the Nation $3 billion. Annually,
    drought costs the Nation $6 to $8 billion, and floods cost $5 billion
    and cause more than 80 deaths. There are estimates that indicate that
    the United States can reap a 12-to-1 return annually for every dollar
    invested in better water resource forecasting.
        Support of the FY 2007 budget request will strengthen NOAA's
    ability to sustain critical services and to provide crucial enhanced
    services. Warning improvements include $12.4 million to operate the
    U.S. Tsunami Warning System and expand its scope from the Pacific to
    the Atlantic and Caribbean. We will use $2.5 million to provide
    critical infrastructure protection for the National Weather Service
    Telecommunications Gateway (NWSTG). Funds will be used to implement a
    telecommunications network solution which resolves an existing single-
    point-of-failure issue associated with the commercial service provider
    to the NWSTG. This network solution will ensure uninterrupted delivery
    of critical meteorological data necessary for the protection of life
    and property. The budget request includes $3.5 million to support the
    Wind Profiler Network, which will fund engineering design and award a
    development contract for new frequency compliant transmitters, develop
    contingency plans in coordination with data users for the loss of
    Profiler data in the case of potential search and rescue satellite
    (SARSAT) interference, and provide operations and maintenance for the
    current Wind Profiler Network.
                Commerce and Transportation ($19.5 million increase)
        The U.S. economy relies upon an intermodal transportation network
    of ship, rail, highway, and air transport to move people, cargo and
    commerce to, from and across the Nation. This movement is heavily
    dependent upon the information and services that NOAA provides--weather
    and ice forecasts, real-time and forecast water level conditions and
    obstruction surveys, navigational charts, hazardous materials response,
    and satellite search and rescue. From 1990 to 2003, the value of U.S.
    international merchandise trade increased an average six percent
    annually, from $889 billion to about $2 trillion (in current dollars).
    The U.S. Marine Transportation System (MTS) carried 95 percent of this
    trade by volume and 41 percent by value in 2003, more than any other
    transportation mode. The Nation also loses at least $4 billion annually
    due to economic inefficiencies resulting from weather-related air-
    traffic delays, and the injuries, loss of life, and property damage
    from surface weather-related crashes cost an average of $42 billion
    annually. NOAA's products and services help maintain the efficient flow
    of transportation and commerce.
        Among our Commerce and Transportation programs, we are requesting
    $2.0 million to continue implementation of the National Vertical Datum
    Transformation Tool database, or VDATUM. VDATUM allows Federal, State,
    and local government agencies to share geospatial data more effectively
    and benefits NOAA's modernization efforts. The FY 2007 budget request
    also includes $1.9 million to continue NOAA's efforts to provide
    Electronic Navigational Charts (ENCs). Sustained funding at this level
    will enable NOAA to cover all U.S. waters by 2010. In addition, $2.7
    million is requested for tide and current data; $2.0 million of these
    funds will be used to rebuild and strengthen the National Water Level
    Observation Network's (NWLON) ability to provide navigation and storm
    tide information throughout extreme weather and water events such as
    hurricanes. Several stations were damaged or destroyed during the 2005
    hurricane season. Lastly, $1.2 million is requested for Aviation
    Weather, which will fund procurement and fielding of 75 additional
    water vapor sensors as part of an Integrated Upper Air Observing System
    to continue to improve U.S. aviation safety and economic efficiencies.
    Water vapor information is critical to depicting weather hazards and
    reducing forecast errors. The remaining $0.7 million will enable NOAA
    to maintain the existing 13 PORTS as well as continue expanding the
    program for the next several years.

    CONCLUSION

        We are pleased that the President's Budget reflects the important
    work of the science agencies housed in the Department of Commerce. The
    Department's research and development budget includes a number of
    investments critical to our nation. Thank you for the opportunity to
    appear here today. I welcome any questions that you may have.

                         Biography for David A. Sampson

        David A. Sampson is the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Commerce
    Department. Dr. Sampson was nominated by President George W. Bush on
    April 1, 2005 and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, on July 22. He was also
    designated by President Bush on June 16, 2005 as a Member of the Board
    of Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
        Previously, he served as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
    Economic Development and head of the Economic Development
    Administration, which leads the Federal Government's efforts to promote
    economic growth and regional competitiveness.
        As Deputy Secretary, Sampson serves as the Department's chief
    operating officer, with responsibility for the day-to-day management of
    its approximately $6.5 billion budget, 13 operating units, and 38,000
    employees. In that capacity, Sampson is also a member of the
    President's Management Council. The Department's portfolio is extremely
    varied. Its missions include promoting U.S. exports, negotiating and
    enforcing international trade agreements and regulating sensitive goods
    and technologies exports.
        The Department also is the Nation's steward of the oceans and
    coastal marine resources; weather forecaster and climate researcher;
    and the lead policy agency on technology and telecommunications and
    administrator for federal radio frequency spectrum. In addition,
    Department bureaus conduct the national census; track the economy and
    release regular updates; issue patents and trademarks; develop and
    apply technology, measurements, and industrial standards; promote
    economic growth in distressed communities; and encourage minority
    business development.
        Prior to joining the Bush Administration in August 2001, Sampson
    worked in both the private and public sectors, serving as President and
    Chief Executive Officer of the Arlington, Texas Chamber of Commerce;
    Chairman of the Texas Council on Workforce and Economic
    Competitiveness; and Vice Chair of the Texas Strategic Economic
    Development Planning Commission in then-Governor Bush's Administration.
        Sampson is a graduate of David Lipscomb University, the New Orleans
    Baptist Theological Seminary and earned his doctorate at Abilene
    Christian University. He and his family currently reside in Northern
    Virginia.

        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. Dr. Bement.

       STATEMENT OF DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
                           SCIENCE FOUNDATION

        Dr. Bement. Ranking Member Gordon and Members of the
    Committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide you with
    some context for our 2007 budget request. As I mentioned to
    Chairman Boehlert before the hearing, my face muscles are
    getting sore from wearing a constant grin, and it's always a
    special pleasure to come before the Committee when we have a
    budget request such as the one we have and will be discussing
    today.
        You're well aware the President's request for NSF for 2007
    is $6.02 billion, or a 7.9 percent increase over last year, and
    the first installment in the Administration's planned ten-year
    doubling of NSF's budget. Mr. Chairman, we're grateful to you
    for your personal leadership and also for the Committee's
    leadership on this issue and looking forward to working with
    you in the months and years ahead to achieve this ambitious
    goal.
        NSF has been selected to play major roles in the
    President's American Competitiveness Initiative. These include
    investing in a generation of fundamental discoveries that
    produce valuable and marketable technologies, providing world-
    class facilities and infrastructure that are essential to
    transform research and enable discovery, and preparing the
    Nation's scientific, technological, engineering and mathematics
    workforce for the 21st century, while improving the quality of
    math and science education in America's schools.
        By its longstanding practice of integrating graduate
    research with education, NSF will facilitate the direct
    transfer of new concepts to the private sector as graduate
    students involved in their discovery enter the workforce. The
    President's request for NSF will increase funding for Research
    and Related Activities by 7.7 percent to $4.7 billion. This
    should enable NSF to reverse a decline in our success rate by
    providing 500 more research grants and 6400 additional
    scientists, students, post-doctoral fellows, and technicians to
    contribute to the innovation enterprise. This increase will
    also bolster our ability to fund more high-risk ideas. We
    already make available up to five percent of research funds for
    small grants for exploratory research. Combined with targeted
    activities throughout the research directorates, more than nine
    percent of the research budget specifically challenges the
    community to take risks and engage in research at the
    interdisciplinary frontiers.
        We will also make investments in several Administration
    priority initiatives. We are pleased to be the lead agency in
    two of the Nation's major physical science research programs,
    the Networking and Information Technology Research and
    Development Initiative, or NITRD, and the National
    Nanotechnology Initiative, or NNI. Funding in the request for
    NITRD will increase by 11.5 percent, or $93.4 million, and NNI
    will increase by $29.4 million, or 8.6 percent.
        Within our investment that supports unique tools and world-
    class facilities are two new starts in our Major Research
    Equipment and Facilities Construction account. We are
    requesting $56 million for the Alaska Region Research Vessel, a
    ship designed to conduct essential scientific studies in waters
    that are home to enormous fisheries and challenged by climate
    change. The budget also includes $13.5 million for the Ocean
    Observatories Initiative, which will revolutionize our
    understanding of the complex interplay among oceans, geology
    and life in the seas. Both facilities respond to
    recommendations from the Congressionally-mandated U.S.
    Commission on Ocean Policy. The budget includes $597 million,
    an increase of 15 percent, for new cyberinfrastructure,
    including $50 million for transitioning from terascale to
    petascale computing. In addition, $35 million is included for
    NSF's Cyber Trust Program, to improve the reliability of
    computer systems, even if under attack. These programs will be
    conducted in close cooperation with the Department of Energy,
    DARPA and NASA.
        Yet another aspect of NSF's role in the President's
    initiative will focus on preparing a technological workforce
    and improving the math and science education of children.
    Although the Education and Human Resources account increases
    $19 million, or 2.5 percent over last year, this does not
    reflect the total investment in education activities at NSF.
    After accounting for various base changes such as the planned
    $17 million phase-down in the Math and Science Partnership
    Program, and contributions from the research account, K to 12
    investments actually increased by over 10 percent, and
    investments in undergraduate education increased by over six
    percent. The budget request proposes significant increases in
    all other Congressionally-mandated programs such as graduate
    fellowships and traineeships, research experiences for
    undergraduates and teachers, faculty early career development,
    Robert Noyce Scholarships, advanced technology education in
    two-year colleges, and informal science education. Investments
    to broaden participation of women, under-represented minorities
    and persons with disabilities will increase throughout the
    foundation to $640 million, with nearly $100 million from the
    research account. These investments will focus on proven
    programs that have shown success in increasing the pathways for
    broadening participation.
        Mr. Chairman, I am very aware and appreciative of the
    Committee's longstanding bipartisan support for NSF, and I'll
    be happy to respond to any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Bement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Arden L. Bement, Jr.

        Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, and Members of the
    Committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide you with some
    context for our FY 2007 budget request. It is always a pleasure to come
    before you, but it is a greater pleasure when we have a budget request
    such as the one before us today.
        As you no doubt know, the President's request for NSF for 2007 is
    $6.02 billion, or a 7.9 percent increase over the appropriation enacted
    last year. As part of the President's American Competitiveness
    Initiative, this request represents the first step in the
    Administration's firm commitment to doubling the NSF budget over the
    next 10 years.
        The ACI encompasses all of NSF's investments in research and
    education. These investments--in discovery, learning, and innovation--
    have a longstanding and proven track record of boosting the Nation's
    economic vitality and competitive strength.
        Our focus for 2007 emphasizes four priorities. The first of these--
    Advancing the frontier--is at the heart of everything NSF does. In a
    science and technology-based world, to divert our focus from the
    frontier is to put our nation's global preeminence in science and
    engineering at peril.
        One of NSF's strong points is multi-disciplinary integration at the
    frontier, where disciplinary boundaries blur and knowledge converges.
    To explore that territory, our strategy must be to keep all fields and
    disciplines of science and engineering healthy and strong.
        Frontier research is NSF's unique task in pursuing the
    Administration's research priorities within the larger federal research
    and development effort. Over the years, NSF has advanced the frontier
    with support for pioneering research that has spawned new concepts and
    even new disciplines. The NSF budget provides strong support in
    fundamental research for activities coordinated by the National Science
    and Technology Council (NSTC).
        NSF is the lead federal agency supporting NSTC's Networking and
    Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program. The
    '07 budget includes investments of $904 million in NITRD--an increase
    of $93 million.
        A highlight of the Foundation's contribution to NITRD is a $35
    million investment--an increase of $10 million--in Cyber Trust. Cyber
    Trust supports cutting-edge research to ensure that computers and
    networks that underlie national infrastructures, as well as in homes
    and offices, can be relied on to work even in the face of cyber
    attacks. It's part of a larger effort in cyber security research, which
    totals $97 million.
        NSF is also the lead in the multi-agency National Nanotechnology
    Initiative (NNI). NSF's '07 investment in NNI is $373 million, an
    increase of $29 million. Of that total, $65 million will fund Nanoscale
    interdisciplinary research teams (NIRTs). These awards encourage team
    approaches to address nanoscale research and education themes, where a
    collaborative blend of expertise is needed to make significant
    contributions.
        NSF will invest $205 million--an increase of $8 million--in the
    interagency Climate Change Science Program. NSF supports a broad
    portfolio of research activities that provides a comprehensive
    scientific foundation for understanding climate and climate
    variability. Climate has a pervasive effect on the U.S. through its
    impact on natural resources, the economy, and the environment, so this
    is work of great significance to the Nation.
        NSF investments in basic research in Homeland Security also
    increase by $42 million to $384 million. An important new effort will
    support a program of fundamental research on novel technologies for
    sensors and sensor systems to improve the detection of explosives, with
    a particular emphasis on Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).
        Fundamental research can play a vital role in helping to stem this
    threat, and at the same time, advance the entire field of sensor
    research. A focal point of this $20 million activity will be improving
    the sensitivity and fine resolution of sensors to recognize threats
    earlier than current technologies.
        The International Polar Year (IPY) in 2007 to 2008 will mark the
    50th anniversary of the International Geophysical Year. That was a year
    in which unparalleled exploration of Earth and space led to discoveries
    in many fields of science--and we hope to emulate that success. The
    U.S. vision for IPY, articulated by the National Academies,\1\ urges
    the U.S. scientific community and federal agencies to participate as
    international leaders.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ A Vision for the International Polar Year 2007-2008, National
    Academies Press.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Administration has asked NSF to lead U.S. IPY activities. In
    2007, we will invest $62 million to address major challenges in polar
    research. Key research programs include: Observing Environmental Change
    in the Arctic; Studying Ice Sheet Dynamics and Stability; and Life in
    the Cold and Dark.
        Recent advances in elementary particle physics strongly suggest
    that we are on the verge of a revolution in our understanding of the
    nature of matter, energy, space, and time. NSF will expand its
    substantial investment in elementary particle physics by $15 million.
    The opportunities for discovery today are greater than at any point in
    the last half-century, particularly for the study of dark matter, dark
    energy, and the physics of the universe.
        A new research effort to address policy-relevant Science Metrics is
    funded initially at $6.8 million, through the Social, Behavioral and
    Economic Sciences Directorate. The goal is to develop the data, tools,
    and knowledge needed to establish the foundations for an evidence-based
    science policy. NSF intends to pursue this in close cooperation with
    other agencies.
        The National Science Foundation has been selected to play major
    roles in the President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI).
    These include:

              Investing in the generation of fundamental
            discoveries that produce valuable and marketable technologies;

              Providing world-class facilities and infrastructure
            that are essential to transform research and enable discovery;
            and

              Preparing the Nation's scientific, technological,
            engineering, and mathematics workforce for the 21st Century
            while improving the quality of math and science education in
            America's schools.

        In pursuit of these ACI goals, NSF will continue to make major
    contributions to America's innovation systems by advancing new
    scientific and engineering concepts.
        These investments are all part of the request in the President's
    Budget to increase support for research and related activities by 7.7
    percent to $4.7 billion. This will enable NSF to support as many as 500
    more research grants and provide opportunities for upwards of 6,400
    additional scientists, students, post-doctoral fellows and technicians
    to contribute to the innovation enterprise.
        A hallmark of NSF's approach is to develop the Nation's talent pool
    by integrating research and education. This longstanding NSF practice
    facilitates the direct transfer of new knowledge to the private sector.
    It happens every time graduate students with experience working at the
    frontiers of discovery enter the work force. This is a strong suit in
    U.S. competitiveness, and it is one of NSF's greatest contributions to
    the Nation's innovation system.
        As a priority within our overarching mandate to prepare the STEM
    workforce for the 21st century, NSF will continue to emphasize programs
    aimed at tapping the potential of those under-represented in the
    science and engineering workforce--especially minorities, women, and
    persons with disabilities. Support for this priority will total over
    $640 million in '07.
        Three highly successful programs form the core of this investment:
    the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP), the
    Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP), and the
    Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology (CREST). These
    programs increase by $16.2 million--or 24 percent.
        Broadening participation also applies to institutions. In '07, we
    will increase efforts to ensure that the U.S. enjoys a strong
    capability in science and engineering across all regions of the
    country. NSF will invest $100 million in EPSCoR, the Experimental
    Program to Stimulate Competitive Research.
        Providing world-class facilities and infrastructure is our third
    priority for 2007. NSF has a long-established role in providing state-
    of-the-art infrastructure to meet major research challenges. Our
    strategy is to invest in tools that promise significant advances in a
    field of research and to make them widely available to a broad cross-
    section of investigators.
        Total funding in the Major Research Equipment and Facilities
    Construction (MRFEC) account is $240.45 million. This investment funds
    five on-going projects and two new starts.
        The two new projects are the feature attractions of our major
    equipment investment in 2007: the Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV)
    and the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI). Both projects will help
    to fulfill the Administration's 2004 U.S. Ocean Action Plan, developed
    in response to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
        ARRV is a ship that will dramatically improve access to Arctic
    waters. With an operating year as long as 300 days, this ship could
    accommodate some five hundred researchers and students annually. A
    variety of complex regional and global ecosystem and climate studies
    require a technologically advanced oceanographic platform to conduct
    field research at the ice edge as well as in ice up to three feet
    thick.
        OOI is an integrated observatory network, distributed among coastal
    and deep-sea sites, that will help advance our understanding of
    oceanographic and geological features and processes. With these
    fundamentally new tools for local, regional and global ocean science,
    researchers and students will now have continuous, interactive access
    to the ocean.
        As our facilities increase in sophistication and capability, so
    does the amount of data they produce. The sheer volume of information
    is overwhelming our current computational capacity.
        Cyberinfrastructure is a key factor in addressing this problem--and
    also in establishing and continuing global research excellence for many
    years to come. It remains a significant NSF priority. In 2007, funding
    for cyberinfrastructure research and development will reach $597
    million--an increase of $77 million, or 15 percent.
        NSF will invest $50 million to begin the acquisition of a
    leadership-class high performance computing system. This will be our
    first step on the road toward computation and data processing and
    storage, for petascale-level science and engineering. It will be a
    major milestone in NSF's multi-year plan to provide and support a
    world-class computing and data management environment that will make
    the most powerful high performance computing assets broadly available
    to the science and engineering community.
        NSF's fourth priority for '07 is perhaps the most compelling:
    Bolstering K-12 Education. Today's youngsters face a world of
    increasing global competition. We depend on the excellence of U.S.
    schools and universities to provide them with the wherewithal to meet
    this challenge and to make their own contributions to America's future.
        We clearly need to do more to build strong research foundations and
    foster innovation in K-12 science and mathematics education. In line
    with Administration's focus on this vital national priority NSF will
    invest $104 million in a new effort named Discovery Research K-12 that
    aims to strengthen K-12 science, technology, engineering, and
    mathematics education. We will refocus our efforts on a vital cluster
    of research in three well-defined grand challenges:

              Developing more effective science and mathematics
            assessments for K-12;

              Improving science teaching and learning in the
            elementary grades; and

              Introducing cutting-edge discoveries into K-12
            classrooms.

        We will also increase funding for the Graduate Teaching Fellowships
    in K-12 Education--better known as GK-12--by nearly 10 percent to $56
    million, supporting an estimated 1,000 graduate fellows. By pairing
    graduate students and K-12 teachers in the classroom, this program has
    been particularly successful in encouraging effective partnerships
    between institutions of higher education and local school districts and
    in exposing young minds to role models.
        Although the Education and Human Resources account increases $19
    million, or 2.5 percent over last year, this does not reflect the total
    investment in education activities at NSF. After accounting for various
    base changes, such as a planned $17 million phase down in the Math and
    Science Partnership program, and contributions from the research
    account, K-12 investments actually increase by over 10 percent and
    investments in undergraduate education increase by over six percent.
    The budget request proposes significant increases in all other
    Congressionally mandated programs, such as graduate fellowships and
    traineeships, research experiences for undergraduates and teachers,
    faculty early career development, Robert Noyce scholarships, advanced
    technology education in two-year colleges, and informal science
    education.
        Today, I have only mentioned just a few of the FY 2007 investment
    highlights. With this first installment of the ten-year commitment to
    double NSF's budget, we will be able to capitalize on the many areas of
    emerging promise already on the horizon.
        That means generating quality programs year, after year, after
    year--and continuing to lead the federal momentum toward more robust
    business practices as we put tax dollars to work for the Nation. We are
    proud of the leadership we've provided through the President's
    Management Agenda. As is highlighted in the budget, NSF is one of three
    agencies recognized as models of excellence in Grants Management, and
    we are committed to upholding that tradition.
        The President's American Competitiveness Initiative makes clear the
    larger rationale for investments in science and engineering. This is to
    put knowledge to work--to improve the quality of life and enhance the
    security and prosperity of every citizen. NSF is committed to
    cultivating a science and engineering enterprise that not only unlocks
    the mysteries of the universe but that addresses the challenges of
    America and the world.
        Mr. Chairman, I hope that this brief overview conveys to you NSF's
    commitment to advance science and technology in the national interest.
    I am very aware and appreciative of the Committee's long-standing
    bipartisan support for NSF, and I would be happy to respond to any
    questions that you have.

                       Biography for Arden L. Bement, Jr.

        Arden L. Bement, Jr., became Director of the National Science
    Foundation on November 24, 2004. He had been Acting Director since
    February 22, 2004.
        He joined NSF from the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology, where he had been Director since Dec. 7, 2001. Prior to his
    appointment as NIST Director, Bement served as the David A. Ross
    Distinguished Professor of Nuclear Engineering and head of the School
    of Nuclear Engineering at Purdue University. He has held appointments
    at Purdue University in the schools of Nuclear Engineering, Materials
    Engineering, and Electrical and Computer Engineering, as well as a
    courtesy appointment in the Krannert School of Management. He was
    Director of the Midwest Superconductivity Consortium and the Consortium
    for the Intelligent Management of the Electrical Power Grid.
        Bement served as a member of the U.S. National Science Board from
    1989 to 1995. The board guides NSF activities and also serves as a
    policy advisory body to the President and Congress. As NSF Director,
    Bement will now serve as an ex officio member of the NSB.
        He also chaired the Commission for Engineering and Technical
    Studies and the National Materials Advisory Board of the National
    Research Council; was a member of the Space Station Utilization
    Advisory Subcommittee and the Commercialization and Technology Advisory
    Committee for NASA; and consulted for the Department of Energy's
    Argonne National Laboratory and the Idaho National Engineering and
    Environmental Laboratory.
        Bement joined the Purdue faculty in 1992 after a 39-year career in
    industry, government, and academia. These positions included: Vice
    President of Technical Resources and of Science and Technology for TRW
    Inc. (1980-1992); Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
    Engineering (1979-1980); Director, Office of Materials Science, DARPA
    (1976-1979); Professor of Nuclear Materials, MIT (1970-1976); Manager,
    Fuels and Materials Department and the Metallurgy Research Department,
    Battelle Northwest Laboratories (1965-1970); and Senior Research
    Associate, General Electric Co. (1954-1965).
        He has been a Director of Keithley Instruments Inc. and the Lord
    Corp. and was a member of the Science and Technology Advisory Committee
    for the Howmet Corp. (a division of ALCOA).
        Bement holds an engineer of metallurgy degree from the Colorado
    School of Mines, a Master's degree in metallurgical engineering from
    the University of Idaho, a doctorate degree in metallurgical
    engineering from the University of Michigan, an honorary doctorate
    degree in engineering from Cleveland State University, and an honorary
    doctorate degree in science from Case Western Reserve University. He is
    a member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering.

        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. Dr. McQueary.

    STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES E. MCQUEARY, UNDER SECRETARY, SCIENCE
            AND TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

        Dr. McQueary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Gordon,
    distinguished Members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to be
    here with you today to discuss the budget for research and
    development activities of the Department of Homeland Security's
    Science and Technology Directorate. The House Science Committee
    was the first Congressional committee I appeared before
    following my confirmation in the spring of 2003, and as I am
    leaving my post next month, I expect this to be the last
    Congressional committee I will testify before as DHS Under
    Secretary for Science and Technology, so this hearing today
    would come full circle.
        As this committee and many of the Nation's leaders
    recognize, advancement in science and technology play a vital
    role in protecting our country from natural and manmade
    disasters. Making such advancements happen and carrying them
    from their hypothetical beginnings to real-life application is
    the job of the Science and Technology Directorate. We are doing
    this, of course, to get the critical tools to those who stand
    between us and disasters.
        In the days and weeks that followed Hurricane Katrina, the
    Science and Technology Directorate staff provided valuable
    subject matter expertise in diverse areas that including
    emergency responder communications, evacuation logistics,
    robot-assisted search and rescue, and hazardous biological
    material disposal. S&T also contributed to modeling and
    simulation analyses of petroleum shortages and disease impacts,
    critical infrastructure damage and economic impact, and of
    course we all know that there were tremendous difficulties
    there and that continues to be discussed at great length within
    the Congress and our country.
        Many of our ongoing efforts focus on improving tools and
    systems that will enhance emergency response capability. Some
    of these include standards to ensure the reliability of
    equipment and processes, personal protective equipment to help
    responders function well in contaminated environments, and a
    framework for wireless inter-operability so the responders can
    communicate effectively with one another during an emergency.
        I'd like to highlight a few of the many accomplishments of
    the R&D programs of the past year. S&T collaborated with local
    partners to implement second generation enhancements to
    BioWatch, a bioaerosol monitoring system operating in more than
    30 U.S. urban areas. We have significantly increased the number
    of air collectors in the top threat cities, extending
    protection to more people while fortifying our coverage of
    transit systems and special events. We also commenced operation
    of the National Bioforensics Analysis Center, the Nation's
    leading resource for the analysis of forensic samples to
    identify perpetrators of biological attacks. We transitioned
    the PROTECT chemical detection system for public facilities to
    the New York City Metro Transit Authority, and PROTECT is now
    operating in subway systems in New York City, Washington, D.C.
    and Boston.
        In the explosives area, S&T collaborated with the Office of
    Domestic Preparedness, which is now called the Office of Grants
    and Training, on preliminary testing of blast-resistant trash
    receptacles. We are using the test results to write the first
    national standard for this technology. S&T's Border Watch
    Program is advancing our border surveillance and monitoring
    capabilities and supporting border patrol agents in remote
    locations. We're developing a wireless communications framework
    that equips field agents with sophisticated tools that enable
    them to quickly determine if people crossing the border
    illegally present a criminal or terrorist threat to the United
    States.
        On the cyber front, and I know that's an area you have a
    great personal interest, as does the Committee, on the cyber
    front, we established the Cyber Security Testbed Program to
    explore threats to network security without compromising the
    Internet. Just as you need a secure biocontainment facility to
    handle live viruses, you need a secure cyber containment
    facility to work with computer viruses, and this is what the
    testbed provides, and I also should say that this work was done
    jointly with NSF. S&T is now participating in the Interagency
    Networking and Information Technology R&D Program to help
    ensure that the department's cyber security and critical
    infrastructure R&D activities are coordinated with those of
    other federal agencies.
        Manufacturers and sellers who can produce and distribute
    effective anti-terrorism technologies require certain
    protections to encourage the development of countermeasures
    that are critical in the fight against terrorism. Towards this
    end, we have certified or designated some 57 technologies as
    qualified anti-terrorism technologies, making them eligible for
    the Safety Act protections, and we are on schedule in reviewing
    all applications that have been submitted to date. A far more
    extensive summary of the accomplishments are in the written
    testimony for the record and you can read that at your leisure.
        Let me just briefly mention the 2007 plan and then I'll
    wrap up. We do support the department's goals and objectives
    through strategic RDT&E investments that weigh the risks facing
    the Nation and the estimated cost and benefits and solutions--
    for fiscal year 2007, the S&T Directorate proposes a budget of
    approximately $1 billion and 383 full-time equivalent
    employees. And this year we now have the M&A account properly
    accounted for and it will be much more visible to the Congress
    and others as to how that money is being spent, and that's been
    discussed with with your staff people, I believe, so that
    there's an understanding there.
        Finally, the requested R&D and acquisition operations
    appropriations which we're requesting is $806 million. And I
    think, sir, with that, I will wrap up my comments and thank you
    for the opportunity for appearing before you and I look forward
    to trying to answer the questions you have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. McQueary follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Charles E. McQueary

    INTRODUCTION

        Good morning Chairman Boehlert, Congressman Gordon, and
    distinguished Members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to be with you
    today to discuss the research and development activities of the
    Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Science and Technology (S&T)
    Directorate.
        As this committee and many of our nation's leaders recognize,
    advancements in science and technology play a vital role in protecting
    our nation from natural and man-made disasters. Making such
    advancements happen--carrying them from their hypothetical beginnings
    to real-life applications--is the job of the S&T Directorate.
        We are committed to developing cutting-edge tools and systems that
    will enable the dedicated men and women who protect and secure our
    homeland to serve more effectively and efficiently. Providing these
    end-users at all levels of government with the technological
    capabilities they need, regardless of the type of threat, is our most
    important mission.
        For example, in the days and weeks that followed Katrina, S&T
    Directorate staff provided valuable subject matter expertise in diverse
    areas, including emergency responder communications, evacuation
    logistics, robot-assisted search and rescue, appropriate technology
    applications, hazardous biological materials disposal, and site
    preparation, and rapid deployment of mobile and modular shelters. Our
    staff also contributed modeling and simulation analysis in areas that
    include petroleum shortages, disease impacts, critical infrastructure
    damage, and economic impact. In addition, a number of staff members
    worked as volunteers, supporting Federal Emergency Management Agency
    (FEMA) in the relief effort.
        Many of our ongoing efforts are improving tools and systems that
    will enhance emergency response capabilities. We are developing
    standards for emergency response to ensure the reliability of equipment
    and processes; developing personal protective equipment for emergency
    responders when operating in hazardous chemical, biological or nuclear
    environments; and developing inter-operable systems to keep the lines
    of communication open and clear during a disaster. In addition, the S&T
    Directorate made significant organizational strides:

              With the transfer of the Transportation Security
            Laboratory into the S&T Directorate, we completed the plan to
            consolidate existing research, development, testing and
            evaluation (RDT&E) within DHS. Given our principal
            responsibility of coordinating and organizing research and
            development (R&D) activities throughout the Department, I
            consider this a major accomplishment that will enable the
            Department to maximize its science and technology resources.

              The S&T Directorate also made internal management
            changes that will enable us to productively focus our efforts
            and work more efficiently. Last year, we established the
            position of the Chief Financial Officer to oversee finance,
            budget, planning, and program analysis and evaluation. We also
            established the position of Director of Plans, Programs and
            Requirements to coordinate the direction and activities of the
            S&T Portfolios. I will describe these Portfolios further when I
            discuss the organization of the S&T Directorate.

              As a three-year-old organization, I am very proud of
            the great progress the S&T Directorate has made on creating a
            Strategic Plan that will solidify our five to ten-year-vision
            for RDT&E. An accompanying performance management system now in
            development will enable us to establish highly effective,
            adaptable business operating policies and procedures that will
            position the organization to meet the current and future needs
            of our nation, regardless of the threats we face.

    SHORT- AND LONG-TERM RESEARCH

        At the S&T Directorate, we know we must also push qualified
    technologies out of the development pipeline faster and deploy them in
    actual operating environments so that we are better prepared the next
    time we are put to the test. To that end, the Directorate has focused
    its efforts on near-term development and deployment of technologies.
    However, as part of the Nation's science and technology complex, we
    recognize the importance of a sustained effort to expand our knowledge
    and resource base for the future.
        Our investments are diversified not only in terms of challenges and
    opportunities, but also in terms of technological maturity as well.
    Some scientific problems are basic--we must achieve a core
    understanding of some phenomena. Others are problems of application--we
    must learn how to apply our knowledge and understanding of an issue or
    problem to our own mission. Finally, other technological problems
    involve engineering development--we must investigate and determine how
    to move applied knowledge from the laboratory bench to the user. The
    Department invests in all three. We conduct and sponsor basic and
    applied research as well as advanced technology development.

              Basic research is sponsored in the expectation that
            its results will eventually give us new and better ways of
            accomplishing our mission. For example, understanding terrorist
            motivations and being able to predict intent; or improving our
            fundamental knowledge of the properties of non-traditional
            chemical agents.

              Applied research takes what we already know how to
            do, and forms it into a useful homeland security application.
            Integration of biometric data into identification documents and
            devices used to secure shipping containers during transit are
            examples of this type of activity.

              Advanced technology development leads to the
            invention of new devices and systems that can ultimately be
            transitioned to end-users. Our new handheld scanners for
            chemical countermeasures are a good example of this.

        These three kinds of work have very different timetables. Basic
    research has the longest--it may take a decade or more before a
    fundamental discovery results in a technology deployed in the field.
    Applied research tends to progress in months and years. Developmental
    research is closest to the user--here we work to take advantage of
    identified opportunities to rapidly develop technologies and deliver
    them to end-users.
        In fiscal year (FY) 2005 approximately two percent of our funding
    went to basic research, 79 percent to applied research, and 19 percent
    to developmental research--very similar to our FY 2004 funding
    distributions. I expect the distribution in FY 2006 and FY 2007 to be
    similar. In addition, it is important to note that the S&T Directorate
    has established an improved method for tracking these types of
    obligations, which will improve the accuracy of these estimates in the
    future.

    FY 2005 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        I am pleased to report to you the progress we have made in just
    three years. Much of the work the S&T Directorate carries out requires
    years of scientific pursuit before it comes to fruition. However, we
    are beginning to see knowledge and technology emerge that will provide
    the foundation for strong and resilient homeland security for the
    Nation.
        I would like to highlight in more detail the accomplishments in our
    research and development programs over the past year.

        Regarding our efforts to develop and implement chemical,
    biological, and explosive countermeasures, we:

              Initiated deployment of BioWatch Enhancement
            (Generation 2) in more than 30 U.S. urban areas, in
            collaboration with local partners This enhancement places
            significantly more air collectors in the top threat cities
            (including collectors that cover transit systems and special
            events), allowing them to further increase their broad
            population protection while also providing targeted coverage of
            their most vulnerable venues.

              Conducted detailed technical material threat
            assessments on six agents. This work is done in direct support
            for the procurement of countermeasures under the DHS/HHS
            BioShield program.

              Began operating the National Bioforensics Analysis
            Center (NBFAC) as the Nation's lead facility for technical
            analysis of forensic samples in order to support attribution,
            or identify perpetrators, of biological attacks.

              Approved a record of decision on the Environmental
            Impact Statement (EIS), awarded an architect-engineer design
            contract, and awarded a contract for construction management
            services for the National Biodefense Analysis and
            Countermeasures Center (NBACC).

              Completed and provided the FY 2006 Bioterrorism Risk
            Analysis to the Administration. This risk assessment, mandated
            by Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-10, is
            targeted to inform national plans and priorities for biodefense
            investments and will be a helpful tool to guide DHS policy-
            makers regarding the Department's efforts to anticipate,
            prevent and respond to acts of bioterrorism.

              Conducted an Interagency exercise to study an
            incident involving persistent highly toxic chemical agent
            release.

              Transitioned the Program for Response Options and
            Technology Enhancements for Chemical Terrorism (PROTECT)
            networked chemical detection system to the New York City Metro
            Transit Authority. PROTECT is a chemical detection and response
            system that was designed for public facilities. It was first
            installed in the Washington, D.C. metro transit system, and is
            now operating in the New York and Boston subway systems as
            well.

              Began establishing the Explosives Knowledge Center,
            which will enable State, local, and tribal communities to
            assess the risks of explosive attack and the costs of
            countermeasures.

              Drafted the first-ever performance standard for a
            point chemical agent vapor detector for use by civilian
            responders which is being vetted through the standards
            organization, ASTM International.

              Developed standards for calibration and optimization
            of performance for hand-held, trace-explosive detectors.

        Within the areas of support to the Department's components, we:

              Conducted an exercise with Customs and Border
            Protection (CBP) under the Northern Border Security Initiative
            that identified capability gaps and the technologies needed to
            address them. The exercise identified what technologies both
            Canada and the United States agree will improve border security
            capabilities. The S&T Directorate will use these outcomes to
            help focus and maximize the development of border security
            technologies. A report to Congress was delivered in January
            2006 on this issue. This effort was in support of CBP.

              Conducted end-to-end testing of the Border and
            Transportation Security Network (BTSNet) wireless
            communications backbone installed at the U.S. Border Patrol
            Station in Douglas, Arizona. The testing focused on the
            transfer of data from handheld and vehicle-mounted mobile
            computers to the border patrol station via an existing tower
            infrastructure. This effort was in support of CBP.

              Designed, built, and tested through the Maritime
            Automated Scene Understanding (ASU) project, a system that
            fuses RADAR, camera, and Automatic Identification System (AIS)
            data, and alerts watchstanders to anomalies in the coastal
            environment. This effort was in support of the U.S. Coast
            Guard.

              Completed Phase I design of the Advanced Container
            Security Device (ACSD). The ACSD is a security device being
            designed to monitor and communicate security breaches from each
            of the six sides of a container, as well as detect human
            presence inside containers. This effort was in support of CBP.

              Developed the Supply Chain Security Architecture
            (SCSA) that gives DHS the capability to bridge data and
            information between container security devices and the National
            Targeting Center. This effort was in support of CBP.

              Brought the Interagency Modeling and Atmospheric
            Analysis Center (IMAAC) to full operational capability. IMAAC
            integrates the Nation's best modeling capabilities to provide
            accurate information to predict the movement and spread of the
            contaminate cloud in the event of a major disaster or terrorist
            attack, thereby saving lives and assisting with timely response
            decisions. This effort is in support of federal, State, and
            local response organizations through the Homeland Security
            Operations Center (HSOC), serving as the dissemination point
            for the Department.

              Established the ``Training Exercise and Lessons
            Learned'' program to support continuous improvement of our
            nation's preparedness to respond to catastrophic events, as
            called for in HSPD-8, ``National Preparedness.'' This effort is
            in support of federal, State, and local response organizations
            through the Office of Grants and Training.

              Developed in partnership with the U.S. Coast Guard,
            the U.S. Navy and others, a low cost commercial anti-swimmer
            system to protect high value assets from underwater attack.
            This effort was in support of U.S. Coast Guard.

              Tested non-intrusive technologies to quickly inspect
            shipboard spaces, to locate or inspect hidden compartments for
            contraband, and technologies to communicate with boarding team
            members. This effort was in support of U.S. Coast Guard.

              Began support of three efforts to enhance personal
            protection for U.S. Secret Service personnel: Escape Mask,
            Handheld Suicide Bomber Detector, and Portable Entry Point
            Screening Portal for Explosive Detection. This effort was in
            support of the U.S. Secret Service.

        Within the areas of critical infrastructure protection and cyber
    security, we:

              Established the Cyber Security R&D Center, the S&T
            Directorate's primary interface with the academic and
            industrial cyber security research communities.

              Established the Infrastructure Security Program, the
            goal of which is to develop more secure and robust mechanisms
            that will enable the Internet to support the Nation's needs now
            and in the future.

              Established the Cyber Security Testbed Program, which
            enables a wide community of researchers to explore threats to
            network security without risk of compromising the actual
            Internet.

              Completed development of software algorithms in
            coordination with the Electric Power Research Institute for a
            fast-running modeling and simulation prototype for use in
            preventing cascading blackouts.

              Published two reports that identified technology aids
            that significantly close existing operational gaps, to increase
            the accuracy and reduce the time and cost for personnel
            background investigations for private security guards and
            insiders in sensitive positions.

              Issued the first annual National Critical
            Infrastructure Protection R&D Plan that addressed R&D
            priorities in the areas of protection and prevention, sensors
            and detectors, insider threats, social and behavioral issues,
            and future needs.

              Initiated 11 new projects (bringing our total number
            of those underway to 22) including rapid prototyping at the
            Kentucky Critical Infrastructure Protection Institute to
            support the Department's ability to protect community-based
            infrastructure.

        Within the emerging threats and rapid prototyping areas of the S&T
    Directorate, we:

              Evaluated the compounded infrastructure threat by
            investigating ways in which infrastructure (i.e., planes into
            buildings, nuclear plants, chemical plants) could be used as a
            weapon. The effort was used to discover and identify those
            infrastructures not previously viewed as concerns.

              Initiated the Rapid Technology Application Program
            (RTAP) to expeditiously provide needed new technologies to
            federal, State and local components of the homeland security
            mission. End-users have generated 28 urgent rapid prototyping
            requirements including the need for specialized personal
            protective equipment, rapid biological screening tools,
            portable explosive trace detectors, and systems to immediately
            locate emergency responders in the field.

        Within other areas of the S&T Directorate, we:

              Established the National Science and Technology
            Threat Awareness and Reachback (NSSTAR) system to provide real
            time, technical analysis and support to the homeland security
            community for anticipating, preventing, and responding to
            chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high explosive
            (CBRNE) threats.

              Established an Institute for Discrete Sciences (IDS)
            to investigate and develop the specialized computing algorithms
            and hardware architectures necessary to analyze massive amounts
            of diverse data from multiple, disparate, distributed data
            sources and to model terrorist attacks and simulate
            consequences on a real-time, high-resolution basis.

              Completed an engineering design for the Enhanced
            International Travel Security (EITS) system, which allows the
            validity of travel documents and the identity of travelers to
            be determined in real time at U.S. borders and other points of
            entry.

              Created the Interagency Center for Applied Homeland
            Security Technology (ICAHST) to enable collaboration among
            intelligence and law enforcement community agencies on the
            testing, evaluation, and prototyping of information analysis
            and sharing technologies.

              Established Regional Communications Inter-operability
            Pilot (RCIP) projects in Nevada and Kentucky. These pilots
            focused on developing models for improved communications and
            inter-operability to address challenges faced nationwide.

              Established two additional DHS Centers of Excellence
            at national universities: the National Center for the Study of
            Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, and the Center for the
            Study of High Consequence Event Preparedness and Response. This
            brings the total number of such university based national
            centers to five.

              Supported approximately 300 undergraduate and
            graduate students in DHS mission-relevant fields through the
            Scholars and Fellows Program, as well as funded postdoctoral
            scientists and engineers to perform advanced research in areas
            of critical importance to DHS.

              Integrated two competing Counter-Man Portable Air
            Defense System (MANPADS) prototypes with planned airframes and
            performed on-board ground and flight testing to verify system
            performance and continued air worthiness of the aircraft with
            the countermeasure system installed.

              Updated SAFECOM's coordinated grant guidance that
            outlines eligibility requirements, the purposes for which
            grants may be used, and the guidelines for implementing a
            wireless communication system. SAFECOM is a communications
            program that provides RDT&E, guidance, tools, and templates on
            communications-related issues to local, State, and federal
            public safety agencies.

              Prepared the survey tools for the Interoperability
            Baseline Study, which will provide a quantitative National
            assessment of public safety communications inter-operability.

              Prepared a revised application kit for the Support
            Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002,
            known as the SAFETY Act, that is easier to use and understand,
            with examples to assist applicants.

              Processed more than 260 pre-applications and 134
            unique technology applications under the SAFETY Act. As of Jan.
            5, 2006, we granted Designation and Certification to 41
            qualified anti-terrorism technologies. An additional 16
            technologies have been granted ``designation only'' status.

    FY 2006 ACTIVITIES

        As the S&T Directorate matures, we have continued to re-evaluate
    and reassess our priorities to better facilitate capabilities needed by
    the Department and other customers to make information and analysis
    sharing possible, to protect the Nation's borders and critical
    infrastructure, and to ensure that technical and operational solutions
    enable federal, State, and local emergency personnel to anticipate,
    respond to, and recover from attacks on the United States. Just as the
    Nation's science and technology capabilities have helped us defeat
    enemies overseas in the past, so too will they help the Nation defeat
    future efforts of terrorists to successfully attack and disrupt the
    American way of life. To prepare the Nation to counter threats from
    weapons of mass destruction as well as natural disasters, the FY 2006
    budget request included increase for initiatives that supported R&D to
    mitigate these weapons and their potentially devastating effects as
    well as efforts aimed at leveraging technology to produce rapid
    advances in capabilities to enable DHS personnel to protect the
    homeland more efficiently and effectively across many components.

        Our major ongoing FY 2006 initiatives are aimed at mission-critical
    areas and problem sets. Some highlights include:

              National Bio and Agrodefense Facility (NBAF)--The
            proposed NBAF is envisioned to provide the Nation with the
            first integrated agricultural, zoonotic disease, and public
            health RDT&E facility with the capability to address threats
            from human pathogens, high-consequence zoonotic disease agents,
            and foreign animal diseases. This supports the complementary
            missions of DHS, the Department of Human Health and Services
            (HHS) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
            NBAF will provide new RDT&E infrastructure that will allow for
            research to enhance agricultural and public health. This
            capability is needed to fill a critical gap in the Nation's
            agro and biodefense plan. The NBAF would enhance the national
            biodefense complex by modernizing and integrating agriculture
            biocontainment laboratories for foreign animal disease, human
            pathogens, and zoonotic diseases through Biosafety Level (BSL)
            3 Agricultural and BSL 4 laboratory spaces. It will also
            provide the additional infrastructure required for threat and
            vulnerability assessments and for testing and evaluating
            promising foreign animal disease countermeasures. Development
            of an integrated, national bio and agrodefense strategy has
            revealed that the current capabilities are inadequate to meet
            future research requirements supporting both agricultural and
            public health national security. Foreign animal disease
            studies, public health threats from emerging, high-consequence
            zoonotic pathogens, and the need for development and licensure
            of medical countermeasures, are generating additional demands
            for biocontainment laboratory space. Current laboratory space
            available in the United States is not sufficient to support the
            increasing levels of research, development, and testing needed
            to meet the growing concerns about accidental or intentional
            introduction of foreign animal diseases into this country. DHS
            issued an Expression of Interest (EOI) on January 19, 2006, to
            solicit interest for potential sites for the NBAF facility. The
            EOI will solicit input from organizations or consortia of
            federal agencies, State and local governments, industry, and
            academic institutions. In addition to the EOI, the S&T
            Directorate plans to release a request-for-proposals in
            February 2006 to procure architect-engineer services to conduct
            conceptual design studies for the NBAF.

              Low Volatility Agent Warning System--Develop the Low
            Volatility Agent (LVA) Warning System to serve as the basis for
            a warning and identification capability against a set of
            chemical threat agents whose vapor pressure is sufficiently low
            that detection by conventional approaches is exceptionally
            difficult. This set of low volatility agents includes some of
            the most toxic materials currently known. The Chemical
            Countermeasures Portfolio has initiated an effort to develop a
            transportable capability for the detection of these materials
            in a response and recovery mode--the LVA Surface Contamination
            Monitor. The FY 2006 funding is being used to develop a
            protection-mode capability to detect these materials upon
            release in specific environments. This detect-to-warn system
            will alert the response system of the imminent hazard thereby
            enabling protection of potential victims from exposure and
            permitting application of prompt medical countermeasures to
            minimize or eliminate casualties. This system will be a network
            of detectors to provide a protect-to-warn capability for
            specific venues, such as high-value buildings and transit
            systems. The LVA Warning System will both detect and identify
            the agent to ensure correct medical countermeasures are
            engaged.

              Counter-MANPADS--Based on the Phase II results in FY
            2006, the Counter-MANPADS Program will initiate Phase III to
            conduct operational test and evaluation on Counter-MANPADS
            advanced prototype equipment installed on commercial aircraft
            operated by U.S. cargo carriers. The primary objective is to
            reduce the residual risk of operations in the commercial
            environment and lower the cost of ownership. To maintain
            competition between two different approaches to design and
            integration, the Counter-MANPADS Program will maintain two
            contractors in Phase III. In FY 2006, each contractor will
            update its designs to incorporate enhancements for reliability
            improvements, technology protection, and emergency ground
            notification. Operational testing and evaluation will be
            performed on multiple aircraft types to capture true operations
            and maintenance costs, as well as technical performance and
            reliability data. In FY 2006, eight operational test aircraft
            will be modified and nine Counter-MANPADS systems will be
            procured to support reliability developments, test data
            collection, and critical technology protection measures.
            Additionally, live fire test evaluations will provide insight
            into the overall effectiveness of the system installed on
            commercial aircraft. Finally, Federal Aviation Administration
            (FAA) certification will be completed for additional relevant
            aircraft types, models and series not addressed in Phase II.

              Research and Development Consolidation--The
            consolidation of the Department's R&D efforts will continue to
            be an ongoing priority for the S&T Directorate. We will
            continue working with the Transportation Security
            Administration, CBP and others to solidify integration of their
            RDT&E activities into the S&T Directorate. This consolidation
            is bringing the scientific and engineering personnel and other
            RDT&E resources of the Department under a single accountable
            authority.

    FY 2007 PLAN

        In FY 2007, the S&T Directorate will maintain ongoing activities in
    science and technology research to detect and counter threats and
    attacks; protect the Nation's critical infrastructure, both physical
    and cyber; analyze and assess threats and vulnerabilities; and provide
    cutting edge technologies to operational end-users. We will support the
    Department's strategic goals and objectives by performing RDT&E while
    addressing the following criteria:

              Risks facing the Nation that are identified and
            weighed by the S&T Directorate and others, including DHS's
            Office of Intelligence Analysis;

              Homeland security needs that are identified through a
            systematic science and technology needs identification process
            that the S&T Directorate conducts with its partners;

              Estimated costs, benefits, implementability, and
            potential effectiveness of results of science and technology
            research and programs; and

              DHS's overall priorities, since the S&T Directorate
            supports and enables DHS's overall homeland security efforts.

        To accomplish these goals, the S&T Directorate proposes a total
    budget of $1.0 billion and 383 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs).
    The ``Management and Administration'' request is for $195.9 million and
    provides the resources for the salaries and benefits of the S&T
    Directorate's employees in support of our homeland security R&D
    programs. The request for the ``Research, Development, Acquisition and
    Operations'' appropriation is $806.4 million.
        The FY 2007 President's budget for the S&T Directorate provides the
    Department with the resources necessary to continue and advance our
    efforts to develop and deploy the technologies required to enhance the
    security of the homeland in the 21st century.

        Program increases proposed in the FY 2007 President's budget
    include:

              $7.1 million is requested for the Cyber Security
            program to enhance efforts in the areas of Domain Name
            Infrastructure, Secure Protocols for Routing Infrastructure,
            Cyber Security Testbed development, Large-scale Network
            Datasets, and Highly Scalable Identity Management.

              $2.0 million is requested to establish a Joint Agro-
            Terror Defense Office (JADO). The Department's agrodefense
            responsibilities are defined in several public laws and
            Homeland Security Presidential Directives, including: the
            Homeland Security Act of 2002; Critical Infrastructure
            Identification, Prioritization, and Protection (HSPD-7);
            Defense of United States Agriculture and Food (HSPD-9); and
            Bio-defense of the 21st Century (HSPD-10). The JADO will be led
            by an executive director who will lead an interagency staff.
            The JADO will be responsible for coordinating development and
            deployment of the integrated government-wide agro-defense
            programs called for by these directives and law.

              $1.0 million to comply with the requirements of
            Public Law 108-330, the DHS Financial Accountability Act which
            requires the annual Performance and Accountability Report to
            include an assurance by the Secretary of the adequacy of
            financial reporting controls. These funds are a critical
            component of the Department's efforts to prevent waste, fraud
            and abuse and enhance its financial accountability.

        In addition, the FY 2007 S&T Directorate budget proposes the
    realignment of approximately $110.0 million from the S&T Directorate's
    ``Research and Development'' appropriation account to the ``Management
    and Administration'' appropriation account. This realignment of funds
    is proposed to more accurately reflect the fact that in the past, these
    funds have been used to support the direct and indirect management,
    administration, and oversight costs associated with the Department's
    science and technology enterprise. Furthermore, it will provide the
    Congress and other interested parties with a more transparent view into
    the S&T Directorate's operations, the distribution of planned and
    actual expenditures between research and development activities, and
    the direct and indirect costs associated with their delivery.

    RDT&E PROCESS

        As I stated one year ago, the S&T Directorate developed an RDT&E
    process to provide a clearly defined, replicable method for assessing
    needs and risk, planning, allocating resources and executing programs
    to produce high-impact, cost-effective and critically needed homeland
    security technology solutions. We are in the process of streamlining
    this process to address our programmatic needs. We will use this
    process to carry out risk-based planning.

    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE ORGANIZATION

        The S&T Directorate is the research and development component of
    the Department of Homeland Security. The S&T Directorate organizes the
    vast scientific and technological resources of the United States to
    prevent or mitigate the effects of catastrophic terrorism against us or
    our allies. It unifies and coordinates much of the Federal Government's
    efforts to develop and implement scientific and technological
    countermeasures to terrorist threats. The S&T Directorate is a
    technically robust, agile, and responsive organization capable of
    meeting all of its current and future roles and responsibilities in the
    Department. The four elements of the S&T Directorate are:

              Office of Plans, Programs, and Requirements (PPR);

              Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency
            (HSARPA);

              Office of Research and Development (ORD); and

              Office of Systems Engineering and Development (SED).

        The S&T Directorate implements its science and technology
    activities through focused portfolios (organizationally within PPR)
    that address biological, chemical and explosive threats; support the
    research and development needs of the operational components of the
    Department; support federal, State, local and tribal preparedness and
    infrastructure protection; and cross-cut areas such as standards,
    threat awareness, and inter-operability that impact all aspects of the
    S&T Directorate's RDT&E process. These portfolios cut across the four
    elements of the S&T Directorate and integrate the innovative input from
    private industry and academia as well as national and federal
    laboratories. In particular, PPR provides the requirements and
    technical vision for the S&T Directorate and its RDT&E process. HSARPA
    has an essential role in meeting the goals and objectives of the
    Department and the S&T Directorate, through research and development,
    and technology maturation in industry and academia. ORD executes the
    S&T Directorate's RDT&E programs within the national and federal
    laboratories; establishes the University Centers of Excellence; and
    maintains the Nation's enduring research and development complex
    dedicated to homeland security. SED oversees the transition of large-
    scale and pilot systems to the field through program offices, which
    bring mature technologies from the laboratory to the user through a
    rapid, efficient, and disciplined project management process. In
    addition, the S&T Directorate houses the Office of Weapons of Mass
    Destruction Operations and Incident Management to offer scientific
    advice and support to meet operational needs. Through this office, the
    S&T Directorate exercises its scientific and technical leadership role
    under the National Response Plan.

    Portfolios

    Biological Countermeasures
        The Biological Countermeasures Portfolio provides the
    understanding, technologies, and systems needed to anticipate, deter,
    protect against, detect, mitigate, and recover from biological attacks
    on this nation's population, agriculture or infrastructure. Biological
    threats can take many forms and be distributed in many ways, and we
    take an integrated systems approach to countering them. Our principal
    areas of interest include: vulnerability and risk analysis to identify
    the need for vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics; development and
    implementation of early detection and warning systems to characterize
    an attack and permit early prophylaxis and decontamination; and
    development of a national bioforensic analysis capability to support
    attribution of biological agent use. Simulation, modeling, and gaming
    form an important part of this effort. They help guide and prioritize
    technical developments, and they are invaluable in training decision
    makers before and during an event. The Directorate's partners include
    the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of
    Defense (DOD), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Justice (DOJ), the
    Department of State (DOS), the United States Postal Service (USPS), and
    State and local operational end-users.

    Chemical Countermeasures
        The Chemical Countermeasures Portfolio enhances the Nation's
    capability to anticipate, prevent, protect from, respond to, and
    recover from chemical threat attacks through interagency leadership and
    innovative research, development, and technology transition.
        Our objectives are to enable comprehensive understanding and
    analyses of chemical threats in the domestic domain; to develop pre-
    event assessment, discovery, and interdiction capabilities for chemical
    threats; to develop capability for warning, notification, and timely
    analysis of chemical attack; to optimize technology and process for
    recovery from chemical attacks; and to enhance the capability to
    identify chemical attack sources. Our work reflects our recognition of
    the need to prepare against a range of threats-classical chemical
    warfare agents (CWA), toxic industrial chemicals (TICs), and non-
    traditional agents (NTAs). Coordination with other agencies like the
    EPA, HHS, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), DOD, the
    interagency Technical Support Working Group (TSWG), and the
    Intelligence Community (IC) remains critical to support our national
    chemical preparedness goals. The DOD has developed a particularly
    strong chemical defense program over a number of decades, and is a key
    partner for moving new capabilities into the domain of homeland
    security.

    Explosives Countermeasures
        The Explosives Countermeasures Portfolio develops and coordinates
    technical capabilities to detect, interdict, and mitigate the
    consequences of the use of improvised explosives devices (IEDs) in
    terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens and critical infrastructure.
    RDT&E activities include prioritization of efforts among the many
    possible terrorist threats and targets, development of new detection
    technologies, and evaluation of integrated protective systems for high-
    value facilities. Our priorities focus on the detection of vehicle
    bombs, suicide bombers, and leave-behind bombs. As a result of the R&D
    consolidation in FY 2006, the Explosives Countermeasures Portfolio will
    also dedicate significant resources to continue the development of
    explosives detection and blast mitigation systems for civil aviation
    security. Consistent with this RDT&E leadership role, the Explosives
    Knowledge Center initiated in FY 2005, will provide guidance and
    information to ensure that preparedness capabilities at the federal,
    State, local, and tribal levels are updated over time to be consistent
    with new and emerging technologies and capabilities as well as with the
    changing and emerging threats.

    Threat Awareness
        Formerly known as the Threat and Vulnerability, Testing and
    Assessment Portfolio, the RDT&E activities funded through the Threat
    Awareness Portfolio primarily support two DHS strategic goals:
    awareness and prevention. These activities provide the tools and
    knowledge necessary to meet one of the Secretary's recently announced
    imperatives to increase preparedness, with particular emphasis on
    catastrophic events caused by weapons of mass effect, and the
    requirements delineated in the Department's National Preparedness Goal.
    Our efforts in this area focus on developing information about the two
    basic elements of terrorist threat--terrorist capabilties on the one
    hand, and terrorist motivations and intent on the other--and on
    providing the advanced information processing tools necessary to
    rapidly and accurately discover, use, and share such information. Such
    tools and methods are intended to enable and enhance federal, State,
    and local awareness of a broad range of threats through information
    fusion and information sharing.

    Standards Portfolio
        The development, adoption and implementation of standards--
    providing the basis for ensuring the effectiveness of scientific and
    technological tools--are critically important for homeland security.
    Measures of effectiveness for any critical technology or tool include
    basic function, appropriateness and adequacy for the task, inter-
    operability, efficiency and sustainability. With the mission to develop
    and coordinate the adoption of national standards and appropriate
    evaluation methods to meet homeland security needs, the Standards
    Portfolio cuts across all aspects of the S&T Directorate's mission.
    Homeland Security standards address metrics for products, services, and
    guidelines, performance specifications, testing and evaluation
    protocols, training, certification of equipment and personnel, as well
    as metrics and quality assurance for deployment of systems. Standards
    are also an essential component of codes of practice and standard
    operating procedures. These standards will provide DHS the ability to
    provide guidance to federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security
    entities regarding purchase, deployment, and use of these tools.

    Cyber Security
        Our Cyber Security R&D investments will yield technologies that
    improve the security of information and information systems in two
    complementary ways: through the development of a new generation of
    cyber security technologies to increase the security of information and
    information systems, and through the development of tools and
    methodologies to develop more inherently secure systems. The portfolio
    also fosters technology transfer and diffusion of federally funded R&D
    into commercial products and services for private sector applications.
    This technology diffusion will result in broad-based benefits to the
    Information Technology (IT) sector and to users of IT among the other
    critical infrastructure sectors. We coordinate with other federal
    agencies through the National Science and Technology Council's (NSTC)
    Cyber Security and Information Assurance (CSIA) Interagency Working
    Group [co-chaired by DHS and the Office of Science and Technology
    Policy (OSTP)], and the InfoSec (Information Security) Research
    Council. We also collaborate informally with other agencies that share
    interests in the area of cyber security R&D, including the National
    Science Foundation (NSF), various organizations within DOD, and the
    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). We actively
    pursue opportunities to catalyze additional private sector activity.
    Such opportunities include public-private partnerships as well as
    increased cooperation and communication among private sector companies
    and organizations. Finally, we participate in international efforts to
    develop common areas of collaboration in cyber security R&D.

    Critical Infrastructure Protection
        The Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) R&D Portfolio effort
    protects the Nation's critical infrastructure and key assets from acts
    of terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies by developing
    and deploying tools to anticipate, identify, and analyze risks, and
    systems to reduce those risks and the consequences of an event. Funded
    RDT&E and required coordination efforts in this portfolio have been
    categorized into four programs: Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis;
    Protective Security Technologies; the Kentucky Critical Infrastructure
    Protection Laboratory (KyCIPLab); and development of the annual
    National CIP R&D Plan, as required by HSPD-7, ``Critical Infrastructure
    Identification, Prioritization, and Protection.''

    Emergent and Prototypical Technology
        Our Emergent and Prototypical Technology Portfolio combines two
    formerly distinct efforts--Emerging Threats and Rapid Prototyping. The
    mission of the Emergent and Prototypical Technology Portfolio is to:
    address the dynamic nature of terrorist threats, as science and
    technology advancements enable new agents of harm and new ways to
    employ them; and accelerate, through rapid prototyping, the deployment
    of advanced technologies to address urgent user requirements. The
    Emergent Threat Program will anticipate and define potential threats
    arising from new scientific and technological advances or from
    terrorists using existing technologies in new or unexpected ways, and
    will jump-start countermeasures capabilities development. Innovative,
    crosscutting approaches to anticipating and responding to new and
    emerging threats will permit us to develop capabilities to thwart them
    before they are used. This Portfolio uses a four-phased process of
    Discovery, Analysis, Tests, and Potential Solution.
        Since relevant R&D is underway at other agencies and organizations,
    partnerships with DOE, DOD, HHS, DOJ, USDA, and the Intelligence
    Community offer great benefits.

    Supporting the DHS Components

        We have programs dedicated to supporting four specific components
    within DHS: Border and Transportation, Preparedness and Response, the
    United States Coast Guard, and the United States Secret Service. I will
    address each of these below.

    Border and Transportation
        The Border and Transportation (B&T) Portfolio (formerly Border and
    Transportation Security Portfolio) develops and transitions
    capabilities that improve the security of our nation's borders and
    transportation systems without impeding the flow of commerce and
    travel. One of the Department's first priorities is to prevent the
    entry of terrorists and the instruments of terrorism into the United
    States while simultaneously ensuring the efficient flow of lawful
    traffic and commerce. Our Border and Transportation S&T Plan and
    Roadmap represents the combined work of the S&T Directorate and border
    and transportation agencies to identify new capabilities needed and to
    plan how the Department will make technology investments in support of
    B&T mission objectives.

    Preparedness and Response
        The S&T Directorate's Preparedness and Response Portfolio (formerly
    Emergency Preparedness and Response) supports the Department's new
    Preparedness Directorate and FEMA, whose mission is to improve the
    ability of the Nation to prepare for, respond to, and recover from
    catastrophic emergencies both natural and man-made through development
    and deployment of enabling capabilities. We emphasize large-scale
    complex events, especially those involving terrorism. Our research
    areas include incident management, decision support, response and
    recovery, and technology integration. Our most important customers are
    State and local emergency responders, emergency managers, and the
    public they serve. The emergency response community consists of more
    than 49,000 separate agencies spread throughout the country. Of
    approximately 18,000 law enforcement agencies, the overwhelming
    majority have 24 or fewer sworn officers. Over 85 percent of our
    nation's firefighters are volunteers. Enhancing the capabilities of
    such a vast and diverse community, especially against terrorist
    threats, requires a rigorous and systematic approach to the development
    and transition of a broad range of technology solutions. Our work is
    dedicated to applying the best available science and technology for the
    safety and security our emergency responders and homeland security
    professionals so that they can effectively and efficiently perform
    their jobs--saving lives and restoring critical services.

    United States Coast Guard
        The United States Coast Guard protects the public, the environment,
    and U.S. economic interests in the Nation's ports and waterways, along
    the coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as
    required to support national security. The Coast Guard research program
    supports this mission through the development of technologies and
    systems to enhance Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA), and to improve
    Operational Presence and Response. MDA includes all systems, sensors,
    and command and control systems necessary to detect, identify, and
    determine the threat potential of all vessel traffic. It also includes
    Port Security to protect important harbors. Operational Presence and
    Response involves safely and effectively stopping a vessel, boarding
    it, and finding or eliminating any threat or contraband. Research and
    development in this program aims to give the Coast Guard the means of
    neutralizing threats as far away from potential targets as possible,
    and of responding to emergencies as quickly and effectively as
    possible. Coast Guard R&D is characterized by its many partnerships
    with other federal agencies and international groups to share costs and
    expedite delivery of important products. This program also supports
    such unique and traditional Coast Guard missions as Search and Rescue,
    Maritime Regulations, and Marine Safety. Research into oil spill
    prevention and response, and Aquatic Nuisance Species prevention
    supports the Marine Environmental Protection Program. Development of
    advanced navigation systems to improve the flow of goods and services
    via our nation's waterways also serves a traditional Coast Guard
    mission.

    United States Secret Service
        The United States Secret Service (USSS) Portfolio develops and
    deploys advanced technologies to enhance that agency's protective and
    investigative capabilities. This portfolio supports the unique USSS
    mission by developing and deploying advanced technologies to enhance
    protective and investigative capabilities and has established its first
    direct-funded R&D program. The Portfolio focuses on input from threat-
    based models and the lessons learned from direct operational
    experience.

    Programs and Offices

    Office for Inter-operability and Compatibility
        The Office for Inter-operability and Compatibility's (OIC) mission
    is to strengthen and integrate inter-operability and compatibility
    efforts to improve local, tribal, State, and federal public safety
    preparedness and response. Non-inter-operable, incompatible
    communications equipment and a lack of standardized operating
    procedures have plagued the public safety community for decades. Often
    public safety agencies cannot perform mission-critical duties because
    they cannot effectively cooperate with other agencies or operate in
    other jurisdictions. By coordinating and leveraging the Department's
    inter-operability programs and related efforts, OIC reduces unnecessary
    duplication of effort, identifies and promotes best practices, and
    coordinates activities related to inter-operability. OIC manages
    programs to address inter-operability and compatibility for public
    safety providers and the larger homeland security community. Initial
    program areas include communications (including SAFECOM and Disaster
    Management programs), equipment, training, and other programs
    (including the Risk Assessment Policy Group).

    Counter-MANPADS
        The Counter-MANPADS Program focuses on demonstrating the viability,
    economic costs, and effectiveness of adapting existing military
    technology to protect commercial aircraft from the threat of shoulder-
    fired missiles, i.e., MANPADS. Its goal is to integrate and evaluate
    existing Counter-MANPADS technologies for potential use by the
    commercial airline industry, not to develop new technologies. The
    Program balances cost, suitability, and performance to meet the needs
    of commercial aviation community stakeholders. Suitable countermeasure
    systems must be capable of being implemented with minimal impact on air
    carrier and airport operations, maintenance, and support activities.
    After completing the second of three planned program phases, DHS will
    provide a report detailing the equipment performance, projected costs,
    and potential deployment options. The anticipated release date for the
    report is mid- to late-March 2006.

    University Programs
        University Programs coordinate, leverage, and use the academic
    community's immense intellectual capital to address current and future
    mission-critical homeland security needs, through both research and
    educational programs. Our goals are: 1) developing the scientific
    research base necessary to advancing knowledge in homeland security
    fields; 2) developing a cadre of technical experts within the Nation's
    workforce who are trained to address current and future challenges in
    securing the homeland; and 3) ensuring the results of their research
    are disseminated to DHS and its partners. The University Programs
    portfolio is invested largely in two areas: a university-based system
    of DHS University Research Centers, and a Scholars and Fellows Program
    intended to build and develop the next generation of academic
    researchers in disciplines that are relevant or essential to homeland
    security. University Programs is now a catalyst for mission-relevant
    research at more than 40 major research universities, and is building
    capacity worldwide by attracting over 150 faculty and their peers,
    hundreds of graduate and undergraduate researchers, as well as DHS
    Scholars and Fellows from more than 110 institutions, to focus on
    issues critical to homeland security.

    SAFETY Act
        In accordance with criteria set forth in the SAFETY Act of 2002 and
    Interim Regulations the Office of SAFETY Act Implementation evaluates
    technologies. As part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law
    107-296, Congress enacted the SAFETY Act to provide ``risk management''
    and ``litigation management'' protections for sellers of qualified
    anti-terrorism technologies. The Act's purpose is to encourage
    development and deployment of anti-terrorism technologies, particularly
    those aimed at preventing, detecting, identifying, or deterring acts of
    terrorism, or to limiting the harm that such acts might otherwise
    cause. The SAFETY Act creates certain liability limitations for
    ``claims arising out of, relating to, or resulting from an act of
    terrorism'' where qualified anti-terrorism technologies have been
    deployed. The office's evaluations are designed to advise DHS
    leadership on whether to grant SAFETY Act protections to technologies
    that applicants submit. In order to stimulate the development and
    adoption of valuable new technologies, the office seeks to raise public
    awareness of the benefits of the protections available under the SAFETY
    Act. The office also coordinates with other DHS elements and other
    federal agencies to support those offices' missions and minimize the
    burden on applicants for SAFETY Act protection. This advance
    coordination regularly occurs in cases where the SAFETY ACT could play
    a positive role in a pending federal procurement.

    RDT&E CONSOLIDATION

        To ensure strategic direction and avoid duplication, the S&T
    Directorate is charged with consolidating the Department's research and
    development activities. As I mentioned earlier, we have made
    significant steps by integrating the Transportation Security Laboratory
    into the S&T Directorate. We are continuing to further unify and
    coordinate efforts to develop and implement scientific and
    technological countermeasures.
        In keeping with legislative intent of the Homeland Security Act of
    2002 and the FY 2004 and 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations, the S&T
    Directorate, through RDT&E consolidation, seeks to:

              Bring under a single accountable authority, the
            scientific and engineering personnel and most RDT&E resources
            of the Department;

              Maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the
            Department's RDT&E capacity;

              Develop and expand synergistic RDT&E programs that
            cut across the Department's activities;

              Create a world class RDT&E capability; and

              Allow the other organizational elements within DHS to
            focus on their operational missions by eliminating within them
            the specialized management infrastructure required to manage
            organic RDT&E.

        Major RDT&E consolidation measures in FY 2006:

              TSL in Atlantic City, New Jersey became part of the
            S&T Directorate in FY 2006. The S&T Directorate has been
            working closely with TSA to ensure the seamless transition of
            TSL's staff and research capabilities. A Memorandum of
            Understanding is guiding the transition of responsibility from
            TSA to the S&T Directorate for the assets, liabilities, and
            program capabilities of the TSL and defining a collaborative
            framework that will minimize the disruption of program work at
            TSL and prevent the duplication of effort during this
            transition. The S&T Directorate has been assessing and
            integrating existing TSL projects into its transportation
            security and high explosives portfolio strategies as
            appropriate.

              Funds originally requested by the CBP to support
            salaries for those assigned to its Research, Development, and
            Evaluation Branch were likewise integrated into the S&T
            Directorate mission.

        In FY 2007, the S&T Directorate will continue to perform its role
    as the primary research, development, testing and evaluation arm of the
    Department.

    TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

        Providing operational end-users with the technology and
    capabilities they need to detect and prevent terrorist attacks, the
    means of terrorism and other illegal activities is the capstone of the
    S&T Directorate's mission.
        To successfully carry out this aspect of our mission, the S&T
    Directorate actively works to transition cutting-edge homeland security
    technologies to end-users within the Department, other federal
    agencies, State and local government entities, and the private sector.
    Some recent accomplishments in this area include:

              Regional Technology Integration Initiative (RTII)--In
            FY 2005, RTII completed integrated community-based
            vulnerability assessments in four pilot locations. We are
            currently working with these communities to identify
            appropriate homeland security technology solutions for the gaps
            identified. In FY 2006, we are focusing on technology
            deployments in these four regions and on the transfer of
            lessons learned to ``peer cities.'' Additional locations may be
            added in the future as we identify gaps that have not been
            addressed through the pilot locations. RTII provides the basis
            for improved preparedness, mitigation, and response by regional
            authorities, including cities and counties that will result in
            lives saved and greater effectiveness of disaster management
            resources. This program is a fundamental transition path for
            technologies that will help regional authorities across the
            Nation counter emerging threats.

              DOD's 1401 Program--Pursuant to the direction of
            Congress to quickly deploy technology where it is needed, DHS
            is working with DOD and DOJ to identify and transfer current
            appropriate technology to federal, State, and local emergency
            responders for homeland security applications. The 1401
            Technology Transfer Program is aimed at efficiently
            transitioning these technologies to the broader public safety
            community. As part of this effort, key interagency stakeholders
            selected five high-priority technologies from a field of 550
            DOD technologies that matched a list of first responder needs.
            Through the 1401 Program, the S&T Directorate will ensure that
            technologies transferred to first responders meet standards of
            inter-operability and compatibility with existing public safety
            operations, and that they are tested and evaluated by first
            responders. In support of this role, the S&T Directorate OIC
            sponsored a series of focus groups with public safety
            practitioners in August 2005 in an effort to validate the
            function and application of these technologies in their
            respective environments.

              Technology Clearing House--The S&T Directorate has
            awarded a contract to the Public Safety and Security Institute
            for Technology (PSITEC) to provide these services, which will
            all be available through a Knowledge Portal. When complete, the
            Knowledge Portal will provide a one-stop-shop for access to
            relevant information from a wide variety of sources, including
            the existing Responder Knowledge Base and the Lessons Learned
            Information Sharing (LLIS) created by the Memorial Institute
            for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT), under sponsorship from
            the DHS Office of Domestic Preparedness. Its architecture will
            be open, inter-operable, and non-proprietary to facilitate cost
            effective, long-term operations, maintenance and upgrades.

              Next-Generation Cyber Security Technologies Program--
            To stimulate transfer of DHS-funded technologies into
            mainstream commercial products and services, FY 2006 activities
            emphasize testing, evaluation, and piloting of the most
            promising technologies emerging from the now completed program
            that began in FY 2004.

        While highlighting these successes, it is important to note that
    the transfer of technology often requires numerous intricate,
    incremental steps over many years. Although the basic scientific
    principles that underpin a particular technology may be leveraged,
    nevertheless significant re-engineering is required to make the
    technology suitable for homeland security purposes. In most cases,
    technology developed for one purpose, such as a military application,
    may not be able to be transferred in a straightforward manner to civil
    operations. The requirements for maintenance and support, for
    performance, and for total cost-of-ownership often must be re-
    engineered or otherwise resolved to permit such transfers.
        During the next year, the S&T Directorate will work closely with
    its government, international and private sector partners to overcome
    these institutional and technical challenges. In FY 2007, the S&T
    Directorate plans to continue its technology transfer to end-users.
    Plans include:

              The Facility Restoration Technology Demonstration--
            This demonstration will focus on the transfer and application
            of the concepts developed in FY 2005 and FY 2006 for airports
            to other types of critical facilities such as subway systems
            and other transportation nodes. In addition, FY 2007
            accomplishments will focus on filling data and technology gaps
            critical to the restoration of facilities such as the
            decontamination of sensitive equipment and the interactions of
            chemical agents on surfaces.

              Technology Clearing House--The Emergent and
            Prototypical Technology Portfolio will continue to support the
            Technology Clearinghouse in FY 2007. Development plans include:
            adding procurement decision support tools and advanced search
            mechanisms; expanding content to include topics such as public
            health information; forming communities of interest and
            professional discussion boards; and establishing a technology
            transfer community database.

    STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS

        The S&T Directorate places great importance on its interactions
    with the other federal departments and agencies that are contributing
    to the Nation's homeland security science and technology base. We are
    accustomed to working in an interagency working group mode, and have
    found this approach to be quite effective in addressing a variety of
    key areas. To proceed in this current effort, we must have a complete
    picture of all Federal Government components involved in research and
    development, and regularly utilize the collective wisdom that the
    interagency process brings to the table. We must understand one
    another's R&D capabilities and current activities and plans, both near-
    and long-term, because only when we have an accurate and comprehensive
    picture of the current state of the Nation will we be able to
    effectively develop a roadmap for success.
        Only through increased communication and partnering are we able to
    leverage existing federal resources to sustain the science and
    technology advances essential to homeland security. These advances in
    turn provide security solutions that are technically, economically, and
    socially sustainable. This superior technical base continuously enables
    the United States to stay ahead of the changing threats and escalating
    abilities of our adversaries.
        Research and development needed to enhance the Nation's
    capabilities to thwart terrorist acts and mitigate natural disasters is
    being conducted by the Department of Commerce (DOC), USDA, DOD, DOE,
    DOJ, HHS, DOS, and Veteran's Affairs as well as within the National
    Science Foundation (NSF), EPA, other federal agencies.
        By bringing these organizations together through strategic
    partnerships, we are creating an enduring homeland security science and
    technology community. As directed by the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
    the S&T Directorate is continuing to solidify this community by
    coordinating the Federal Government's civilian efforts to identify and
    develop countermeasures against current and emerging threats. In
    support of these efforts during the last year, the S&T Directorate has:

              Worked with the OSTP, the Homeland Security Council,
            the National Security Council, the Office of Management and
            Budget and the Office of the Vice President in the effort to
            coordinate homeland security research and development across
            the entire United States Government.

              Led the development of the National Plan for Homeland
            Security Science and Technology. This strategic plan will
            establish R&D priorities within and across federal programs and
            identify opportunities to leverage the R&D efforts of other
            agencies.

              Established meaningful interagency interactions with
            Federal, State and local government and private sector entities
            to meet the high priority homeland security RDT&E needs of the
            Nation. This includes actively participating in or leading
            several interagency working groups. Such groups foster an
            active exchange of information and assist participating
            agencies in identifying related needs and requirements,
            conducting research and development of mutual benefit, and
            avoiding duplication of effort.

        Through these and other interagency interactions, the S&T
    Directorate is bringing together the vast homeland security scientific
    and technology resources of the Nation. Significant accomplishments and
    ongoing collaborative efforts from across the S&T Directorate are
    listed below:

              Biodefense Collaboration--DHS and the S&T Directorate
            partner with, and support, other federal departments and
            agencies with lead responsibilities in biological threats--a
            major focus of our countermeasure R&D. We are working with the
            HHS on medical countermeasures and mass casualty response; USDA
            on agriculture biosecurity and food security; and EPA on
            decontamination and water security including a jointly funded
            center for microbial risk assessments. In a major initiative,
            S&T is collaborating with other federal partners to establish
            the National Interagency Biodefense Campus, which includes our
            partnership with the DOD on the National Biodefense Analysis
            and Countermeasures Center (NBACC). This Center will provide
            the Nation with cutting edge capabilities in bioforensics and
            biological threat characterization. S&T and DOD's Defense
            Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) are collaborating on BioNet, a
            program to integrate military and civilian biomonitoring
            activities and establish a shared communications process to
            provide timely biothreat information. The S&T Directorate
            maintains a close liaison with the DOS on matters relating to
            the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) which is essential to
            DHS biological countermeasure programs and compliance posture.

              Chemical Countermeasures Collaboration--The S&T
            Directorate is working with DOD to plan a Chemical Security
            Analysis Center (CSAC) that will serve as a knowledge
            management, threat characterization, and forensic analysis hub
            that will address a full range of chemical threats,
            particularly chemical warfare agents and non-traditional
            agents. We are also coordinating with HHS' Centers for Disease
            Control (CDC) and the EPA on the larger Chemical Laboratory
            Response Network (CLRN). In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,
            we have already seen how components of CLRN will produce a more
            coordinated, more effective laboratory response effort. The CDC
            activated the Laboratory Response Network to conduct sampling
            and analysis for identification of toxic chemicals and
            pathogens in Gulf Coast areas.

              Critical Infrastructure Protection--Under HSPD-7,
            Critical Infrastructure Protection, DHS is assigned the overall
            responsibility for coordinating the national effort to ensure
            the security of the Nation's critical infrastructure and key
            resource sectors. Per this directive, the S&T Directorate is
            working with the Chemical Sector Coordinating Council,
            comprised of 16 key stakeholders, to draft the Nation's
            strategic vision for better securing the chemical sector
            infrastructure. Our key federal partners in chemical security
            include DOD, HHS, the FBI, the EPA, and the interagency
            Technical Support Working Group (TSWG). In addition, we
            established the Process Control Systems Forum (PCSF) to develop
            new cross-industry guidelines, protocols and system
            architecture for provably secure, next-generation Supervisory
            Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and related types of
            process and distributed control systems. PCSF is comprised of
            government and private industry stakeholders, owners, and
            operators.

              Maritime--The Science and Technology Directorate's
            Coast Guard R&D program is characterized by its many
            partnerships with other federal agencies and international R&D
            groups. Beyond the program support for the Coast Guard's
            traditional missions, we have ongoing collaborations in the
            maritime security domain. We are supporting the Department's
            participation in a broad maritime security program review
            looking at all current U.S. Government maritime policy
            initiatives and ensuring interagency alignment to guide a
            focused national effort to improve Maritime Domain Awareness.
            Maritime Domain Awareness includes all systems, sensors, and
            command and control systems necessary to detect, identify, and
            determine the threat potential of all vessel traffic. It also
            includes Port Security to protect important harbors. In
            accordance with National Security Presidential Directive 41 and
            HSPD-13, ``Maritime Security Policy,'' issued last December,
            DOD and DHS are leading an interagency initiative to develop
            the National Strategy for Maritime Security. The S&T
            Directorate is supporting that effort as well as the ongoing
            comprehensive National Maritime Response Plan that clarifies
            lead agency roles and responsibilities regarding maritime
            threats.

              Transportation Security Partnerships--The S&T
            Directorate works in close cooperation and collaboration
            through a Cargo Security Integrated Planning Process Team
            (IPPT) process. The IPPT is co-chaired by S&T and the DHS
            Policy Office, and has representatives from within the
            Department as well as the Departments of State, Commerce,
            Defense, Transportation and Energy. Through this IPPT, DHS
            actively ensures coordination with existing government programs
            and leverages those relationships to foster a cohesive program
            strategy and avoid the duplication of effort. Other
            transportation security efforts focus on Freight Rail Security
            with the Federal Railroad Administration and the S&T
            Directorate's ongoing Counter-MANPADs program. In partnership
            with other federal agencies (FAA, DOD, DOS), the S&T
            Directorate initiated a Congressionally-directed aggressive
            System Development and Demonstration program to counter the
            threat of shoulder-fired missiles. The program demonstrates and
            evaluates the possible migration of existing military Counter-
            MANPADS technologies to the commercial airline industry.

              Border Security--Over the past three years, the S&T
            Directorate has coordinated extensively with DOD, the National
            Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and FAA with
            respect to Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) operations and
            evaluations for the U.S. Border Patrol. The UAV Executive
            Steering Group was established to advise the Secretary of
            Homeland Security and provide a forum for communication,
            coordination and cooperation. The UAV Executive Steering Group
            is made up of representatives from DHS components, DOD and the
            FAA.

    International Partnerships

        The S&T Directorate recognizes the enormous benefits gained from
    working with the international community to seek technology solutions
    to our common homeland security problems. We have worked in concert
    with our Federal Government agency counterparts to both negotiate
    agreements with key foreign partners and to implement strategic
    programs under those agreements that meet our mutual high-priority
    needs.
        The S&T Directorate is currently the United States' lead agency for
    umbrella S&T Agreements that have been created with Canada, the United
    Kingdom, and most recently with Australia. These instruments provide
    the mechanism for us to share resources, ideas, and information in
    order to leverage our individual investments, to benefit from each
    other's experiences and perspectives of others, and also importantly to
    create consistency in the tools and systems that we ultimately field.
    We are taking advantage of the opportunities presented by these
    partnerships across the entire suite of civil security mission
    requirements.
        Cooperative research, development, testing and evaluation
    activities are being pursued with other countries as well. In
    particular, we are looking at ways to enhance an already robust
    collaboration with Israel, especially in testing of explosives
    detection and mitigation technologies in operational environments. As
    part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership initiative, we have
    reached out to Mexico to begin a dialog on technology to address
    agricultural security. We understand the need to engage foreign
    entities on technology issues around travel and trade security and have
    initiated interactions with Singapore, the Netherlands, Sweden and
    Japan in this arena.

    CONCLUSION

        In conclusion, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today. I can assure you that we are on-task, and that we are providing
    the planners, operators, and responders we serve with the best support
    our science can offer. Homeland security continues to benefit
    tremendously from the work of our nation's scientists and engineers.
    The knowledge, the systems, the methods, and the tools they give us do
    much to make us safer and more prepared.
        On behalf of all of us in the Science and Technology Directorate, I
    thank you for your continuing support and counsel. I am proud of what
    we have been able to accomplish in just a few years, and I trust we
    will continue to live up to the responsibility the Nation has given us.
    I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

                       Biography for Charles E. McQueary

        Dr. Charles E. McQueary was appointed by President Bush as Under
    Secretary for Science and Technology of the Department of Homeland
    Security and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in March of 2003.
        Dr. McQueary leads the research and development arm of the
    Department, utilizing our nation's scientific and technological
    resources to provide federal, State, and local officials with the
    technology and capabilities to protect the homeland.
        Prior to joining Homeland Security, Dr. McQueary served as
    President, General Dynamics Advanced Technology systems, in Greensboro,
    N.C. Earlier in his career, Dr. McQueary served as President and Vice
    President of business units for AT&T, Lucent Technologies, and as a
    Director for AT&T Bell Laboratories.
        In addition to his professional experience, Dr. McQueary has served
    his community in many leadership roles as Chair of the Board, and
    Campaign Chair, of the United Way of Greensboro; Member of the Board of
    Trustees of North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University;
    Member of the Guilford Technical Community College President's CEO
    Advisory Committee; Member of Board of World Trade Center North
    Carolina; Chair for Action Greensboro Public Education Initiative; and
    as a Member of the Board of Guilford County Education Network.
        Dr. McQueary holds both a Ph.D. in Engineering Mechanics and an
    M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas, Austin.
    The University of Texas has named McQueary a Distinguished Engineering
    Graduate.

                                   Discussion

        Chairman Boehlert. And once again let me thank you on
    behalf of the entire Committee for your outstanding public
    service.
        Dr. McQueary. Thank you.
        Chairman Boehlert. We wish you well.
        Dr. McQueary. It's been a pleasure to serve in this role, I
    assure you.
        Chairman Boehlert. You know, when you're charged up as you
    are within the Administration, and I am and we are and the
    majority up here, there's always a temptation to have this as a
    sort of cheerleading session and we high five each other and
    talk about all the good things and boy, there are a lot of good
    things to talk about, but that produces nothing of any real
    value as we go forward. So instead of focusing on all that's
    right in a budget that does much better by science, and instead
    of focusing on the vision that's coming into sharper focus
    because of the budget and the words and deeds from the
    Administration, I'm going to talk about some of the other
    things that are somewhat problematic, if you will.
        Let me start out with one, Dr. Sampson, for you, because
    both Mr. Gordon and I and just about everybody we talk to are
    real believers in the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. In
    the budget submission from the Administration, requesting $46
    million ain't going to fly, I'll tell you. I am determined to
    up that and so is he and I think the majority in Congress are.
    We're talking about, relatively speaking, nickels and dimes for
    a program that has proven its value. So tell me how you think
    the program would work if we were dumb enough to only provide
    $46 million. Can you explain that to me?
        Dr. Sampson. Certainly. First of all, I think what I would
    point out is that in the budget development process, our
    responsibility is to identify priorities that we believe
    address the most critical needs that we have. Secondly, MEP is
    just one method by which NIST supports manufacturing in
    America. Over half of all NIST core laboratory functions
    directly or indirectly benefit manufacturing. At NIST we have
    somewhere in excess of 1800 visiting scientists working from
    industry and from academia, and if the Congress decides to move
    forward with what we believe are the right set of priorities
    for NIST, what we would do would be several things. First of
    all, we will begin----
        Chairman Boehlert. Doctor, well, I mean the time is limited
    and I'm going to hold myself to the same time. Just let me
    signal you so you can go back and----
        Dr. Sampson. Okay.
        Chairman Boehlert.--report to everybody that we're
    determined to do better by MEP and we're determined to do well
    by NIST, but this is something that really impacts on the small
    business manufacturer right on the front lines and they're
    oftentimes like one-armed paperhangers. They don't have
    research departments. They don't have all these other
    departments, but they need some help and it's a good program
    and it makes sense, so I hope you won't be unhappy if we force
    more money into this program on Commerce. That's it.
        Now let me go to Dr. Bodman. As you know, this committee,
    particularly Chairman Biggert and I, have long been concerned
    about the lack of any plan for the Climate Change Technology
    Initiative. Now that, thanks to you and I want to give you high
    marks for this, a drafted strategic plan has finally been
    released, we're still kind of concerned. There doesn't seem to
    be much in there to help set priorities or milestones. Could
    you tell us how you see that plan moving forward from here and
    what you hope it will accomplish? And just let me say I think
    we're finally getting to the point where people no longer think
    that my concern about global climate change and the scientific
    community's concern about global climate change is just a
    figment of our imaginations. It's for real and we've got to
    deal with it in a responsible way. So I give the microphone to
    you, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Bodman. Well, without getting into a debate about
    climate change, I would observe that this Administration has
    been doing everything it can do with respect to both science,
    which I was intimately involved with during my days when I had
    Dr. Sampson's job and now at the Energy Department, where we
    are responsible for the technology program that really covers a
    wide range of things, each of those programs have very specific
    milestones and goals and objectives and so forth, and we lay
    those out each year in the budget, so I'm in receipt of a
    letter that you and Congresswoman Biggert sent and I'm in the
    final stages of responding to that, but I'm comfortable that we
    have adequate goals and objectives. And the hope here is to
    develop technologies that will, when they emerge, which they're
    starting to do, into the marketplace will be able to make a
    significant contribution by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
        Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Secretary, I'm comfortable if you're
    comfortable because I have a very high regard for you and I'm
    very much looking forward to the response that is in the final
    stages of preparation, but we won't get into a debate about
    global climate change because I know that you know, and even
    the President knows, it's for real. It's not the figment of
    somebody's vivid imagination. And I know and you know and the
    President knows that humans have contributed to it, and I know
    and you know and I think the President realizes that we have to
    do something about it, so the discussion would be what that
    doing something should represent, not whether or not the
    problem exists is for real. So thank you very much for that
    answer. We very much look forward to your response.
        And, Dr. Bement, as several of us have noted, we're not
    happy with the level of education commitment at NSF, which we
    think is critical to the Nation's future. Can you please tell
    us what you think the role of NSF is in education? What is the
    justification for reducing K through 12 programs just as the
    Nation is focusing increasingly on the inadequacies of science
    and math education?
        Dr. Bement. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like
    to say that education, outreach, and diversity are core values
    throughout the Foundation, not just in the EHR Directorate. It
    permeates every directorate and every office within the
    Foundation. And the commitment right now in the 2007 budget is
    $816 million in the EHR Directorate, but it's $450 million in
    the Research and Related Activities account, and that includes
    activities at every level, from K to 12 to undergraduate to
    graduate and early career and also in broadening participation.
        And just to give some examples, in K to 12 there's the GK-
    12 Program in the R&RA account, which brings mentors into the
    classroom. There are also Research Experiences for Teachers.
    Now these programs are well recognized by the National Science
    Board and they've encouraged us to put more commitment in our
    research directorates, because the kind of programs we can
    bring into the classroom gives more hands-on experience,
    creates more motivation, creates more enthusiasm and puts more
    bright minds into the pipeline for science and engineering,
    which is a critical need in the Nation at the present time.
        Without belaboring that fact, I have eight pages of
    examples of programs within our R&RA----
        Chairman Boehlert. I'm sure you have.
        Dr. Bement.--which I'd like to present--
        Chairman Boehlert. And I know from long experience that the
    Administration sends its witnesses up and boy oh boy, you've
    got volumes to tell us what great work you're doing, and you
    know what? I think you're doing great work and I am a
    cheerleader for the National Science Foundation, but I'm
    anxious to get to that area where I think we want to give you
    an opportunity to do even better than what you are doing. We
    have some dispute about how you come up with the bottom line,
    but the important point is that science and math education is
    in need of attention in this country.
        Dr. Bement. Yes.
        Chairman Boehlert. It's critical that we invest more in
    that and it's also important for everybody else in this town to
    recognize that you guys at NSF have a vital role to play. We
    just can't leave it to the Department of Education, and we've
    got to make darn sure you----
        Dr. Bement. Right.
        Chairman Boehlert.--at NSF and the Department of Education
    are working collaboratively and you're marching forward
    together, not like in the past. I can recall one time when I
    had to introduce the Secretary of Education to the Director of
    the National Science Foundation. They didn't know each other. I
    mean, that was really mind boggling, but we don't have that
    now.
        Dr. Bement. Well, Mr. Chairman----
        Chairman Boehlert. I can----
        Dr. Bement.--we have a common mission and I----
        Chairman Boehlert. That's super.
        Dr. Bement.--appreciate your support. And I should add,
    I've met with the Secretary of Education at least twice.
        Chairman Boehlert. Well, that's great and keep meeting. Mr.
    Gordon.
        Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will follow your
    admonition and try not to be a cheerleader here today. Let me--
        Chairman Boehlert. But you will concede there is much to
    cheer about. Thank you.
        Mr. Gordon. I want to, as always, or not always, but most
    of the time say that I am in such agreement with the Chairman.
    I understand, Dr. Bement, beside being a scholar, you're also a
    soldier but I know you can't do anything about this K to 12
    situation. It's been cut 37 percent. You listed all the good
    things you're doing, but the funding has been cut by over one-
    third for those. I hope----
        Dr. Bement. Are we talking about MSP or K to 12 education?
        Mr. Gordon. K to 12.
        Dr. Bement. That hasn't been cut.
        Mr. Gordon. If you look at the budget, over the last--I
    think it was seven percent this year. It's been 37 percent, I
    think, from 2001 to 2004.
        Dr. Bement. Well, again I would argue that in the EHR
    account, if that's the only account you're looking at, you'll
    see some cuts in K to 12, but you also ought to look at the
    total budget.
        Mr. Gordon. Well, I think, if we look at the Augustine
    Commission Report, K to 12 science education was really a major
    thrust there. I have put their recommendations into
    legislation. Again, you've listed all the good things you're
    doing. Again, I'm just sorry that it's being cut by one-third.
    You are a soldier and so you can--you know, and if you can put
    on a grin on that one, you----
        Dr. Bement. Well, I had.
        Mr. Gordon.--you really are a good one. Let me also say,
    Mr. Chairman, that concerning the MEP Program, clearly I think
    it is a bipartisan program and it's distinguished by the
    Governors Association, saying it's important. And, Dr. Sampson,
    you pointed out a rosy picture, but the fact of the matter is
    that all of the surveys taken of our country's attitudes right
    now, say we're going in the wrong direction and the economy is
    one of those areas that they say is going in the wrong
    direction. And I think a part of that is the fact that since
    2001, we've lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs. The MEP
    Program really is our only small, little effort to try to save
    those jobs and improve those jobs, and you talked about, what a
    good job NIST is doing. It's being cut by 23 percent. You know,
    we just need more help in these areas.
        And, Mr. Chairman, you pointed out, rightfully so, that
    this is an important group of individuals with the panel. They
    are also dedicated public servants and I would say all have
    made personal sacrifices to do what they're doing and I
    congratulate them for that, but constitutionally, we are an
    equal branch of the government. We do have the responsibility
    of oversight. We are busy also, but part of being busy is
    trying to do our oversight, so I think we--we need to move
    forward with that.
        And finally, Secretary Bodman, Jerry Costello couldn't be
    here today. He has another committee meeting, but he wanted me
    to thank you and the Administration for their commitment to the
    FutureGen issue and he'll be submitting questions to the
    record. I'm glad I could say something nice. I'm going to tell
    him--because I'm sure it's going to be news to him, as well as
    to the world, that you say that the Administration is doing all
    that it can on climate change. I'll let him know that.
        And finally, let me say, Dr. Marburger, I had nominated you
    for the gold medal and now I would like to present that to you.
    You performed with grace. Once again this year it's just
    interesting how when you want to prove the commitment of the
    Administration on overall spending for science, you include
    earmarks. But then, if there are problems, you say bad things
    about the earmarks. One area you pointed out was that five
    percent of the budget was earmarks. That meant that 95 percent
    were your priorities. You know, I'll remind you that the entire
    Administration's budget is an earmark. You are earmarking what
    your priorities are. I don't think it's unreasonable that
    Congress, an equal branch of government, going through
    legislative hearings, having some bit of expertise, would also
    like to have some role in establishing that. You've got 95
    percent of what you wanted. You know, I think to say that five
    percent were earmarks, that were legislative priorities, I
    think it came out pretty well. So, again, my congratulations at
    your gold medal performance and I appreciate you coming here
    and being with us today.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. Dr. Bartlett.
        Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I appreciated
    your comments. We're talking today about the federal R&D
    budget, but this is being focused on our competitiveness agenda
    and that's very appropriate. Essential to that, of course, is
    the country turning out adequate numbers of well trained
    scientists, mathematicians and engineers, and do you know the
    statistics? China graduates more English speaking engineers
    than we do and a fair percentage of the English speaking
    engineers that we graduate are Chinese students. They're now
    graduating what? I hear various numbers. Six, eight times as
    many engineers as we're graduating. India, two, three times as
    many engineers as we're graduating. I would submit, gentlemen,
    that a culture gets what it appreciates.
        When I was going to school, we were squares. That's about
    when you went to school, I guess. And now I guess bright young
    boys are geeks and nerds, and pretty girls won't date them, and
    really bright girls have to play dumb to get a date. How smart
    is this of a society where our bright young people are clearly
    under-appreciated? Rarely is a scientific achiever invited to
    the White House to be acclaimed there, and I submit, gentlemen,
    that we're not going to turn this around. Money alone won't do
    it and the good intentions of your departments won't do it.
    This will turn around when we as a culture appreciate this kind
    of endeavor.
        I'd like to start with Dr. Marburger and just go down the
    table. What can we do as a culture so that our bright young
    people--I talk to a lot of them and they are increasingly going
    into what I caution them could be destructive pursuits. They're
    becoming political scientists and lawyers. Now, we need a few
    of each of those, but I would submit that we've got more than a
    few of each of those and I'd like to see more of our bright
    young minds go into science, math and engineering, but that's
    not going to happen until we as a society appreciate them. How
    do we send that message?
        Dr. Marburger. Well, Congressman, I think that one of the
    best ways is to have the leadership of the Nation raise the
    visibility of science as an important function for our society.
    The American Competitiveness Initiative was just an enormous
    stroke of publicity and positive visible leadership. The
    President, following his State of the Union speech, visited a
    number of sites around the country, one of which was a training
    site that had been established by Intel Corporation in
    Albuquerque for bringing teachers into contact with real-life
    scientists and engineers. A major part of the initiative is to
    create a much larger core of adjunct teachers who can come into
    the classroom and let students see a real live human being and
    how excited they are about their work and how they feel what
    they're contributing to the Nation's future competitiveness. I
    believe that leadership is really important and frankly, the
    enthusiasm that Congress has shown, including Members of this
    committee, for this initiative has simply added to a
    groundswell of recognition for the importance of these
    professions to the Nation. So I believe we're on our way to a
    new era of awareness, and I don't doubt it will have a major
    impact on the graduation rates in science, engineering, math
    professions.
        Mr. Bartlett. Dr. Bodman.
        Secretary Bodman. I think Dr. Marburger said it very well.
    I think it takes leadership. I think it takes Congress. I think
    it takes the President. The President has stepped up and made
    proposals, has made, I thought, a very definitive statement
    about the importance of this to this country and if you have
    the President talking about this, I don't know how you'd do
    much better than that, sir. So I do think that we have the
    potential, if we get the kind of support from Congress that I
    hope we will get for the proposals, I think we are embarking on
    a new era.
        I am a product of the Sputnik generation. I used to go out
    in the backyard as a boy and a not so young boy, I guess, and
    look up in the sky and look for that light going across because
    the Russians had one-upped us and that led to a number of
    initiatives, legislative initiatives, and Presidents Eisenhower
    and Kennedy did a great job of, I think, capitalizing on that.
    We're at a point now where we're having a similar kind of
    experience and the importance of science research and
    development, particularly the physical sciences, and its impact
    on the economy, and I think it's starting to become better
    known throughout our society, and I'm hopeful. I don't know
    what more to say than that, sir.
        Mr. Bartlett. I remember a cartoon from that era,
    recognizing the increased interest in engineering science and
    math. It was a kid; a freckled faced, bucktooth kid who said
    that six months ago I couldn't even spell engineer and now I
    are one. Oh, we need that kind of----
        Secretary Bodman. I, too, saw that cartoon. I didn't like
    it a lot, because I was once, sir. Yes.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Dr. Bartlett. Your
    time has expired. But I can't help making an observation. You
    guys get it and we get it, about the importance of the subject
    matter being discussed today, but it warms the cockles of my
    heart to see this attendance here, and one of the things we
    have to do, Dr. Bartlett, is to get the media to focus on this
    very important subject in a significant way.
        For example, Mr. Secretary, you and I were down at the
    White House, and I don't mean to name drop, but Monday, when
    the President of the United States, in a highly visible
    ceremony, presented the National Medal of Science and the
    National Medal of Technology to some very distinguished
    Americans and to some companies who have made a major
    investment and produce something of broad-ranging implication
    that helps fuel our economy and keeps us in our number one
    position. And guess what? I picked up yesterday morning's
    papers. I didn't expect to see my picture with the President,
    but I expected to see some stories about these wonderful,
    wonderful deeds performed by these magnificent national
    treasures and it was almost ignored by the national media, and
    we've got to get them enlisted. We've finally got the attention
    of the business community. I keep telling them, you know, you
    got to lobby for something other than the latest tweaking in
    the tax policy necessary to ensure a better bottom line, or the
    adjustment in trade policy that's necessary to put you in a
    more favorable position. You've got to tell us, in the Congress
    and in the Executive Branch, the importance of investment by
    the United States Government in research, and the importance of
    training the workforce of tomorrow. You've got to start
    training them today.
        So I hope all the media representatives in the room will
    take to heart what I'm saying. We want you to partner with us
    in getting this message out. With that I am pleased to
    recognize the distinguished gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Eddie
    Bernice Johnson.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize for
    having to run to another meeting, but I will ask unanimous
    consent to submit my complete statement as well as my
    questions.
        Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you. And simply say that, to the
    distinguished panelists, your leadership will determine where
    we are in this world. From K through 12 to higher education, to
    research, all of that, you are very, very important leaders.
    And you know, I like and respect our President, but he is a
    slow learner when it comes to this, and it's going to be up to
    you to give him as much of your information as possible. We get
    comments about our attitude on global warming. We are getting
    to the point where our science is being doubted by other
    countries. That's the worst we can get. We were told not to
    attend another meeting, after he came into office, on global
    weather change, and it's unfortunate because we see the
    results. I'm asking all of you to spend more time educating our
    leadership in this area. Nothing is more critical than to
    educate young people, to get our scientists out there and
    become a leader in the world again in this area. We are really
    not right now because we're not prepared, but we can retrieve
    our standing, but it's got to be with your help and your
    leadership. Thank you.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. Dr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
    panel. Dr. Bement commented that he's having trouble because
    he's constantly smiling ever since the announcement of the
    President. I've had that same problem. In fact, the Speaker
    appointed me Chairman of the House Administration Committee to
    try to get rid of that smile. And those who know the committee
    know why. At any rate, congratulations to all of you and I
    thank you for your good work. And as you know, I've been
    fighting for this for 12 years now and it's very, very
    heartwarming to see progress on this front.
        I also have to agree with the comments made about education
    and I'm disappointed at the cuts in the National Science
    Foundation and parts of their education programs. I understand
    the reason; I simply don't agree with it and I want to state
    that on the record. And Dr. Bartlett was quite right in
    commenting that, you know, being a nerd is not socially
    acceptable in high school. You know, and he said, you know,
    pretty girls don't date nerds. I thought that was true when I
    was in high school. I, however, found out that was just because
    I was obnoxious, and once I solved that problem, I married a
    pretty girl.
        The point he made about being accepted, and it's also the
    point that the Chairman made about the announcements about the
    winners, I don't know what it is about the public. They all
    admire scientists, but don't want to get too close to them and
    that carries over in high school. I'm particularly worried
    about the young women in elementary and secondary grades, where
    some are conveyed this cultural idea that girls can't do
    science or can't do math. That's just nonsense. We're the only
    country that has that culture and we have to get rid of it, and
    if you have any bright ideas of how to get rid of it, that's
    very important.
        But every time I visit a high school and speak to the
    students, I point out to them that they're making very
    important decisions about their future by way of the courses
    they select. And I also tell them they shouldn't look down on
    nerds, because if they are not a nerd, they're going to end up
    working for one, and I think that's a very important truth that
    they have to recognize. That's the direction the world is
    going. What I'm trying to get at is the importance of conveying
    that taking math and science ensures a more stable economic
    future, and we're not communicating that to kids and that's
    what we have to do. It's not a matter of just being socially
    acceptable, that it affects their ability in the years ahead to
    take care of themselves and their family.
        I also want to express my concern about what's done to the
    MEP Program and the ATP Program. We'll continue working on
    that. I don't want to add to that. But getting back to the
    climate change research, a question for Dr. Marburger and then
    Dr. Sampson. The Administration, to its credit, sometime ago, I
    believe 2003, completed a strategic plan for the Climate Change
    Science Program and this was supposed to guide a coordinated
    strategic budget request for climate change research across the
    entire Federal Government. Yet every year it seems we see a
    shift in priorities and funding requests for the various
    climate change programs that are a part of the Climate Change
    Strategic Initiative, or Science Program. And I'm wondering, is
    this really working well? Is the program really coordinated?
    Have you settled on a strategic plan? Are you following that
    plan or are you still running into the problems that, because
    it's spread across many departments and agencies, many of them
    are just taking the money and running in their own direction
    without complete coordination?
        I'm not trying to pin the donkey's tail on you. I'm just
    really concerned about that and whether you were having trouble
    getting a handle on that and keeping their nose to the
    grindstone in the direction that you have decided you should
    go. So Dr. Marburger first and then Dr. Sampson.
        Dr. Marburger. Thank you, Congressman. The Climate Change
    Science Program is one of a very small number of federal
    interagency programs that has a fully staffed coordination
    office. The chairman or the director of that office has been
    Dr. James Mahoney, a----
        Mr. Ehlers. And he did----
        Dr. Marburger.--a prominent meteorologist.
        Mr. Ehlers. And he did an excellent job.
        Dr. Marburger. And he has led that office in a very
    vigorous and proactive way. And part of the function of that
    office is to review the climate change science programs in all
    the agencies every year, to make sure that the budget proposals
    requested from those agencies are consistent with the overall
    strategic plan, and I believe that some of the changes and
    motion that you see in the budgets for those programs is a
    direct result of vigorous oversight and not the result of
    chaotic drifting. So I would interpret the changes that are
    being made as a result of dedication to operating this program
    as well as possible.
        The office has a system that they have adhered to of having
    their progress reviewed by external bodies, including the
    National Academy of Sciences. So I believe there is oversight
    there and I would interpret some of these changes that you
    referred to as not necessarily indicating weakness.
        Mr. Ehlers. So you're saying this is really part of the
    annual review of the planning process and modification as you
    go along?
        Dr. Marburger. Insofar as these changes are reflected in
    the President's requests for these programs, they are in fact a
    result of deliberate review by the coordinating office.
        Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Ehlers. I wondered if Dr. Sampson could just----
        Chairman Boehlert. Okay. Dr. Sampson.
        Dr. Sampson. Well, I've chaired the Climate Change Science
    Program this past year. OMB sits in on those meetings. Dr.
    Mahoney is, I think, a real national treasure and so yes, I
    believe there is very strong coordination among the agencies.
        Mr. Ehlers. The next question--and I don't have time, but I
    just want to throw it out and you can reply in writing. What
    about the technology program? Is the same thing true there?
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. Mr. Miller.
    Incidentally, Mr. Miller and I, just about 30 days ago, were
    down at the South Pole and I'm advised by our good friends in
    the National Science Foundation that they're going to initiate
    a new program making us members of the Royal Order of the Ice
    or something like that. But, Dr. Bement, you know what a
    wonderful job NSF does with that polar program and he's got
    firsthand testimony. Mr. Miller, you're recognized.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was wonderful to
    stand at the South Pole and realize that all the politicians of
    the world who thought the world was revolving around them were
    actually wrong. It was revolving around me, at least for that
    moment. I was also pleased when I heard the President, in his
    State of the Union, describe a new competitiveness initiative,
    emphasis on science and math education and emphasis on basic
    research, but this is my third, or that was my fourth State of
    the Union and the budget always comes a week later, and it has
    become apparent to me that the budget writers get one memo and
    the speech writers get a different memo. The speech writers get
    a memo entitled paying Paul, and the budget writes get a memo
    entitled robbing Peter.
        I remember two years ago, and then again last year, the
    President praised community colleges for the important role
    they played in giving our workers the skills that they need.
    Two years ago the President announced a new $250 million job
    training program for community colleges. When his budget came
    out, you couldn't really find it. Now, Congress did fund that
    $250 million as a new initiative, but that year, half of that
    came dollar from dollar for a Displaced Workers Training
    Program that was doing pretty much exactly what the President
    said the new program was going to be doing. And then last year
    Congress funded the new initiative not at all, but the
    Displaced Workers Program didn't get their $125 million back.
    And in fact, over the last three appropriation cycles, programs
    in community colleges for training displaced and new workers
    have lost $120 million. So I was actually a little concerned
    when I heard the President talk about basic research and what
    that would actually mean in the longer run. Is praising it in
    the State of the Union actually the first step in cutting it?
        And Dr. Marburger, I'm not persuaded by the argument that
    you need to back out the earmarks and that we really are
    spending more on science, not less. The earmarks were
    undoubtedly spent on research, just research at the direction
    of Congress instead of research at the direction of the
    Administration. But fundamentally, I agree that what we're
    doing in scientific research should not be guided by politics.
    But, Dr. Marburger, I am very concerned that reports that we
    have heard, that it is being guided by politics in the
    Administration. There was an article this morning in the
    Washington Post, and op-ed piece by Ann Applebaum, about a
    NASA-funded research project into the possible environmental
    effects of hydrogen fuel cell, the hydrogen fuel cell economy
    that the President pushed two or three years ago, and that a
    press conference and a press released announcing the results of
    that study were killed by your office, apparently for political
    reasons. This was a favored project of the Administration and
    this report by NASA was critical of it.
        Dr. Marburger, I know that you're going to say it didn't
    happen, but these were all unnamed, presumably national
    employees speaking and not for--speaking with the understanding
    that their names not be used. What assurances can you give us?
    What procedures are in place to make sure that politics does
    not intrude in what is being funded and what findings are
    acceptable coming out of scientific research, particularly on
    global warming?
        Dr. Marburger. On the contrary, that is a case where my
    office did, in fact, ask NASA to hold up a press release on a
    study that indicated the impact of very large quantities of
    hydrogen in the atmosphere, and we did that specifically
    because another agency that had expertise in this area was
    aware of the conditions of the report were somewhat in
    question, and we wanted to make sure that the Department of
    Energy had an opportunity to say what it thought the case was
    before NASA put out its own press release. We did this in full
    awareness that the paper was about to be published and that the
    institution where the people were working was going to have its
    own press release. I was struck this morning, in the op-ed that
    you referred to, by the contrast between the title of the
    article and the concluding sentences of that commentator
    saying, I have nothing to report.
        So I think this is a case where there's been an effort to
    make a mountain out of molehill, and I'm not at all defensive
    about the action that my office took in that instance. It took
    place three, three and a half years ago, I believe. So I'm very
    aware of the report and its implications and the problems with
    the study that was done, some of which were actually indicated
    in the op-ed article that you're referring to. So I don't think
    this is an indication that supports the contention that the
    Administration interferes with science or censors science in
    any way. I think that this was an appropriate action that we
    took in response to a situation that needed to be clarified to
    the American people.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. The gentleman's
    time has expired. Mr. Calvert.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, I was
    meeting with Dr. Sega here in the back and I don't know if the
    question that I'm going to have, whether it's been answered or
    not. If it has, let me know. Dr. Marburger, the Office of
    Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, is currently in the
    process of developing a national aeronautics policy, you're
    probably aware of, to guide research in years to come and the
    question I have, or two questions, one is, how will this policy
    ensure that the United States is competitive globally, in an
    industry that is one of the bright spots that we have left? And
    the other question is, why was aeronautics not included in the
    President's competitiveness initiative?
        Dr. Marburger. Thank you, Congressman. The President's
    competitiveness initiative is an initiative about priorities.
    What are the areas that have the absolute highest impact on our
    future competitiveness? What are the areas that need to be
    tuned up and need to be supported in response to studies that
    have taken place over the past few years? And what are the
    areas that are ready to use the funds that have plans in place
    and detailed spending plans and projects and roadmaps and so
    forth? And I believe that the initiative does accurately
    identify those priorities.
        The civil aviation component of federal operations is
    clearly a very important component and one that is currently
    benefiting from an activity mandated by Congress on the next
    generation air transport system. As that planning for that
    program matures and develops its own roadmaps and strategic
    plans for the path forward, I have every confidence that the
    President will propose and the Congress will appropriate funds
    that are appropriate for that sector of our activities.
        Mr. Calvert. I have a number of questions specifically that
    I might send to you because of the limited time.
        Dr. Marburger. I'd be glad to respond.
        Mr. Calvert. I also have a question that I won't ask for an
    answer, that as a nation we should be concerned about is the
    next generation air traffic system, which, seems to me, we're
    falling behind on and we just don't seem to have any closure on
    that, and the Europeans, as you know, with their own concept,
    that I would hate for us to see us lose that, which is
    extremely important to maintain, I think, an industry that's
    very important to this country. I would like to get a written
    response on that.
        Dr. Bodman, you know, on the issue of energy independence--
    and I understand, with the price of oil being what it is, that
    oil companies probably--it isn't necessary for them to possibly
    get R&D money for oil sand research or oil shale research, but
    it seems to me that we need to do something that's immediate in
    order to get our supply up and in order for us to be
    competitive and to have better prices at the pump, quite
    frankly. And I know your ethanol initiatives and what's going
    on with finding better technologies and to use cheaper fuel
    stocks and the rest. Any comment about how we can help get more
    oil in the pipeline and have more immediacy in some of these
    solutions that we can go back home and talk to folks about?
    Because I'll tell you, in southern California, and I'm sure
    Dana's the same way, we hear a lot about that back home.
        Secretary Bodman. The efforts on drilling continue
    unabated. There is plenty of incentive to drill oil wells at
    $60 oil prices. And so we have seen a response. Part of the
    problem in looking at energy, at the energy system, the country
    has, the world is getting your constituents to appreciate the
    scale. We had a situation where starting a year ago, we had,
    right after I took this job, by the way, we had, for the first
    time in my memory, demonstrated the inability of the world
    producers to keep up with the demand and so we saw an
    escalating oil price. It started there; it was exacerbated by
    the hurricanes that occurred last fall. And I'm of the belief
    that we will see a response from the industry as they are
    getting geared up and working on the appropriate expansion of
    their activities. Certainly, that's happening abroad and I
    believe that it's also happening domestically.
        We also have, you know, other things that have been real
    problems getting the natural gas pipeline from Alaska
    constructed. Part of the responsibility, at least at this
    point, of the Energy Department getting that going and it's
    been a real issue trying to get the oil and gas companies to
    agree to the demands of the State government in Alaska, or vice
    versa. I'm not sure who's at fault, but we've got real issues
    there in trying to get that done, and then you are well aware
    of ANWR and the situation that emanates from there. So there
    are lots of ways. The Interior Department has proposals on
    increasing access to parts of the outer continental shelf in
    the Gulf of Mexico; that will help. And I know that Secretary
    Norton is working hard on expanding or accelerating the
    processing of applications for drilling federal land, so there
    are a lot of things that we can do and we are doing our best to
    try to deal with it and at the same time implementing the
    Energy Bill, which is basically looking for alternative
    sources.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. The gentleman's
    time has expired. Chair recognizes, for brief intervention,
    Chairman Biggert because she has a compelling need to be
    someplace else. She just gave me a little note, she said this
    is the most important hearing so far this year and I agree with
    her, but she's got another commitment that's equally important
    to her personal schedule, not to the Nation. Chairman Biggert.
        Ms. Biggert. Thank you. I think not only the most important
    this year, so far, because I don't think we've had very many or
    any, but I think it is the most important hearing that we're
    going to have this year. I am just so excited about what's
    happened here and how the President's American Competitiveness
    Initiative and the prominent role that DOE's Office of Science
    will play in this visionary initiative and I really think that
    much of this credit for the high priority that this budget
    places on science is due to you, Dr. Bodman.
        It balances researchers and facilities, it capitalizes on
    our investment in user facilities by maximizing their
    operations and it makes strategic investments to maintain U.S.
    dominance in material sciences, nanotechnology, biotechnology
    and high-speed computing and I haven't even mentioned the
    Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which I strongly support. I
    had to be at another hearing earlier and I asked the questions
    of the new Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, who is testifying
    before Congress, it's the first time, and he reiterated the
    importance of R&D to this U.S. economy and U.S. competitiveness
    and he also endorsed one of the key components of the
    President's competitiveness initiatives, namely to make
    permanent the R&D tax credits, so the importance of research--
    but all of you have been working so hard on this that I--you
    know, I wish that I had had more time to be here, but I--but
    you know how much I appreciate what all of you have done, and
    Dr. Marburger, with working on this tirelessly, too, but
    Secretary Bodman, you've just, you know, been outstanding, I
    think, where we are really in a new revolution.
        We have moved, you know, agriculture, industrial,
    manufacturing--we are in the high-tech era right now and I
    think--I don't know that we realize the place in history that
    this is going to be and I think we need to continue, you know,
    to develop this initiative and we're, all of us, I think, as
    the Congress, as the Administration, to really fulfill this and
    bring forward a really new economic era that we're going to
    see, so I thank you all for being here.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, and I can't help
    but be reminded it was technology and our wise investments that
    drove the dynamic 1990s and we soared to new heights and it's
    going to be technology that guarantees an even more promising
    future. And when I think of a more promising future, I think of
    Mr. Honda. The Chair recognizes you for five minutes, sir.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you're a silver-
    tongued devil. You're not a devil. But I'm pleased to be here
    and I also have a couple of questions and quite frankly, I'm
    not as enamored with what I heard from the State of the Union
    because I've been here six years and there's a difference
    between saying something and then following through with
    substantive kinds of programs that they're putting the money
    behind it. I'm reminded of the movie Jerry Maguire, where the
    football player said show me the money and I'm not quite sure
    that the money's going to be coming here. I have a question for
    Dr. Sampson, but a comment to the Secretary--to Secretary
    Bodman, and that's a comment about our inaction between the DOE
    and this committee.
        Ranking Member Gordon submitted a series of questions to
    you in advance of this hearing so that you could be prepared to
    submit answers to those questions at this hearing, but from
    what I've been told, those answers were not available today
    because they're awaiting OMB approval. The problem I have with
    this is that I think I am still waiting for answers to
    questions I submitted at a hearing back in June on
    reprocessing. We only have a little bit of time to ask
    questions verbally, so I'd like a response offline afterwards,
    but it just seems that you won't be answering questions when we
    submit after the hearings and not responding to questions when
    they're submitted before our hearings and so if there's a
    problem with the OMB clearance, how long before the hearing do
    we need to give you questions so that answers can be cleared?
    I'll come back later for that response after this hearing,
    perhaps later.
        Dr. Sampson, it's time for my annual question about
    Advanced Technology Program, ATP. The documents that came with
    the budget say that the program isn't needed ``due to the
    growth of venture capital and other financing sources.'' Red
    Herring magazine published this recently based on data from
    their national venture capital association which has an
    interest in making VCs look good. According to the story, while
    VCs raised a lot more money in 2005, total VC investments only
    went up about two percent in 2005, from 2004. The biggest gains
    went to retailers and consumer services, meanwhile the
    semiconductor, pharmaceuticals, electronics and software all
    secured less funding in 2005 than in 2004, and during 2005, VCs
    cut their seed funding by 54 percent from the 2004 level, from
    $118.3 million down to $54.3 million. Based on the data, how
    can you possibly say that ATP isn't needed because ample VC
    funding is available? It appears that MEP is following the same
    route as ATP as far as our process is concerned and we're all
    concerned about MEP, as we were with ATP, and some comments
    were made about earmarks. It appears to me that ATP's only
    being funded through our good efforts, through our earmark
    process and that's the only way ATP seems to be surviving. So
    I'd like some sort of response to that comment.
        Dr. Sampson. Well, let me respond to the ATP issue, first
    of all, in several ways. First of all, the budget that we
    submitted reflect what we believe are the highest priorities.
    Secondly----
        Mr. Honda. Well, it's been submitted as zero, I believe, if
    I'm not mistaken.
        Dr. Sampson. That's what I'm getting to.
        Mr. Honda. Okay, so it's a high priority and it's--I'm
    sorry, go ahead.
        Dr. Sampson. No. We have redirected that money in what we
    believe to be higher priority areas, which is the core mission
    of National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is
    basic research in the physical sciences and secondly, I think
    that without question, the United States has the most robust
    venture capital market anywhere in the world. The evidence of
    that is clearly demonstrated around the country, whether you're
    going to the 128 Corridor in Boston or Silicon Valley or other
    emerging innovation hotspots around the country and so----
        Mr. Honda. Perhaps you can share your stats with our office
    to substantiate your position because the article that I read
    in the Red Herring magazine has done some research in terms of
    funding, so go ahead. Thank you. If you could produce that.
        Dr. Sampson. We'll be happy to get back with you.
        Mr. Honda. Yes, do you have a timeline for that?
        Dr. Sampson. As soon as our staff can work on it, we'll be
    happy to get back to you.
        Mr. Honda. I've been waiting since June for the questions
    on reprocessing. It's about responsiveness.
        Dr. Sampson. I can't answer that.
        Secretary Bodman. I am very puzzled by that and it will
    have my immediate attention when I get back to the extent that
    you sent a letter several months ago and have not been
    responded to, sir, I am unaware of it and----
        Mr. Honda. Well, the Ranking Member also has done that,
    too, so----
        Secretary Bodman. I know the Ranking Member sent material,
    sent that list of questions in, answers have been prepared,
    they are being processed through OMB and they will be
    forthcoming promptly. I was prepared to deal with his questions
    at this meeting if he wanted to ask questions at this meeting.
        Mr. Honda. I asked because----
        Secretary Bodman. But in terms of your situation, sir, I am
    completely unaware of it and it is exactly the sort of thing
    that I have been working hard to bring a halt to, to the extent
    that these issues existed and I will see to it promptly.
        Mr. Honda. I'd appreciate it.
        Secretary Bodman. You will have an answer, sir.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you very much and please forgive my
    adamancy.
        Secretary Bodman. Perfectly reasonable question.
        Mr. Hall. [Presiding] Thanks, Gentleman. The Chair
    recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Gutknecht.
        Mr. Gutknecht. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I hope I don't
    take the whole five minutes, but I probably, unfortunately,
    will. First of all, let me apologize on behalf of a lot of my
    colleagues for these earmarks because I do believe that
    frankly, I think they're inappropriate in terms of science and
    research and I am a proud original cosponsor of Representative
    Jeff Flake's bill and hopefully, now more Members will join us
    in that. Let me say, though, on behalf, I think, of the
    overwhelming majority of Members of this committee, for the
    most part, we have avoided the temptations that other
    committees have fallen into in terms of those earmarks.
        What I really want to talk about, though, just briefly with
    you, and I'm delighted, Secretary Bodman, we're delighted to
    have you here to talk a little bit about renewable energy,
    because I think you made a very important point. At $60 a
    barrel, I'm not sure how much we really need to subsidize a lot
    of that. But I want to come back to--one of my favorite
    expressions is that success leaves clues, and I think if
    there's one successful program in terms of advancing research
    that we have seen, at least on this committee and that we've
    worked with, it's one that's run by the Defense Department,
    it's called DARPA, and I'm wondering if any of you and
    particularly, Secretary Bodman, if you want to talk briefly
    about that, how much you know about DARPA and whether or not
    you have considered a similar type program in any of the other
    agencies.
        And the reason I say that is in our work, both on this
    committee and in my work representing the people of southern
    Minnesota, I get to encounter a number of incredibly
    interesting ideas and entrepreneurs, and one of them I actually
    took out to the National Renewable Energy Labs out in Colorado,
    which is a very impressive facility. But on the way back he
    said something rather interesting; he said, you know, actually
    what we're doing right now is probably more advanced than what
    they're doing out in Colorado and I said why is it that it
    seems that private individuals, entrepreneurs and inventors
    seem to be able to move at a faster rate sometimes than the
    federal agencies and he gave a very interesting answer.
        He said because we only eat what we kill, and if you think
    about it, that's why I really want to encourage you all to
    consider looking at that DARPA model because, you know, a few
    dollars invested, relatively small amounts of money invested in
    specialty projects have yielded enormous returns in terms of
    new ideas, new innovations. When you look at the success rate
    of DARPA, I think it's one that deserves to be studied and
    wherever possible, modeled. And Secretary Bodman, if you want
    to respond to that, or anybody else, I'd appreciate it.
        Secretary Bodman. I am very aware of DARPA and its
    predecessor, which was the Office of Naval Research, and that
    goes back to my days as a student, sir, so I am quite aware of
    what they've accomplished. The budget that is before you shows
    sizeable increases in funding for research in the Energy
    Department. I commented earlier, I believe before you arrived,
    that we are thrilled with the proposal that's there and we are
    very hopeful. There are a number of proposals in Congress, some
    of them involving a DARPA-like structure, and my answer on that
    is I am aware of it. We have a lot to do and we have a 14
    percent increase. We have a half billion dollars to put to work
    in the science area. We have a quarter billion dollars to put
    to work in additional funds in the energy area and they had
    been prioritized and we worked on that, and so I'm sure there
    are things that, in the DARPA model that make sense and we
    would be happy to explore that and work with you if that's
    something you're interested in. I just would observe, we have a
    lot to do to take the money that hopefully, will be granted by
    Congress and put it to work effectively. We have a big job and
    I would rather not distract this Department with additional
    priorities, at least right now. Hopefully, after we get this
    started and are more effective in operating in this sort of
    environment, we will be able to be more responsive to your
    suggestions and other suggestions about a DARPA program.
        Mr. Hall. Gentleman's time is expired. The Chair recognizes
    the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Carnahan.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm glad to see
    us having this discussion here today. This is a big idea and I
    think it's a big deal for our country. We've had great
    bipartisan support with a lot of these initiatives and as they
    say, the old saying, politics makes strange bedfellows, and I'm
    going to talk about Bono and JFK in the same paragraph here,
    now. Bono was here in Washington a few weeks ago and talked
    about the dangers of incrementalism when you have big ideas. I
    think that's important to keep in mind. And you look at the
    example of JFK, and Secretary Bodman, you talked about those
    times when you really created this national challenge for us
    and I think we need to have that same great level of national
    challenge with where we are today.
        But I think this big idea deserves a lot more than fuzzy
    math or counterproductive measures and I'm concerned about if
    we're just cutting science in some areas to fund science in
    other areas, we're really just reshuffling the chairs on the
    Titanic. We deserve better than that. And I want to make a
    point about Congressional earmarks; does anyone on the panel
    think that Congressionally earmarked dollars spends differently
    than an administration budgeted item?
        Dr. Marburger. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Carnahan. I'd be curious to know how.
        Dr. Marburger. Yes, sir. The fact is that the Presidential
    requests are built on proposals from agencies that are
    developed in consultation with external committees of
    scientists and educators and engineers and they are part of a
    coherent plan. In many cases, earmarks are spent on activities
    that lie completely outside coherent plans and not
    infrequently, are completely outside the area of R&D for which
    the agencies are supposed to be responsible.
        So I believe that the best possible way to spend taxpayer
    dollars in research is in consultation with the agencies that
    are responsible for providing oversight and their peer review
    merit based mechanisms. So we would be glad to work with
    Congress to determine mechanisms that would make it possible
    for Congressional concerns to be addressed in the areas of
    research that appear to be needed, but I think this practice of
    earmarking has grown out of control and we're very concerned
    about it.
        Dr. Sampson. With respect to the Commerce Department, the
    majority of our funds and our construction account for the NIST
    laboratories are earmarked funds for activities that are not a
    part of NIST's core mission. All of this, at the time, when our
    lab in Boulder, Colorado--we have Nobel Prize winning
    scientists doing work in labs where they have black plastic
    sheeting covering the roof and cardboard placed on ventilation
    systems to be able to try to control the temperature and the
    moisture in the room. I know Dr. Bodman has been there to see
    those facilities and so I think has Dr. Bement, who--former
    Director of NIST. And so the issue for us is there's money in
    the budget, but can it be spent on the priorities that we have
    to facilitate core basic research?
        Secretary Bodman. One of the big issues in the Energy
    Department is the production of ethanol using various
    biologically-based systems, goes out of the NREL out in
    Colorado and 57 percent of that budget has been earmarked, sir,
    and that has meant that we've had to lay off people at the NREL
    laboratory which we got criticized for and it was a direct
    result of Congressionally mandated programs that were not
    related to that which we wished to do.
        Mr. Carnahan. Well, I would acknowledge that we may have a
    difference in the vetting process, but I think the vast
    majority of earmarks that have come through the Congress have
    been thought out and have been part of an important part of
    what we do here. Finally, I want to close--I talked about some
    counter-productive policies. I'm concerned about the K through
    12 cuts. I'm concerned about the measures that have just passed
    through the Congress that have made historic cuts in the
    student loan programs. We've had several panels of
    distinguished business executives from around the country
    expressing concern about our education policy and I think we
    cannot succeed in this innovation initiative if we don't really
    take a hard look at our education policy in growing those young
    minds to meet the need, otherwise we're going to see the
    scientists and engineers from China and India and around the
    world being used to fill that gap, and I'd like to have some
    comment about that.
        Dr. Marburger. I couldn't agree more. I believe that
    education is absolutely a high priority investment for this
    nation. Quality of teaching, the quality of experience that
    young people have in classroom and the standards to which we
    hold their performance are all important and they are all
    features of the American Competitiveness Initiative that the
    President announced and I hope that in further hearings and as
    people have the opportunity to speak about them, we can learn
    about plans for those areas, but the President is very
    concerned about the quality of education in this country and is
    looking for handles on it and ways to bring about improvements
    that we know are needed for continued American leadership in
    high technology.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you. Gentleman's time----
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Boehlert. Gentleman's time has expired. I
    recognize, out of order for one minute, Dr. Ehlers because he
    has something pertinent to the discussion at hand.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm surprised to hear
    earmarks defended twice by the minority party. I want to give
    another example where, in a budget some years ago, because of
    the sorry state of the NIST laboratories in Boulder, we put in
    $40 million to help them prevent rainwater from falling on the
    world's best time standard, for example. Out of that $40
    million, in the Senate, all $40 million was diverted to the
    cause--it's the one that comes to mind immediately, was $10
    million to build a law library in a college in the state from
    which that senator came. No correlation whatsoever with the
    original intent of that money and certainly not of general
    benefit to the Nation, as a whole. And that sort of behavior,
    that sort of process simply has to stop and I agree with the
    panel on that. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, if I could speak for 30 seconds
    out of turn?
        Chairman Boehlert. All right, fair is fair. The gentleman
    is recognized for up to one minute, equal time.
        Mr. Sherman. Clearly, there have been stupid earmarks or
    earmarks that are outside of good scientific policy, but I
    trust you, gentlemen, there are stupid decisions made by the
    Administration and to hear, in this room, it said that all the
    Administration earmarks made to de-fund this or that policy are
    results of an open process, are part of a logical plan, are
    intelligent decisions make in the interest of the American
    people and that those decisions made by Congress as to how to
    spend money are inherently flawed, not part of an open process,
    is, I think, insulting to the Congress. We make decisions, the
    Administration makes decisions, both make wise decisions, both
    make stupid decisions and to say that when Congress decides
    that a certain amount of money should be spent on a certain
    project, that that is interference, is really a declaration
    that Congress is an annoying interference in the Federal
    Government. I yield back.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank the gentleman for that
    intervention. Now the Chair is pleased to recognize the
    distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I will remind my friend from--and
    colleague from Missouri that cutting one program that's already
    in place and transferring the money to another program could
    well be the sign of prioritizing money so that it's going into
    programs that tend to work and out of programs that do not
    work. So it's not necessarily a bad sign that the
    Administration is trying to prioritize the spending that we do
    and transferring some money from programs that may be less
    effective, so that may be a plus. That may be something that
    the Administration's doing that deserves to be applauded and I
    would just like to say that I don't know whose decision making
    is more flawed. I've worked in the Executive Branch and the
    Legislative Branch.
        I will just say that it is clear that there are certain
    political motivations that happen here in Congress that we
    should recognize before we throw rocks at the Administration.
    With that said, earlier on in the hearing we heard about how to
    get bright people, young people involved in science. I don't
    understand why the obvious is not ever mentioned and that is
    pay them more money. Why do people go into law? Because the
    lawyers have all of the fancy sports cars and live in the big
    homes, and if a kid who is very smart has to choose between
    driving in a jalopy and being a Ph.D. in physics versus going
    into law and living in a big mansion and having the good
    looking girlfriend, guess what he's going to choose?
        So with that, that goes all the way back down, by the way,
    to education where we pay physical education instructors the
    same amount of money that we pay people to teach our young
    people science and math and engineering and every study that
    I've seen shows it's between fourth grade and ninth grade where
    we're losing the battle with our young people, yet in those
    middle schools we are unable, due to some political
    considerations, I might add, by some very strong unions, not to
    differentiate in pay between those people who can teach our
    kids the basics of math and science at that level and versus
    paying the same amount of money as you do for history or social
    sciences or physical education or dance class or basket
    weaving. This is ridiculous. So we need some reform in that
    area and making money is also something that will encourage
    people to get into the math and sciences when they're older.
        I mean, we haven't heard anybody talk about royalties from
    patents or the protection of patents or the fact that people
    who are creative, how they get ripped off so often of their own
    creative instincts and their own in creating projects by big
    companies that are able to violate patent rights. Strengthening
    patent rights is a way to make sure America stays ahead and get
    people involved in the sciences. I, for example, believe that
    we should eliminate the taxes, if not, at least have some sort
    of tax advantage for people who are making their income on
    royalties from patents.
        With that said, I would like to make one last point and
    that is--well, first of all, I applaud the Administration for
    making it a scientific and engineering priority for America to
    become energy self-sufficient by 2025. That's a bold, bold
    stroke by the President and I will be anxious--in fact, Dr.
    Marburger, if you'd come in to my office to have a discussion
    on that with some viable technologies right after this hearing,
    but I look forward to working with each and every one of you to
    achieve that goal. But let's make sure, when we talk about
    research, money and research, that we're doing, that when we
    put money in one end of the system that what comes out of the
    other end of the system is something of benefit to the people
    of the United States of America and uplifts the condition of
    humanity.
        I am dismayed, and here again, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman,
    that I'll have to be the skunk at the lawn party, so to speak,
    again, but I am dismayed to see that we are spending $1.7
    billion on global warming research after billions and billions
    and billions and billions of dollars have already been spent
    trying to promote this idea versus $1.3 billion on
    nanotechnology, which I understand has tremendous potential of
    changing the human condition for the better. Let me note, for
    the record, at this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit
    the names of thousands of scientists and other experts within
    the scientific community who are skeptical of global warming
    and I'd like to place it in the record at this point, in the
    record.
        Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

                            Global Warming Petition

    (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm, February 24, 2006)

        We urge the United States Government to reject the global warming
    agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any
    other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would
    harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and
    damage the health and welfare of mankind.
        There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of
    carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will,
    in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's
    atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is
    substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon
    dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and
    animal environments of the Earth.

    2660 Physicists, Geophysicists, Climatologists, Meteorologists,
                        Oceanographers, and Environmental Scientists
                        Signers

    (http://www.oism.org/pproject/a-sci.htm, February 24, 2006)

    Category: A
        Philip H Abelson, PhD, Gene Ackerman, Robert K Adair, PhD, John A
    Adam, PhD, Daniel B Adams Jr, Gail D Adams, PhD, Leonard C A Adams,
    PhD, Louis W Adams, PhD, Neil Adams, PhD, William M Adams, PhD, George
    Adcock, Lionel P Adda, PhD, Harry Adrounie, PhD, Stephen Affleck, PhD,
    Phillip Ahlberg, Mark Ahlert, Rafique Ahmed, PhD, S Aisenberg, PhD,
    Edward Albert, James C Albright, PhD, Allwyn Albuquerque, Ernest C
    Alcaraz, PhD, Ronald G Alderfer, PhD, Perry B Alers, PhD, John C
    Alexander, Moorad Alexanian, PhD, Roger C Alig, PhD, Clayton H Allen,
    PhD, David Allen, PhD, James Allen, PhD, Mike R Allen, PhD, Thomas H
    Allen, PhD, William Allen, John J Allport, PhD, Vincent O Altemose,
    Melvyn R Altman, PhD, Edward E Altshuler, PhD, Charles D Amata, PhD,
    Edward J Ames III, Pierre Saiut-Amond, PhD, Arthur G Anderson, PhD,
    Berard J Anderson, PhD, James R Anderson, James R Anderson, Ken
    Anderson, Orson L Anderson, PhD, P Jennings Anderson, Richard A
    Anderson, PhD, Richard C Anderson, Tom Anderson, Douglas Andress, James
    F Andrew, PhD, Bradley C Anthanaitis, PhD, Lee S Anthony, PhD, Lynn
    Apple, PhD, Alan Appleby, PhD, Herbert S Appleman, Morris H Aprison,
    PhD, Richard E Apuzzo Jr, Philip Archibald, Robert Archibald, John
    Archie, William Bryant Ard, PhD, Harold V Argo, PhD, Baxter H
    Armstrong, PhD, Robert Emile Arnal, PhD, Charles Arney, Casper J
    Aronson, Jose J D Arruda, PhD, James Arthur, PhD, Max Artusy, PhD,
    Edward V Ashburn, Randolph Ashby, PhD, Jerome P Ashman, Monroe
    Ashworth, Orv Askeland, Ronald Attig, Leonardo D Attorre, Luther Aull,
    PhD, John B Aultmann Jr, William Avera, Frank Averill, PhD, Kenneth
    Avicola, M Friedman Axler, William Aylor.

    Category: B
        Lloyal O Bacon, Adrian D Baer, PhD, Lester Marchant Baggett, PhD,
    Dane E Bailey, Edward J Bair, PhD, Quincey L Baird, PhD, DK Baker, PhD,
    Gary Baker, Lara H Baker, PhD, Randal S Baker, W Loyd Balderson, PhD, W
    Lloyd Balderston, PhD, David Baldwin, Evart Baldwin, PhD, Sallie
    Baliunas, PhD, George Ball, David W Ballard, Glenn A Ballard, Harold N
    Ballard, Arthur Ballato, PhD, Robert Balling, PhD, Tom Ballou Jr,
    Robert C Balsam Jr, Daniel W Bancroft, George P Bancroft, Herman Wm
    Bandel, PhD, Tom Bane, Richard Banks, Peter R Bannister, John Paul
    Barach, PhD, Paul Barbieri, Andrew M Bardos, Steven Bardwell, PhD,
    Robert Barish, PhD, Francis J Barker, Douglas D Barman, Durton B
    Barnes, Christopher M Barrett, James Barrick, PhD, Cory W Barron,
    Lawrence J Barrows, PhD, John Bartel, PhD, Carol J Bartnick, PhD,
    Samuel Batdorf, PhD, James L Bateman, Charles C Bates, PhD, Charles C
    Bates, PhD, Earl Bates, Terry E Batlalino, Kevin Batt, Kirk Battleson,
    PhD, Michael H Bauer Jr, Norman P Baumann, PhD, Max Baumeister, A Z
    Baumgartner, Eric Baumgartner, John G Bayless, Jack W Beal, PhD, Edward
    W Beall, James M Beall, Terry W. Beall, Donald Beasley, PhD, William
    Beaton, Richard Becherer, PhD, Donald Beck, Gordon E Becker, PhD,
    Milton Becker, PhD, Kenneth L Bedford, PhD, Brian Beecken, PhD, Kenneth
    Beeney, Edward Lee Beeson, Jr, PhD, Herbert Ernest Behrens, James M
    Bell, John Bell, PhD, John C Bellamy, PhD, Thomas E Bellinger, Randy
    Belstad, Rettig Benedict, PhD, Ray Benge, James A Benjamin, PhD,
    Charles Bennett, Alvin K Benson, PhD, John A Berberet, PhD, Jay M
    Berger, PhD, Lev Berger, PhD, Ernest Bergman, Dick Bergren, PhD, Mike
    Bergsmg, Robt Beringer, PhD, Brian Berman, Marshall Berman, PhD, Andre
    Bernier, Warren W Berning, Edwin Berry, PhD, Edwin Berry, PhD, Herbert
    W Berry, PhD, John R Berryhill, PhD, Robert Bessette, Albert J Bevolo,
    PhD, John H Beyer, PhD, Swapan Bhattacharjee, PhD, Kenneth L Del
    Bianco, Conrad Biber, PhD, Hans Bichsel, PhD, William S Bickel, PhD,
    Karin Bickford, Jean M Bidlace, PhD, Charles Bieber, J Bierman, Doug N
    Biewitt, Rodney E Bigler, PhD, John D Shaylor-Billings, George E
    Billman, PhD, Billones, D G Bills, PhD, Edward G Bilpuch, PhD, Charles
    F Bird, E F Birdsall, PhD, Seymour Bristein, Burt J Bittner, Sammy M
    Black, Lloyd Blackburn, M L Blackwell, Bruce A Blake, George R Blake,
    PhD, Philip J Blank, PhD, Barbara Blass, PhD, Joel J Blatt, PhD, Henry
    H Blau, PhD, Stephen Blaylock, Carl Bleil, PhD, John Blethen, PhD,
    James W Blue, PhD, M D Blue, PhD, G Bluzas, G W Elvernum, Frank T
    Bodurtha, PhD, Hollis Boehme, PhD, Steven A Boggs, PhD, Kees Boi, PhD,
    Art F Boland, M S Boley, PhD, Mark S Boley, Gerald L Bolingbroke, PhD,
    Eugene Bollay, Bruce Bollermann, J R Bone, John Franklin Bonner, PhD,
    Jane M Booker, PhD, Bruce L Booth, PhD, Robt M Booth, John W Boring,
    PhD, Annette H Borkowski, Harold J Born, PhD, Paul N Bossart, John N
    Botkin, CJF Bottcher, PhD, Robert H Bourke, PhD, Mohamed Boutjdir, PhD,
    Joseph C Bowe, PhD, Robert C Bowers, Sidney A Bowhill, PhD, Robert M
    Bowie, PhD, Norman Bowne, Colin Bowness, PhD, David Boyce, Wilson E
    Boyce, Robert Boyd III, Robert A Boyer, PhD, David Brackney, Dorothy L
    Bradbury, Joseph U Braddock, PhD, Alan D Brailsford, PhD, Eric M Bram,
    Emanuel L Brancato, Ross E Brannian, James P Brazel, Theodore Breaux,
    Reginald Breeding, Bertram V Breemen, Sydney Breese, Martin Bregman,
    PhD, Brian O Brien, Corale L Brierley, PhD, Edwin C Brinker, Sue
    Broadston, George Brock, Ivor Brodie, PhD, David A Bromley, PhD, John
    Bronstein, PhD, Mark Bronston, PhD, Walter Brouillette, PhD, J Brower,
    Glenn Brown, PhD, Hal W Brown, J Paul Brown, Jerry W Brown, PhD, John
    Brown, John M Brown, PhD, Raymond E Brown, Walter R J Brown, Cornelius
    P Browne, PhD, D Brownell, Charles R Bruce, PhD, George H Bruce, Robert
    Brueck, Col Wm Bruenner, John Bruno, PhD, David A Bryan, PhD, Howard
    Bryan, Barry W Bryant, PhD, Charles Bryson, John Buckinger, Gary L
    Buckwalter, PhD, J Fred Bucy, PhD, Wallace D Budge, PhD, Brent J
    Buescher, PhD, Charles R Buffler, PhD, William Bullis, PhD, Stephen
    Bundy, Merle Bunker, PhD, James H Burbo, Donald F Burchfield, PhD,
    Brian Burges, John C Burgeson, Edward W Burke, PhD, Ned Burleson, PhD,
    Victor W Burns, PhD, Joe Burroughs, William Burrows, PhD, Philip B
    Burt, PhD, James Robert Burwell, PhD, Richard S Burwen, Gary D Buser,
    Robert Bushnell, PhD, Robert Busing, Duane J Buss, PhD, Stanley E Buss,
    Scott E Butler, PhD, P Edward Byerly, PhD, William M. Byrne, PhD.

    Category: C
        Fernando Cadena, PhD, C Cadenhead, PhD, Anthony P Cadrioli, Dennis
    Cahill, Stephen R Cain, PhD, Richard E Cale, Dixon Callihan, PhD,
    Christopher P Cameron, PhD, John R Cameron, PhD, Nicholas A Campagna,
    Jr, John S Campbell, Robert E Campbell, Antonio M Campero, PhD,
    Frederick P Carlson, PhD, Garry Carlson, George Carlson, PhD, J David
    Carlson, PhD, Arthur Carpenito, Arthur Carpenito, Benjamin H Carpenter,
    PhD, Bruce N Carpenter, Jack W Carpenter, PhD, Jerome B Carr, PhD,
    Lester E Carr III, PhD, Edward Carriere, PhD, Marshall F Cartledge,
    Louis M Caruana, John G Carver, PhD, Charles Case, Phillip M Caserotti,
    Edward Cassidy, John G Castle, PhD, Dominic Anthony Cataldo, PhD, Frank
    P Catena, Jim Caton, David Cattell, PhD, Chaels Causey, Michael
    Cavanaugh, Carl N Cederstrand, PhD, Chris Cellucci, PhD, John F.
    Chadbourne, PhD, Charles Chamberlain, PhD, Samuel Z Chamberlain, Paul
    Chamberlin, Charles M Chambers, PhD, Kenneth Champion, PhD, Chun K
    Chan, PhD, Ronald R Chance, PhD, Charles H Chandler, Berken Chang, PhD,
    Stanley Changnon, Jr, Daniel W Chapman, Stanley Charap, PhD, Paul S
    Check, Kun Hua Chen, PhD, Genady Cherepanov, PhD, Jimmie L Cherry, PhD,
    Benjamin F Cheydleur, Hong Chin, PhD, Craig Chismarick, Edward
    Choulnard, PhD, Tai-Low Chow, PhD, Robt L Christensen, PhD, Ron V
    Christensen, Donald O Christy, PhD, Ryan A Chrysler, Eugene L Church,
    PhD, Steven R Church, PhD, Petr Chylek, PhD, Deborah M Ciombor, PhD, A
    Cisar, Richard Clapp, Bill P Clark, PhD, Donald L Clark, PhD, Grady
    Clark, PhD, John Clark, Kimball Clark, PhD, Richard A Clark, Richard T
    Clark, James R Clarke, John Clarke, Calvin Miller Class, PhD, John F
    Clauser, PhD, John W Clayton, PhD, Stan G Clayton, John C Clegg, PhD,
    Thomas L Cloer Jr, Todd Cloninger, David M Close, PhD, Ray William
    Clough, PhD, Michael R Clover, PhD, Howard Cobb, Fritz Coester, PhD,
    Michael Coffey, Allen Cogbill, PhD, Theodore Cogut, Allan H Cohen, PhD,
    Arnold Cohen, PhD, Howard J Cohen, PhD, Richard M Cohen, PhD, Charles
    Erwin Cohn, PhD, Stefan Colban, Lawrence E Coldren, Christopher J Cole,
    George R Cole, PhD, Henry B Cole, Lee A Cole, PhD, Stephen Cole, PhD,
    Forrest Donald Colegrove, PhD, Anthony J Colella, Roberto Colella, PhD,
    Paul Coleman, PhD, Jeffrey M Collar, Clifford B Collins, Dennis
    Collins, PhD, Edward Collins, PhD, Gary Collins, PhD, George Collins,
    Stephen L Collins, Don J Colton, Robert Comizzoli, PhD, George T Condo,
    PhD, John P Conigilo, Martin E Coniglio, Ralph D. Conlon, James R
    Connell, John J Connelly, PhD, T Donnelly, PhD, John I Connolly Jr,
    PhD, Douglas H Cook, James H Cook, Karl Cook, Mr Vernon O Cook, Thomas
    B Cook Jr, PhD, David Coolbaugh, PhD, Gordon Cooper, PhD, John C
    Cooper, Max E Cooper, Raymond Cooper, PhD, David F Cope, PhD, Wm S
    Corak, PhD, M Yavuz Corapcioglu, PhD, Eugene F Corcoran, PhD, Francis M
    Cordell, PhD, Patrick Core, John S Cornett, Robert L Corey, PhD, Henry
    E Corke, PhD, John Cornell, S D Cornell, PhD, John S Cornett, Charles E
    Corry, PhD, Michael Coryn, Nationwide Envro Svcs, Rebecca B Costello,
    PhD, John Costlow, PhD, William R Cotton, PhD, Marcus L Countiss,
    Arnold Court, PhD, Arnold Court, PhD, Francis E Courtney, Jr, Carl
    Cowan, John D Cowlishaw, PhD, Jack D Cox, Morgan Cox, Robert P Cox,
    Aaron S Coyan, Cecil I Craft, Kenneth B Craib, James Craig, PhD, John A
    Cramer, PhD, Walter Crandall, PhD, Robt S Craxton, PhD, Valerie Voss
    Crenshaw, Kenneth S Cressman, John Edwin Crew, PhD, Gregory A Crews,
    Robert W Cribbs, Peter A Crisi, Thomas B Criss, PhD, George T Croft,
    PhD, Donald C Cronemeyer, PhD, Kevin P Cross, Stephen Crouse, Michael
    Cruickshank, PhD, Duane Crum, PhD, Glenn H Crumb, PhD, Gabriel T
    Csanady, PhD, Alan L Csontos, Jerry F Cuderman, PhD, Donald Cudmore,
    Walter Cunningham, PhD, John T Curran, Bendit Cushman-Roisin, PhD,
    Leonard Cutler, PhD, Jerry Cuttler, PhD, George B Cvijanovich, PhD,
    Burt L St Cyr, Walter J Czagas, Rita Czek.

    Category: D
        John Dabbs, PhD, George C Dacey, PhD, Calvin Daetwyler, PhD, W V
    Dailey, James T Dakin, PhD, Snezana Kili-Dalafave, PhD, Anthony A Dale,
    George F Dalrymple, Michael Daly, Richard Aasen Damerow, PhD, Dwight H
    Damon, PhD, Jerome Samuel Danburg, PhD, Richard M Dangelo, Charles D
    Daniel, PhD, Anders P Daniels, PhD, Fred Darady, Rodney C Darrah,
    Michael J Darre, PhD, Edward Daskam, Clarence T Daub, PhD, Don
    Davidson, James M Davidson, PhD, Chad Davies, PhD, Edward J Davies,
    PhD, Emlyn B Davies, PhD, Frank W Davies, Brian D Davis, D K Davis,
    Dana E Davis, Dick Davis, PhD, Francis Davis, PhD, Fred Davis, Jesse L
    Davis, M Davis, PhD, Wm R Davis, PhD, HR Dawson, PhD, Tom Dawson, Duke
    Dayton, David Deacon, PhD, Robert E Dean, William D Dean, Bobby C
    Deaton, PhD, B D Debaryshe, Peter Debrunner, PhD, Robert J Debs, PhD,
    Arthuir J Decker, PhD, Fred W Decker, PhD, Fred W Decker, PhD, William
    M Decker, W Edward Deeds, PhD, Erwin Delano, PhD, J M Delano, J W
    Delano, PhD, David C Demartini, PhD, Gerald Demers, Louis J Denes, PhD,
    David R Denley, PhD, Warren W Denner, PhD, William J Denney, Ronald W
    Dennison, Wm Davis Derbyshire, PhD, David Derenzo, Dimitris Dermatas,
    PhD, Larry Derscheid, Don Desborough, Armand Desmarais, Herbert C
    Dessaver, PhD, William Devereux, Roland Dewit, PhD, F D Dexter,
    Franklin D Dexter, Seshasayi Dharmavaram, PhD, Paul J Dial, Rudolph
    John Dichtl, Charles Edward Dickerman, PhD, Lee G Dickinson, John
    Dickmann, Howard Dickson, Robert B Dillaway, PhD, Malcolm Dillon,
    Michael Dion, Eugene Dirk, PhD, James Disiena, H Marshall Dixon, PhD,
    Richard W Dixon, PhD, Ross J Dixon, Marvin Dodge, PhD, Edward M
    Dokoozian, PhD, Richard Dolecek, Edward E O Donnell, PhD, Mark C
    Dooley, Robt F Doolittle, PhD, Billie Dopstauf, Jerome P Dorlac, Robert
    W Doty, PhD, Roark Doubt, Lawrence G Doucet, Rae Dougherty, Hugh
    Douglas, Haninia Dover, Edward J Dowdy, PhD, Thomas J Dowling, James A
    Downey III, Doxtader, PhD, Arthur E Drake, PhD, James F Drake, PhD,
    Frank E Driggers, PhD, Raymond L Driscoll, Richard Drisko, PhD, Earl G
    Droessler, Murray Dryer, PhD, James L Dubard, PhD, Roy Dudman, Roy
    Dudman, Michael S Duesbery, PhD, William T Duffy, PhD, Taylor Duke,
    Herbert M Dumas, Henry F Dunlap, PhD, George Dunnavan, John Ray
    Dunning, PhD, Kenneth L Dunning, PhD, Wm N Durand, James A Durr,
    Chizuko M Dutta, PhD, David L Dye, PhD, Steven Dyer.

    Category: E
        Dr Joe R Eagleman, PhD, Joe R Eagleman, PhD, Michael T Eckert, Lee
    W Eddington, Lee W Eddington, George R Edlin, PhD, Ronald K Edquist,
    President, David F Edwards, PhD, Eugene H Edwards, PhD, Maurice Egan,
    PhD, Jason Egelston, Kenneth W Ehlers, PhD, Walter Eich, Val L
    Eichenlaub, PhD, Peter M Eick, Thomas Eliaren Jr, Luis R Elias, PhD,
    Rush E Elkins, PhD, M Edmund Ellion, PhD, Bruce Elliott, PhD, Robert D
    Elliott, Rodger L Elliott, David Ellis, Paul J Ellis, PhD, Hugh W
    Ellsaesser, PhD, George F Emch, George Emerle, Louis Emery, PhD, Amsrl-
    Is-Ew, Charles E Engelke, PhD, Raymond Engelke, PhD, Robert W English,
    David Engwall, PhD, Gerard Enigk, John W Enz, PhD, Gilbert K Eppich,
    Jeffrey F Eppink, Seymour Epstein, PhD, Robert D Erhardt Jr, Harold P
    Erickson, PhD, Richard Erickson, PhD, Paul Erlandson, PhD, James L
    Erskine, PhD, Brenda Eskelson, Terry Ess, Edward R Estes, Albert Edwin
    Evans, PhD, James A Evans, Leonard Evans, PhD, Ralph A Evans, PhD, A
    Gordon Everett, PhD.

    Category: F
        Gary A Fahl, Michael Fairbourne, John B Fallon, Anthony L Farinola,
    Bruce Farlwald, W Michael Farmer, PhD, David Farrell, PhD, Robert P
    Farrell, Thomas Farrior, Geo Farwell, PhD, Anthony J Favale, Felix
    Favorite, PhD, Sherwood Fawcett, PhD, Gene R Feaster, PhD, J D
    Feichtner, PhD, J Roberto Feige, David M Feit, Hank Feldstein, PhD,
    William J Felmlee, Charles M Ferrell, Craig Ferris, Terence M Filiplak,
    R D Finch, PhD, Martin Finerty Jr, James Fink, PhD, Joanne K Fink, PhD,
    Reinald G Finke, PhD, Melvin Wm First, PhD, David Fischel, PhD, Ferol F
    Fish, PhD, Ed Fisher, John Fisher, PhD, Philip C Fisher, PhD, William
    Gary Fisher, Richard A Fitch, Wade Fite, PhD, J Ed Fitzgerald, PhD,
    Donna Fitzpatrick, Hugh M Fitzpatrick, Robert F Flagg, PhD, Robert
    Flicker, James L Flocik, Lowell R Flud, Anthony H Foderaro, PhD, Gary R
    Foerster, Timothy Fohl, PhD, Martin M Fontenot, Robert Foote, Dale
    Force, James L Fordham, Samuel W Fordyce, Irving S Foster, PhD, J S
    Foster, Robt John Foster, PhD, Doyle F Fouquet, Louis H Fowler, Grant R
    Fowles, PhD, Corri Fox, David Wm Fox, PhD, Russell E Fox, PhD, David
    Fraley, PhD, Allan J Frank, Marchall E Frazer, PhD, James Frazier,
    Bernard A Free, Wallace L Freeman, PhD, Stephen M Fremgen, William S
    French, PhD, Frey, Edwin F Fricke, PhD, Gerald M Friedman, PhD, Herbert
    Friedman, PhD, Joel Friedman, Friess, Gerald E Fritts, Eugene Frowe, S
    W Fruehling, David H Fruhling, Charles Frye, Robert Fugrer, Norihiko
    Fukuta, PhD, Charles Fuller, Joe Fulton, Harold Fuquay, Joseph T Furey,
    Thomas C Furnas Jr, PhD, Nelson Fuson, PhD, Floyd Fusselman.

    Category: G
        Steven A Gaal, PhD, F Gabbard, PhD, L H Gabro, Gaffney, Richard
    Gaggioli, PhD, George Gal, PhD, Eugene Galanter, PhD, Frank P Gallagher
    III, Jack Gallagher, PhD, Paul Galli Jr, Charles Gallina, PhD, Charles
    Gallina, PhD, William A Gallus, Jr, PhD, Perry S Ganas, PhD, A K
    Ganguly, PhD, Carl Ganseivity, Floyd Wayne Garber, PhD, S Paul Garber,
    Edward E Gardner, PhD, Hessle F Garner, PhD, Jay M Garner, Alfred J
    Garrett, PhD, John C Garth, PhD, Jerrie W Gasch, Robert S Gaston, G R
    Gathers, PhD, Thomas Gatliffe, William E Gee, D A Gedcke, PhD, Elton W
    Geist, Charles Gelwall, Gary Gerardi, PhD, George S Gerlach, Ulrich H
    Gerlach, PhD, Robert L Geyer, PhD, L H Giacoletto, PhD, Umberto
    Gianola, PhD, Gordon Gibb, Lee Gibson, PhD, Peter F Giddings, W Allen
    Gilchrist, PhD, Claude M Gillespie, PhD, Bruce B Gillies, George T
    Gillies, PhD, William Gilmore Jr, H Scott Gingrich, Helen Ginzburg,
    James Given, Peter Glanz, PhD, Peter K Glanz, PhD, Jerome E Glass,
    Thomas A Gleeson, PhD, Thomas A Gleeson, PhD, Dale P Glover, Robert
    Glover, Will E Godbey, Terry L Godsey, David J Goerz, Malcolm Goldberg,
    PhD, Malcom Golderberg, PhD, Ronald B Goldfarb, PhD, Bruce Goldman,
    John P Goldsborough, PhD, Norman E Goldstein, PhD, Walter J
    Goldsworthy, Mark J Golol, William R Gommel, PhD, John R Gonano, PhD,
    Michel Gondouin, PhD, John B Goodenou, PhD, David Goodenough, PhD, Kent
    J Goodloe, Clifford Gordon, James W Gordon, PhD, Robert Gordon, Wilbur
    H Goss, PhD, Henry Gotsch, Gordon Gould, PhD, Robt G Gould, PhD, Robert
    G Graf, Leroy D Graff, Howard E Graham, Lewis O Grant, Lawrence
    Grauvogel, Joe C Gray, Kevin J Gray, PhD, Robert C Gray, Thoams Gray,
    Michael Grecco, Joseph Matthew Green, PhD, David Greene, Donald M
    Greene, PhD, Miles Greenland, Reynold Greenstone, Anton Greenwald, PhD,
    Gregory Greer, Howard Greger, David T Gregorich, PhD, J R Greig, PhD,
    Paul Greiman, Daniel Grieser, Doreen Grieve, J Tyler Griffin, J Tyler
    Griffin, James Edward Griffin, PhD, M Griffin, PhD, Brandon Griffith,
    Richard T Grinstead, B F Grossling, PhD, D J Grove, PhD, John C Grover,
    Timothy R Groves, PhD, William Groves, Richard Grow, PhD, Johathan R
    Gruchala, Mike Gruntman, PhD, Richard A Gudmundsen, PhD, Gareth E
    Guest, PhD, Thomas F Guetzloff, PhD, Peter H Guldberg, Peter H
    Guldberg, Guldenzopf, PhD, Charles W Gullikson, PhD, Darryl E
    Gunderson, Richard Gundry, Raj K Gupta, PhD, Philip F Gustafson, PhD,
    William Gustin, Donald T Guthrie, Steven L Gutsche, Jeng Yih Guu, PhD,
    Frank Guy, PhD.

    Category: H
        Gottfried Haacke, PhD, Benjamin C Hablutzel, George Hacken, PhD,
    Glenn A Hackwell, PhD, Lawrence Hadley, PhD, Frank A Hadsell, PhD,
    Jeffrey Haebrlin, Anton F Haffer, Erich Hafner, PhD, G Richard Hagee,
    PhD, Arno K Hagenlocher, PhD, Ismail B Haggag, PhD, Chuck R Haggett,
    Douglas C Hahn, John A Haiko, Mary Hakim, M H Halderson, Francis A
    Hale, R A Haley, R W Hall, Jr, PhD, Robert Halladay, Martin B Halpern,
    PhD, Matthew M Hammer, Scott E Hampel, Howard W Hanawalt, Lawrence
    Handley, PhD, Arthur L Handman, Sultan Haneed, PhD, N Bruce Hanes, PhD,
    David Haney, Sunil Hangal, PhD, William Hankins, Arthur D Hanna, PhD,
    Jeff Hanna, RW Hannemann, Martin Hanninen, Edward Hanrahan, PhD, E M
    Hansen, Robert C Hansen, PhD, Charles Hantzis, William Happer, PhD,
    Michael P Harasym, Allan W Harbaugh, PhD, John H Harble, Harry C
    Hardee, PhD, Harold C Harder, PhD, Clyde Hardin, James L Harding, PhD,
    Mary K Harding, Thomas Harding, Thomas W Harding, PhD, Wm Harding, PhD,
    Elwood Hardman, Henry R Hardy, PhD, Robert E Hardy, Mark Harjes, Eric A
    Harms, Lynn Harper, David Harriman, Franklin S Harris Jr, PhD, Richard
    A Harris, PhD, S P Harris, PhD, Marvin Harrison, James Hart, Robert D
    Hart, M Hartman, Peter Hartwick, Kenneth C Harvey, PhD, John A Hasdal,
    PhD, Neal Haskell, PhD, Jill Hasling, Floyd N Hasselrlis, Turner E
    Hasty, PhD, Ronald R Hatch, Larry Hatcher, Eric W Hatfield, Peter
    Hatgelakas, J Hauger, PhD, Henry Haughey, Ken Haught, PhD, Arthur
    Hausman, Peter Havanac, K Havenor, PhD, William Havens, PhD, Kerry M
    Hawkins, Robert Hawkins, PhD, William K Hawkins, Howard Hayden, PhD,
    Dennis Hayes, PhD, James L Hayes, Carl H Hayn, PhD, George L Hazelton,
    R N Hazelwood, PhD, William G Hazen, Harold E Headlee, G Herbert, David
    R Hedin, PhD, Todd Hedlund, Harold G Hedrick, PhD, John Hefti, Walter
    Heinrichs, William D Heinze, PhD, William D Heise, Thomas Helbing,
    Cecil Helfgott, PhD, Marvin W Heller, PhD, Carl Helmick, Ron Helms,
    Philip Hemmig, J Hemstreet, PhD, Dale Henderson, PhD, Gerald J
    Henderson, PhD, Richard G Hendl, PhD, John B Hendricks, PhD, Tom A
    Hendrickson, PhD, Raymond Henkel, PhD, Joseph Hennessey, Gregory W
    Henry, Malcolm Hepworth, PhD, John A Herb, PhD, Donlad Herlew Jr, PhD,
    Roger M Herman, PhD, Don Herriott, Tom R Herrmann, PhD, George
    Herzlinger, PhD, Cynthia Hess, PhD, George B Hess, PhD, Karl Hess, PhD,
    Ralph A Hewes, PhD, Frederick Hewitt, PhD, Paul G Hewitt, Walter
    Hickox, Joseph H Higginbotham, PhD, Archie C Hill, PhD, Harvey F Hill,
    J C Hill, PhD, Robert D Hill, PhD, Richard Hillger, PhD, Hilton F
    Hinderliter, PhD, Robert Hirsch, PhD, Sol Hirsch, Donald A Hirst, PhD,
    Mark Hladik, Wai Ching Ho, PhD, James L Hobart, PhD, George Hobbs, Lon
    Hocker, PhD, Sidney E Hodges, PhD, Gus L Hoehn, PhD, William B Hoeing,
    C S Hoff, Thomas E Hoffer, PhD, John R Hoffman, PhD, Marvin Morrison
    Hoffman, PhD, C Lester Hogan, PhD, David C Hogg, PhD, LE Hoisington,
    PhD, David A Holcomb, Richard Holcombe, J Keen Holland, Richard
    Holland, Kenneth Hollenbaugh, PhD, Charles L Hollenbeck, William A
    Hollerman, John T Holloway, PhD, Russell Holman, Johnny B Holmes, PhD,
    Edmond W Holroyd, PhD, Lowell H Holway, PhD, George Holzman, PhD,
    Philip E Hoover, Richard Hoover, Francis J Hopcroft, George William
    Hopkins, PhD, Terry Horn, John Horrenstine, Doc Horsley, PhD, William
    Horvath, PhD, James Hosgood, Charles R Hosler, Richard F Houde, House,
    Robert M House, Michael S Howard, PhD, Charles D Hoyle, PhD, Jam Hrabe,
    PhD, Bradford Hubbard, Harmon W Hubbard, PhD, Wilbert H Hubin, PhD,
    Colin Hudson, PhD, Brad Huffines, Woodie D Huffman, James W Hugg, PhD,
    John Hulm, PhD, John L Hult, PhD, Brian Humphrey, William E Humphrey,
    PhD, Robert D Hunsucker, PhD, Hubert B Hunt, J E Von Husen, John L
    Hubisz, PhD, Frank Hussey, Vivian K Hussey, Jerome G Hust, John F
    Hutzenlaub, PhD, Alan W Hyatt, PhD, Eric Hyatt, PhD, James M Hylko,
    Steven J Hynek.

    Category: I
        Rodney D Ice, PhD, Sherwood B Idso, PhD, Alex Ignatiev, PhD, Walter
    L Imm, Anton L Inderbitzen, PhD, Karl Ingard, PhD, J Charles Ingraham,
    PhD, Mitio Indkuti, PhD, Ronald H Isaac, PhD, Donald G Iselin, A Z
    Ismail, PhD.

    Category: J
        Bruce Jackson, Julius A Jackson Jr, K A Jackson, PhD, Warren
    Jackson, PhD, Bruce Jacobs, Jimmy J Jacobson, PhD, Holger M Jaenisch,
    PhD, Sherwin W Jamison, Kenneth S Jancaitis, PhD, Cole Janick, Norman
    Janke, PhD, Paul R Jann, John Jaquess, Fred Jarka, Robert Jastrow, PhD,
    John A Jaszczak, PhD, Seymour Jaye, Robert Jeanmaire, Keith Bartlett
    Jefferts, PhD, Thomas T Jeffries III, Jack D Jenkins, Vincent F
    Jennemann, PhD, Paul A Jennings, PhD, Clayton E Jensen, PhD, L Carl
    Jensen, Paul Edward T Jensen, Denzel Jenson, Robert Johannes, PhD, Emil
    S Johansen, Anthony Johnson, Anthony O Johnson, Arlo F Johnson, PhD,
    Charles M Johnson, PhD, Dale Johnson, Duane P Johnson, PhD, Gerald
    Johnson, PhD, Horace Johnson, PhD, James R Johnson, PhD, Jeffrey
    Johnson, L R Johnson, Laurence N Johnson, Leo F Johnson, PhD, Robert
    Johnson, PhD, Robt L Johnson, PhD, Ronald Gene Johnson, PhD, Walter E
    Johnson, Wendell Johnson, William P Johnson, David Johnston, Charles
    Jones, PhD, H M Jones, PhD, Kay H Jones, PhD, Merrell R Jones, PhD,
    Mitchell Jones, Ray P Jones, Larry Josbeno, Daniel Juliano, PhD.

    Category: K
        Morton T Kagan, PhD, Jon P Kahler, David A Kallin, Kamal, PhD, W
    Kane, PhD, Arthur R Kantrowitz, PhD, Bennett Kapp, PhD, Gabor Karadi,
    PhD, Francis W Karasek, PhD, W Bradford Karcher, Munawar Karim, PhD,
    James Karom Jr, Thomas W Karras, PhD, Ira Katz, PhD, Yale H Katz, David
    Kay, PhD, Marvin D Kays, PhD, Michael Keables, PhD, Philip D Kearney,
    PhD, Horst H Kedesdy, PhD, Richard A Keen, PhD, Ralph O Kehle, PhD,
    John E Keim, PhD, Karl Keim, D Steven Keller, PhD, Charles T Kelley,
    PhD, Fenton Crosland Kelley, PhD, Patrick R Kelly, Paul Kelly, Ronald G
    Kelsey, Mike Kendall, Robert C Kendall, Peter H Kendrick, Dallas C
    Kennedy II, PhD, Howard V Kennedy, PhD, J M Kennel, PhD, A R Kenny,
    Josef Kercso, Clifford D Kern, PhD, Quentin A Kerns, John Charles
    Kershenstein, PhD, Clement J Kevane, PhD, Elbert R Key, Frank Key,
    Riley Kiminer, PhD, J S King, PhD, P I Kingsbury, PhD, Tommy C
    Kinnaird, John J R Kinney, Gerald Lee Kinnison, PhD, Timothy P Kinsley,
    Roy H Kinslow, PhD, Thyl E Kint, Peter Kirwin, Hugh Kissell, Thomas A
    Kitchens, PhD, Terence M Kite, PhD, Geo S Klaiber, PhD, L T Klauder Jr,
    PhD, Klaus, PhD, Williad Kleckner, PhD, Thomas Klein, Paul G Klemens,
    PhD, Kenneth F Klenk, PhD, Edwin Kiingman, D A Klip, PhD, Duane V
    Kniebes, John Knight, PhD, Knightes, PhD, Richard H Knipe, PhD, David
    Knoble, PhD, Mark Knoderer, Mark Knoderer, James S Koehler, PhD, Robert
    A Kohl, PhD, Joshua O Kolawole, PhD, William Koldwyn, PhD, Lee R
    Koller, PhD, Kenneth K Konrad, Christopher Konz, Robert P Koob, PhD,
    Kevin D Kooistra, Jack I Kornfield, PhD, Theresa M Koscny, Fleetwood
    Koutz, PhD, William P Kovacik, PhD, Robert W Koza, Gregory A Kozera,
    Geoffrey A Krafft, PhD, Paul Krail, PhD, Roman J Kramarsic, PhD, Gary
    Kramer, PhD, George G Krapfel, Howard R Kratz, PhD, Lawrence C Kravitz,
    PhD, Robert F Kraye, William Kreiss, PhD, Richard Kremer, PhD, Peter A
    Krenkel, PhD, Warren C Kreye, PhD, Robt E Kribal, PhD, Jacqueline Krim,
    PhD, James G Krist, Louis G Kristjanson, Paul H Kronfield, Peter G
    Krueger, PhD, Paul Kubicek, Moyses Kuchnir, PhD, Antonin Kudrna, Peter
    Kuhn, PhD, Carl Kuhnen Jr, Matthew H Kulawiec, Andrew Kulchar, Gordon
    Kuntz, PhD, Edward Kurdziel, Chris E Kuyatt, PhD, Tung-Sing Kwong.

    Category: L
        Kenneth M Labas, Melvin Labitt, Paul Lacelle, MD, PhD, John J Lacey
    Jr, James Lafervers, PhD, John M Lafferty Jr, Eugene C Laford, PhD,
    Milton Laikin, William Laing, George W Lambroff, Robert G Lamontagne,
    PhD, Robert G Lamontagne, PhD, G D Lancaster, Paul Lancaster, H D
    Landahl, PhD, Richard L Lander, PhD, Arthur Lange, Robert C Langley,
    George Laperle, Gerald J Lapeyre, PhD, Vince Lara, James G Lareau,
    Ernest T Larson, Mark Larson, Reginald E Larson, Robert Larson, PhD,
    Stanley Laster, PhD, Mike Lauriente, PhD, Jerome Lavine, PhD, Albert G
    Iles Law, PhD, Joel S Lawson, PhD, Kent Lawson, PhD, John F Lawyer,
    Thomas W Layton, PhD, Paul D Lazay, MD, PhD, Susanne M Lea, PhD,
    Richard Leamer, PhD, Charles W Lear, Albert O Learned, Jozef Lebiedzik,
    PhD, Lynn L Leblanc, PhD, Jean-Pierre Leburton, PhD, Charles E Lee, J T
    Lee, Paul Lee, PhD, H William Leech, PhD, Gail Legate, Mark R Legg,
    PhD, Donald R Lehman, PhD, Troy Leingany, Eric E Lemke, Terry L Lemley,
    PhD, Leslie R Lemon, Andrew Lenard, PhD, Roger X Lenard, Roland E
    Lentz, Stephen K Lentz, John F Lescher, James D Lesikar, PhD, James
    Lessman, Nelson J Letourneau, PhD, Michael A Leuck, H A Leupold, PhD,
    Walter Frederick Leverton, PhD, Gilbert Levin, PhD, Stewart Levin, PhD,
    Arnold D Levine, PhD, Catherine Lewis, PhD, George R Lewis, Richard C
    Lewis, Huilin Li, PhD, James J Licari, PhD, T Lick, PhD, James A
    Liggett', PhD, Peter Liley, PhD, Jay Lilley, Jay Lindholm, Ralph
    Linsker, MD, PhD, Clarence D Lipscombe III, PhD, Chian Liu, PhD, W M
    Liu, PhD, Robert S Livingston, PhD, Thomas J Lockhart, Jaques Loes, H
    William Lollar, Julian H Lombard, PhD, G Lombardi, PhD, Leonard
    Lombardi, PhD, Bryan H Long, James A Long, James D Long, David
    Longinotti, H Jerry Longley, PhD, Wm Longley Jr, PhD, Ronald Lorenz,
    Monty Losee, Stuart Loucks, L Richard Louden, PhD, Robert I Louttit,
    PhD, Sadler Love, Robert Lovelace, Radon R Loveland, F Lowe, Thomas
    Lowinger, PhD, Brian Lubbert, Alan H Lubell, Martin S Lubell, Michael D
    Lubin, PhD, Brian Luckianow, Claus B Ludwig, PhD, Mark Ludwig, PhD,
    Mariann Lukan, Ronald Lukas, PhD, Robert A Luke, PhD, Robert Luke, PhD,
    Jack Marling, PhD, J Lund, Mark W Lund, PhD, Dennis L Lundberg, PhD,
    Theodore Lundquist, PhD, Jesse V Lunsford, Anthony Lupo, PhD, Mark J
    Lupo, PhD, William H Lupton, PhD, J W Luquire, PhD, Glenn R Lussky,
    John Lynch, PhD.

    Category: M
        Monte D Mabry, Howard Maccabee, MD, PhD, A MacDonald, Alexander
    Dainel MacDonald, PhD, Brian MacDonald, Richard Macdougal, Char L Mack,
    Patrick Mackey, Jay Mackie, Robert A Macrae, Peter Madaffari, Franklin
    D Maddox, R Magno, PhD, John P Maher, Pat Mahon, Robert A Maier,
    Jeffrey E Malan, Robert Malouf, Gary M Malvin, PhD, James M Mandera,
    David J Maness, Kent M Mangold, T A Manhart, Robt C Mania, PhD, Harold
    Manley, Joseph Bird Mann, PhD, J Mannion, Charles Mansfield, PhD, John
    Mansfield, PhD, Samuel P March, Jack J Marcinek, Richard M Marino, PhD,
    William D Marino, George Marklin, PhD, Morris J Markovitz, Morris J
    Markovitz, William E Marlatt, PhD, Marsh, PhD, C T Martin, Daniel W
    Martin, PhD, Edward Martin, Jerry Martin, L A Martin, Lockhead Martin,
    PhD, Ronald L Martin, PhD, Ernest A Martinelli, PhD, Mario Martini,
    PhD, Philip X Masciantonio, PhD, James V Masi, PhD, Conrad J Mason,
    PhD, Conrad Mason, PhD, Wulf F Massell, PhD, Wulf F Massell, PhD, David
    S Masterman, Ronald F Mathis, PhD, Dilip Mathur, PhD, Ron J Matlock, J
    Matolyak, PhD, Harrison Matson, Paul R Matthews, Timothy V Mattson,
    Thomas E Mattus, Richard Matula, PhD, David C Matzke, Paul Mauer, J G
    Mavroides, PhD, John E May, PhD, John May, A Frank Mayadas, PhD, James
    Mayo, Robert McAdams, Robt E McAdams, PhD, John Hart Mcadoo, PhD,
    William Bruce McAlister, PhD, McAneny, PhD, Terry McArthur, Bruce R
    McAvoy, Michael F McCardle, William Mccarter, Robert P McCarthy, Shaun
    L McCarthy, PhD, John Mccauley, Thomas A McClelland, PhD, James O
    McClimans, R J McClure, M McCorcle, PhD, Billy M McCormac, PhD, Philip
    Thomas McCormick, PhD, John G McCue, PhD, Robert G McCuistion, Tim
    McDaniel, Dirk McDermott, James M Macdonald Jr, Malcolm W McDonald,
    PhD, Ralph R McDonough, Edward McDowell, Jr, William Nordell McElroy,
    PhD, Gerald N McEwen, PhD, Michael McGinn, Randall K McGivney, Stuart
    Mcgregor, John P McGuire, David F McIntosh, Robert J Mckay, John P
    McKelvey, PhD, Wm B McKnight, PhD, James A McLennan, PhD, Gregory R
    McNeill, Edward J McNiff, D Sean McPherson, Daniel E Mcpherson Jr, Reg
    Meaker, Walter Medding, Sidney S Medley, PhD, James Medlin, William L
    Medlin, PhD, Ralph D Meeker, PhD, Louis D Megehee, Karin Megerle,
    Leathem Mehaffey, PhD, John L Meisenheimer, PhD, Ivars Melingailis,
    PhD, Kenneth E Mellendorf, PhD, Gary Melvin, Arthur Mendonsa, Wm
    Menger, Samuel H Mentemeier, Micheal D Mentzel, Leo Menz, PhD, Erhard R
    Menzel, PhD, Charles R Merigold, James B Merkel, Marshal F Merriam,
    PhD, Dwight F Metzler, PhD, Donald I Meyer, PhD, Frank H Meyer, Harold
    Meyer, Howard Meyer, Stuart L Meyer, PhD, Walter D Meyer, PhD, Maurice
    A Meylan, PhD, Alesandru Mezincescu, PhD, Gerald J Miatech, PhD,
    Patrick Michael, PhD, Paul C Michaelis, Andre F Michaudon, PhD, C
    Michel, PhD, F Curtis Michel, PhD, John Medavaine, Marcus Middleton,
    John A Mikus, PhD, John G Miles, Kelley F Miles, Ralph F Miles, PhD,
    Frederick H Milford, PhD, William G Millan, PhD, James P Millard, A S
    Miller, PhD, Donadl B Miller, PhD, Donald P Miller, PhD, George R
    Miller, Herman L Miller, Howard Miller, PhD, James A Miller, Larry
    Miller, Lewis E Miller, Philip D Miller, PhD, Raymond E Miller, PhD,
    Robert Charles Miller, PhD, Robert J Miller, PhD, Roger Miller, L E
    Millet, PhD, Dan Millison, John J Mills, PhD, Paul Mills, Greg
    Millspaugh, George H Milly, PhD, Wm B Mims, PhD, Minkin, PhD, David
    Mintzer, PhD, Raymod Mires, PhD, Dale Mitchel, Robert H Mitchell, John
    B Mix, PhD, Jack Pitts Mize, PhD, James J Mizera, Raymond C Mjolsness,
    PhD, K L Moazed, PhD, Paul Mockett, PhD, Charles J Mode, PhD, Fersheed
    K Mody, PhD, Mary V Moggio, Philip Mohan, Gary A Molchan, D Mommsen,
    Ralph Monaghan, W Bryan Monosmith, PhD, Christopher Monroe, PhD,
    Charles J Montrose, PhD, Donald W Moon, Rickie D Moon, Young Moon, PhD,
    Richard T Mooney, Craig Moore, Michael S Moore, PhD, Robert D Moore,
    Jr, John W Moran, Kou-Yiong Y Moravan, PhD, Allan J Mord, PhD, William
    Moreland, Dena R Morford, Relbue M Morgan, PhD, Robert Morgan, PhD, W
    Lowell Morgan, PhD, Carl H Morley, Lawrence Morley, PhD, Edward G
    Morris, Dan Morrow, Thomas M Morse, Kenneth E Mortenson, PhD, Ray S
    Morton, Gary E Mosher, Malcolm Mossman, Jack Mott, PhD, Henry T Motz,
    PhD, Lloyd Motz, PhD, Eugene A Mueller, PhD, George E Mueller, PhD,
    George Mueller, PhD, William B Mueller, Barry B Muhoberac, PhD, J
    Mishtu A Mukerjee, Richard L Mullen, John Muller, PhD, Justus Muller,
    Edward S Murduck, PhD, George Murgel, PhD, Wayne K Murphey, PhD,
    Charles Murphy, PhD, John C Murphy, PhD, Murphy, PhD, Lawrence E Murr,
    PhD, Frank Murray, PhD, Raymond L Murray, PhD, X J Musacchia, PhD, John
    D Myers, Mark T Myers, Glen Myska.

    Category: N
        Misac Nabighian, PhD, Edward Nadgorny, PhD, James Nagode, Dennis B
    Nakamoto, Samuel J Nalley, PhD, Michael L Nance, Franklin Richard Nash,
    PhD, Harry C Nash, PhD, Ronald O Neaffer, PhD, Victor Thomas Neal, PhD,
    Hugh Neeson, Robert Neff, Robert Neff, John P Neglia, Leland K Neher,
    PhD, Charles A Nelson, PhD, David L Nelson, David Nelson, PhD, Genne
    Nelson, Loren D Nelson, PhD, Nelson A Perry, Robert Nerbun, PhD, Arthur
    H Nethercot, PhD, Charles H Neuman, PhD, Paul Nevins, Jerry S Newcomb,
    John T Newell, PhD, Richard E Newell, Sam Newner, Richard S Newrock,
    PhD, Kerwin Ng, Liz Niccum, Chester E Nichols, PhD, Davis Betz Nichols,
    PhD, Mark E Nichols, PhD, Roberta Nichols, PhD, Eugene H Nicholson,
    PhD, George Nickas, PhD, Barry C Nielsen, Kurt Nielsen, Henry Nikkel,
    Thomas G Nilan, PhD, Harmon Nine, PhD, James Nitzschke, John D Noble,
    PhD, Michael L Noel, Raymond L Noel, Lasalle L Nolin, Jack Noll,
    Bertram Nolte, PhD, Eugene Nooker, Philip A Norby, Sherman B Nornes,
    PhD, William G Norrie, Clyde Northrup, PhD, Hallan C Notimier, PhD,
    Julian R P Nott, Edward F Novak, J D Novotny, Jerzy Nowakowski, PhD,
    Gary P Noyes, PhD, Hugh Nutley, PhD, Richard A Nyquist, PhD.

    Category: O
        Michael Oard, Deborah Jean O'Bannon, PhD, Richard L O'Connell,
    Frederick Kirk Odencrantz, PhD, Frederic C E Oder, PhD, Randy Oehling,
    Ordean S Oen, PhD, Robert A Oetjen, PhD, Calvin Ogburn, Norbert W
    Ohara, PhD, William Ohmstede, Steven E Olbrich, PhD, Fred Oliver,
    Kenneth Leo Oliver, PhD, Wm P Oliver, PhD, Merrill M Olson, Ted Olson,
    James Oltmans II, Joe R O'Neal, Russell O'Neal, PhD, George F Oneill,
    PhD, Robert E O'Neill, Marchall F Onellion, PhD, Gary L Oppliger, PhD,
    Drew R Van Orden, Johathan Orloff, PhD, Cornel G Ormsby, Harold Osborn,
    Oskoorouichi, PhD, Charles Osterberg, PhD, Wayne Ott, PhD, Wm J Otting,
    PhD, William Otto, Jacques Ovadia, PhD, Robert Ovellette, Albert W
    Overhauser, PhD, Robert F Overmyer, Mark Owens, William C Owens.
    Category: P
        Karle Packard, Jack Paden, Robert R Palik, Richard W Palladino,
    Thomas Y Palmer, John M Palms, PhD, Michael V Palvov, John A Pantelis,
    Francis Paolini, PhD, Carles Herach Papas, PhD, Sastry U Pappu, PhD,
    James L Park, PhD, Eugene Parker, PhD, Raymond G Parker, Edward M
    Parma, Albert Parr, PhD, Christopher Parry, PhD, H D Parry, Zohreh
    Parsa, PhD, David H Parsons, W H Parsons, PhD, David F Paskausky, PhD,
    David F Paskausky, PhD, James M Paterson, PhD, Sandra Patrick, Randy
    Patterson, Robert W Patterson, Gary M Patton, Robert Paul, PhD, Kermit
    Paulson, Arthur S Pavlovic, PhD, Charles H Paxton, Cyril J Payne,
    Daniel Payne, F R Payne, PhD, Michael A Payne, PhD, Daniel N Payton,
    Zoran Pazameta, PhD, Herry Peace, David Peacock, PhD, Durk Pearson,
    George J Pearson, PhD, David C Peaslee, PhD, Justin B Peatross, PhD,
    Michael J Pechan, PhD, E L Peck, PhD, Edson R Peck, PhD, Christopher
    Peek, Gary Pekarek, David G Pelka, PhD, Erik M Pell, PhD, M J Pellillo,
    Richard R Pemper, PhD, John Penn, Samuel Penner, PhD, Linda Pequegnat,
    PhD, Darlene A Periconi-Balling, Charles Perry, Nelson Perry, Kenneth F
    Persin, Persky, PhD, Heide Petermann, Calvin Peters, Jeffrey L Peters,
    Edward C Peterson, Jack E Peterson, PhD, Arthur Petraske, Andrey
    Petukhov, PhD, Raymond J Pfeiffer, PhD, Bill Phebe, Frederick Phelps,
    PhD, Herbert R Philipp, PhD, Richard A Phillips, PhD, James A Phillips,
    PhD, Jay W Phippen, PhD, William Pickett, George Piers, Alan Pike, PhD,
    David M Pike, Gordon E Pike, PhD, Arturs Piksis, PhD, Lester Pilcher,
    Valter E Pilcher, PhD, Robert A Piloquin, Pine, PhD, Ervin L Piper,
    Daniel J Pisano, PhD, Jack Piskura, Fred Pitman, James D Plimpton, PhD,
    David Pocengul, Steve C Poe, William Poley, Polinger, PhD, William J
    Polson, PhD, Walter L Pondrom, PhD, Kurt W Pontasch, PhD, G Albert
    Popson, PhD, Bonne Posma, Richard W Postma, PhD, James E Potzick,
    Edward T Powell, PhD, Mark L Powell, Michael Robert Powell, PhD, Daren
    Powers, PhD, Robert W Powitz, PhD, C Dan Preston, Kenneth Price, PhD,
    Donald W Pritchard, PhD, David G Proctor, PhD, Tso-Ping Ma, PhD, Jesus
    R Provencio, PhD, Frederick D Provenza, PhD, Anthony J Provenzano, PhD,
    L L Pruitt, Bruce Purcell, Cary C Purdy, James K Purpura, George
    Putman, PhD, Thomas H Putman, PhD, Abbott A Putnam, Erling Pytte, PhD.

    Category: Q
        Kathy Qin, James Qualey, PhD, Russell Qualls, PhD, John J Quinn,
    PhD, Shirley J Quinn, Phil Quire, Karl S Quisenberry, PhD, Patrick W
    Quist.

    Category: R
        Bernard Raab, PhD, Steven Rabe, Harold Raemer, PhD, Dejan Rajcic,
    James A Ralph, Frederick Rambow, PhD, Rafael G Ramirez, PhD, Simon
    Ramo, PhD, Benjamin F Ramsey, Madeline Ramsey, Charles A Randall, PhD,
    Joseph L Randall, PhD, William P Raney, PhD, C J Ransom, PhD, W R
    Ransone, James Rasor, Ned S Rasor, PhD, Howard Rast, PhD, Dennis
    Rathman, PhD, Hukum S Rathor, PhD, Andrew A Rathsack, Steven Ratliff,
    PhD, Alfred Ratz, PhD, Richard Rauch, PhD, Kyle Rawlings, PhD, David
    Thomas Read, PhD, Robert G Read, Andreas B Rechnitzer, PhD, Charles W
    Rector, PhD, Larry K Reddig, Noeman Redford, Robert H Rediker, PhD, C
    Reed, PhD, Emmett Van Reed, Max E Reed, PhD, WR Reeves, Carl J Regone,
    John Reichenbach, James Reid, PhD, Leonard Reiffel, PhD, William
    Reifsnyder, PhD, Hugh Reilly, Thomas L Reinecke, PhD, John W Reinert,
    David Relihan, Marlin E Remley, PhD, Mack Remlinger, Nicholas A
    Renzetti, PhD, R H Reuter, PhD, Robert Walter Rex, PhD, Bruce Reynolds,
    PhD, Robert Ware Reynolds, PhD, John E Rhoads, PhD, John R Rhodes, J J
    Richard, Benjamin Richards, PhD, Bernard L Richards, PhD, Ralph J
    Richardson, PhD, Douglas W Ricks, PhD, R J Riddell, PhD, Robt W Riedel,
    Elliott A Riggs, PhD, James W Riggs, PhD, Robert Righter, Jim Riker,
    PhD, Gary T Riley, William Riley, Dan H Rimmer, Charles E Rinehart Jr,
    PhD, Roy Ringo, PhD, Winthrop Risk, MD, PhD, Allan Roberts, Kenneth
    Roberts, Norman Hailstone Roberts, PhD, Donald K Robertson, George H
    Robertson, PhD, Stanley L Robertson, PhD, Clark S Robinson, Michael J
    Robrecht, David A Roddy, Jonathan P Rode, PhD, Rocky Roden, Brian D
    Rodriguez, Robt C Roeder, PhD, Raylan Roetman, Robert C Rohr, PhD, John
    H Rohrbaugh, PhD, Neal Rohrbaugh, Oscar A Rondon, PhD, John Roscoe,
    PhD, Benny H Rose, PhD, David Rose, PhD, Kenneth L Rose, PhD, Frederick
    A Rosell, Alan Rosen, PhD, Richard Rosencrans, Robert Rosene, Allan
    Ross, Arthur Ross, Elliot Rothkopf, PhD, Wm S Rothwell, PhD, Lawrence J
    Rouse, PhD, W Jeffrey Row, James M Rowe, PhD, Stephen Rowley, G
    Roysdon, John Rozenbergs, PhD, Balaz F Rozsnyai, PhD, Arthur Rubin,
    Daniel Rubinstein, PhD, Douglas Rudenko, Raymond L Ruehle, Robert
    Reuss, Donald E Ruminer, George Rumney, PhD, Kim J Runk, Gerald Rupert,
    PhD, Louis J Rusconi, PhD, B Rush, PhD, Cynthia B Russell, Kenneth
    Russell, Mark Russell, PhD, Robert Rutherford, Patrick Rutty, Mary
    Ruwart, PhD, Bill C Ryan, PhD, Frederick M Ryan, PhD, Jean Ryan, PhD,
    John W Ryon, PhD.

    Category: S
        Patrick Saatzer, PhD, Edward S Sabisky, PhD, Julius Jay Sabo, Frank
    Sacco, Frederick Sachs, PhD, Thomas Dudley Sachs, PhD, James C Sadler,
    James C Sadler, Jerry F Sagendorf, Eugene Salamin, James A Salsgiver,
    George Albert Samara, PhD, Douglas Sampson, PhD, Douglas Sampson, PhD,
    John F Sandell, PhD, Wm Marion Sandefur, PhD, Eric Sanden, PhD, Jerrell
    L Sanders, Richard M Sanders, PhD, Andrew Sandorfi, PhD, Wayne M
    Sandstrom, PhD, G S Santi, Mykola Saporoschenko, PhD, Dalip K Sarin,
    Lynn Redmon Sarles, PhD, Ronald G Sarrat, Raymond Edmund Sarwinski,
    PhD, Richard Sasiela, PhD, Edward A Saunders, PhD, Jason Saunderson,
    PhD, David P Sauter, S C Saxena, PhD, Vinod K Saxena, PhD, Vinod K
    Saxena, PhD, George P Saxon, PhD, Razi Saydjari, MD, Thomas S Scanlon
    Jr, Marc A Scarchilli, James R Scarlett, Lawrence A Schaal, Thomas S
    Schalk, Hans Schantz, PhD, Darrell R Scharf, Richard Scharf, John F
    Schatz, PhD, Harvey Schau, PhD, Larry Schecter, PhD, Frank Schell, MD,
    Keith J Schiager, PhD, Walter Schimmerling, PhD, Guenter Martin
    Schindler, PhD, Hassel Charles Schjelderup, PhD, Jeffrey Schleher,
    Robert A Schluter, PhD, Frederick Schmidlin, PhD, Philip L Schmitz,
    Marcel R Schmorak, PhD, Douglas G Schneider, John Schneider, PhD,
    Michael Schneider, PhD, George L Schofield Jr, PhD, James G Schofield,
    Paul Schrade, Robert Schrader, John L Schrag, PhD, Martin Wm Schramm,
    PhD, Ethan J Schreier, PhD, Donald Schuder, Steve Schulte, PE, James J
    Schultheis, Frederick Schultz, PhD, Thomas A Schultz, Michael Schulz,
    Scofield, PhD, James F Scoggin, PhD, Theodore T Scolman, PhD, Stylianos
    P Scordilis, PhD, Clive R Scorey, PhD, Charles N Scott, Scott Scrupski,
    James B Seaborn, PhD, John D Seagrave, PhD, Chris L Seaman, PhD, Robert
    D Sears, Paul A Sease, George A Seaver, PhD, Sederholm, Fred Seeber,
    PhD, Warren G Segelken, PhD, Fritz A Seiler, PhD, Jerold A Seitchik,
    PhD, James A Selasky, Harner Selvidge, PhD, Mark Semon, PhD, Richard G
    Semonin, William Sens, Karl A Sense, Nicholas S Sereno, PhD, Byron R
    Sever, PhD, Harry Sewell, PhD, James Sewell, Richard U Shafer, Wayne
    Shaffer, Michael L Shand, PhD, Anatole Shapiro, PhD, Edward K Shapiro,
    PhD, Ralph Shapiro, PhD, James Sharp, Francis Sharpton, PhD, Glenn E
    Shaw, PhD, Lawrence H Shaw, Steven Shaw, Roy W Shawcroft, PhD, Thomas
    Sheahen, PhD, James Shelton, PhD, Hao Ming Shen, PhD, Shen, Moses M
    Sheppard, PhD, B Sherrill, Frank Shinneman, Calvin Shipbaugh, PhD,
    Scott T Shipley, PhD, George A Shirn, PhD, Kandiah Shivanandan, PhD,
    Andrew Shkolnik, William Shockley, M A Short, PhD, Martin Shotzberger,
    Curtis A Shuman, PhD, Edwin Shykind, PhD, Kurt Sickles, Richard W
    Siegel, PhD, Richard Ernest Siemens, Arnold J Sierk, PhD, Wayne
    Sievers, PhD, Henno Siismets, Lt Col Henry W Silk, Joseph D
    Silverstein, PhD, E Lee Simmons, MD, Ralph O Simmons, PhD, Wm W
    Simmons, PhD, Albert Simon, PhD, Jack Simonton, Chirstopher Simpson,
    Robert S Simpson, S Fred Singer, PhD, Lal P S Singh, PhD, Raj N Singh,
    Norman Sissenwine, Michael Sitko, PhD, Andrew Sivak, PhD, Michael
    Sivertsen, Gary W Sjolander, PhD, Riley Skeen, Damir S Skerl,
    Skluzacek, PhD, Frederick W Slee, PhD, Faye Slift, Michele E Slinkard,
    Anthony R Slotwinski, Harold S Slusher, PhD, Peter J Van Slyke,
    Alexander G Smith, PhD, Bruce W Smith P E, Donald R Smith, PhD, Earl W
    Smith, PhD, Frederick W Smith, PhD, James R Smith, John R Smith, PhD,
    Michael Smith, Neil M Smith, Richard Lloyd Smith, PhD, Rick Smith,
    Thane Smith, PhD, William Smith, Gilbert Snell, Walter L Snell, Leonard
    W Snellman, PhD, C R Snider, James J Snodgrass, William R Snow, PhD,
    Donald P Snowden, PhD, Fred F C Snyder, Robert Soberman, PhD, Jon
    Sollid, PhD, Wanda C Soo Young, Brent A Sorensen, James A Sorenson,
    PhD, Norman Sossong, PhD, Wallace W Souder, PhD, Frank E South, PhD,
    Robert R Speers, PhD, Edward L Spence, PhD, Charles Spencer, Daniel
    Spencer, Charles L Spiegel, Andrew Spiessbach, PhD, Joel S Spira, John
    G Spitzley, Robert H Springer, PhD, James Kent Sprinkle, Julien C
    Sprott, PhD, D Sprowl, PhD, Eve S Sprunt, PhD, Charles F Squire, PhD,
    Robert M St John, PhD, Kim W Stahnke, Drago Stankovic, Glenn Stanwick,
    Harvey J Stapleton, PhD, Fred Starheim, PhD, Chauncey Starr, PhD, Gene
    Start, Jennifer Staszel, Herman Statz, PhD, Harold F Staunton, PhD,
    John Staunton, Michael A Steinberg, Kenneth B Steinbruegge, Ray L
    Steinmetz, Frank R Steldt, PhD, Jesse J Stephens, PhD, Lou Stephens,
    Robert D Stephens, Stephen M Sterbenz, PhD, Howard O Stevens, Lewis A
    Stevens, Robert Stevenson, PhD, William Stewart, PhD, Carleton C
    Stewart, Glenn A Stewart, PhD, Harris B Stewart, PhD, Homer J Stewart,
    PhD, William A Stewart, William L Stewart, Bernard Stiff, Regan
    Stinnett, PhD, Norman D Stockwell, PhD, W Ross Stone, PhD, James R
    Storey, William T Storey, Charles L Storrs, PhD, Gregory J Story, Glenn
    E Stout, PhD, David Stowell, David Strand, Thomas F Stratton, PhD, W R
    Stratton, PhD, Joe M Straus, PhD, Edward A Streed, Sharon R Streight,
    PhD, George Strella, James S Strickland, PhD, Geo L Strobel, PhD, David
    H Strome, PhD, Forrest C Strome, PhD, Alan E Strong, PhD, Alan Strong,
    PhD, William J Strong, PhD, Mark W Strovink, PhD, Roger D Stuck, Robert
    Stupp, G Sturges, Victor F Sturm, Eric Stusnick, PhD, Bill Styer,
    Daniel Subach, PhD, Subraman, John T Suggs Jr, Richrad Sullivan, Thomas
    J Sullivan, PhD, Donald L Summers, Donald Supkow, PhD, Earl C
    Sutherland, PhD, Jordan L Sutton, Todd W Sutton, Jon R Swanson, PhD,
    Robert N Swanson, Hilmar Swenson, PhD, Don E Swets, Donald M Swingle,
    PhD, Burton L Sylvern, Ronald J Szaider, Edwin Szymanski, PhD.

    Category: T
        Keith A Taggart, PhD, Saeed Taherian, PhD, Samuel Taimuty, PhD,
    Gerald Tait, Willard L Talbert, PhD, Jim Tallon, Daniel J Tambasco,
    PhD, Louis A Tamburino, PhD, Lukas Tamm, PhD, Peter E Tannenwald, PhD,
    Daniel Tao, PhD, Frederick D Tappert, PhD, Suren A Tatulian, PhD, Byron
    Taylor, Eugene W Taylor, James Taylor, PhD, Michael K Taylor, Edward
    Teller, PhD, Lee C Teng, PhD, Jeffrey Tennant, PhD, Steven Terwilliger,
    Eugene Theios, James Thissell, Gordon A Thomas, PhD, Martin J Thomas,
    PhD, Richard Thomas, PhD, William H Thomason, PhD, Richard Thompson,
    Richard Thompson, Warren Thompson, PhD, Wm B Thompson, PhD, Walter W
    Thomsen, Ker C Thomson, Craige Thorn, PhD, James A Thornhill, T
    Thornton, Arnold W Thorton, PhD, Eugene D Tidwell, Calvin O Tiller,
    Jennifer L Tillman, Clarence N Tinker, Merlin Tipton, Robert W Titus,
    Arthur R Tobey, PhD, Joseph J Tobias, Joseph D Tobiason, PhD, Norman
    Tolk, PhD, John Toman, Kurt Toman, PhD, James Tomberlin, Randy Tomkins,
    Daniel Tonn, PhD, Brian P Tonner, PhD, Steven A Tonsfeldt, PhD, George
    Tope, Carlos Toroes, Charles J Touhill, PhD, Roger Townsend, Joseph C
    Tracy, PhD, George T Trammell, PhD, Rex Trammell, Felix Rodriguez
    Trelles, PhD, D H Trenscell, J Trevino, Roy A Tucker, Daniel Tudor,
    PhD, J Paul Tullis, PhD, Richard Turiczek, Alvis G Turner, PhD, Robert
    E Turner, PhD, Thomas Turner, William Turner, PhD, Joseph Tutak,
    Kenneth L Tuttle, PhD, Ben Tuval, David Tweedy, Arthur G Tweet, PhD,
    Somdev Tyagi, PhD.

    Category: U
        Herbert M S Uberall, PhD, David J Ulsh, Glenn Underhill, PhD, John
    D Underwood, Kot Unrug, PhD, Donna Utley, PhD.

    Category: V
        J Peter Vajk, PhD, William P Vale, Oriol T Valls, PhD, Van Domelen,
    Bruce Harold, PhD, Ruth Van Knapp, Dominique Van Nostrand, Donald O Van
    Ostenburg, PhD, Earl Van Reenan, Willliam Vanarsdale, PhD, Vandemerwe,
    PhD, David H Vanhise, Walker S Vaning, Larry Vardiman, PhD, Nancy
    Vardiman-Hall, Michael O Varner, Lawrence J Varnerin, PhD, Stanley S
    Vasa, William W Vaughan, PhD, Wm Walton Vaughan, PhD, Sidney E Veazey,
    PhD, Karl F Veith, PhD, Theodore E Veltfort, David Vermilyea, James Ira
    Vette, PhD, Roy E Vincik, Kalman N Vizy, PhD, Henry Vogel, PhD, Karl
    Vogler, PhD, James Vogler, PhD, Philip A Volker, Philip A Volker, James
    Vollmer, PhD, Mike Vossen, George Vourvopoulos, PhD.

    Category: W
        Alfred Wagner, Edward Wagner, Orvin Edson Wagner, PhD, Marvin L
    Wagoner, Richard I Waite Jr, Richard Wales, Robert A Walish, Joe A
    Walker, P David Walker, William Delany Walker, PhD, William W Walker,
    PhD, James P Wallace, Joel D Walls, PhD, Kevin Walsh, Walter M Walsh
    Jr, PhD, John F Walter, PhD, Robert F Walter, PhD, Michael D Walters,
    PhD, R B Walton, PhD, Maynard C Waltz, James E Wanamaker, David Y Wang,
    PhD, Zhijing Wang, PhD, Roscoe F Ward, PhD, Ward, John F Wardle, PhD,
    John F Ware, Richard C Waring, Ross Warner, H Waslik, PhD, George A
    Waters, Dean A Watkins, PhD, Gary W Watson, William Watson, PhD,
    Charles Wax, PhD, John Waymouth, PhD, Ronald Weaver, George Webb Jr,
    Theodore S Webb, PhD, Alfred C Webber, Allen H Weber, PhD, Anthony J
    Weber, Michael Weber, D J Wechsler, Brent M Wedding, PhD, Lloyd Weese,
    William Weese, Walter F Wegst, PhD, Steven Weise, Max T Weiss, PhD, Ima
    Wells, Wells, PhD, William Wells, Patrick T Welsh, PhD, Theodore A
    Welton, PhD, Michael Wendorf, R C Wentworth, PhD, Mike Wentzell, MD,
    Hans-Helmut Werner, PhD, Smiuel Werner, PhD, Robert H Wertheim, Richard
    P Wesenberg, Laurence N Wesson, Mark E Westcott, Burt O Westerman, Eric
    R Westphal, PhD, Norris C Wetters, Jack Weyland, PhD, C Wheeler, David
    Wheeler, John F Wheeler, Kenneth T Wheeler, PhD, William L Wheller,
    Larry Wheelock, R S Wherler, David J White, Donald R White, PhD,
    Douglas White, PhD, John L White, PhD, Lowell White, PhD, Robt Lee
    White, PhD, Thomas W Whitehead, Jr, PhD, R Whiting, Robert Whitten,
    PhD, E H Wichmann, PhD, Raymond V Wick, PhD, Donald J Wickwire, Gordon
    Wieduwilt, W Gordon Wieduwilt, King W Wieman, Chuck Wiese, John
    Wiggins, PhD, Kenneth A Wigner, John Wilburn, Richard B Wilkens III,
    Eugene M Wilkins, PhD, S Curtis Wilkins, Harvey B Willard, PhD,
    Willett, PhD, Paul T Willhite, Louis E Willhoit Jr, PhD, Clark William,
    Van William, PhD, Dansy Williams, Forrest R Williams, Neal Thomas
    Williams, Talmage Williams, Thomas Williams, PhD, Vernon Williams, Alan
    J Willoughby, Keith P Willson, Clyde L Wilson, PhD, David A Wilson,
    David W Wilson, PhD, Donald Wilson, Owen Wilson, Theron Wilson, Timothy
    M Wilson, PhD, Wm E Wilson, Donn B Wimmer, PhD, Kenelm C Winslow,
    William K Winter, PhD, John B Winters, P Winters, Donald F Winterstein,
    PhD, Floyd A Wise, Frank W Wise, PhD, Chester E Wisner, Abund O Wist,
    PhD, James M Witting, PhD, Warren F Witzig, PhD, William Wohler, Gene
    Wolfe, John C Wolfe, PhD, Milo M Wolff, PhD, Paul M Wolff, PhD, Eligius
    Wolicki, PhD, Cyrus Wood, James M Wood, John K Wood, PhD, Keith
    Woodard, Richard Woodard, PhD, Patrick J Wooding, John P Woods, PhD,
    Robert F Woods, Gary K Woodward, Alice Woosley, Rodney Wooster, J
    Workley, D E Wortman, PhD, J Lamar Worzel, PhD, Peter Wrenshall, Royce
    E Wrick, Harlow Wright, Keith H Wrolstad, PhD, Peter T Wu, PhD, Wemin
    Wu, PhD, John M Wuerth, Philip Wyatt, PhD, Bruce C Wyman, PhD, Peter
    Wyzinski, MD.

    Category: Y
        Dmeter Yablonsky, PhD, Harold L Yarger, PhD, John Yarnell, PhD,
    John L Yates, Scott Yates, PhD, Hubert P Yockey, PhD, Marvel Yoder,
    PhD, Thomas Lester Yohe, PhD, Nicholas J Yonker, Edwin York, George W
    York Jr, PhD, A Young, PhD, Donald E Young, PhD, Lloyd M Young, PhD,
    Robert A Young, PhD, Wei Young, PhD, Phillip L Youngblood, Luke Dhia
    Liu Yuan, PhD, Mark Yuly, PhD, Sulhi H Yungul, PhD.
    Category: Z
        Daniel J Zaffarano, PhD, Marco Zaider, PhD, Joseph A Zak, PhD,
    James G Zapert, Josephh Zappia, Lawrence E Zeeb, Fred Zeile, Bruce
    Zeitlin, Claude Zeller, PhD, Hua-Wei Zhou, PhD, Jehuda Ziegler, PhD,
    Paul Ziemer, PhD, Carl Zietlow, Aaron L Zimmerman, E Leroy Zimmerman,
    PhD, Elmer Leroy Zimmerman, PhD, John E Zimmerman, John R Zimmerman,
    PhD, Roger Zimmerman, Sally Zinke, Werner Zinn, Richard J Zinno, Harold
    Zirin, PhD, Martin V Zombeck, PhD.

    5017 Chemistry, Biochemistry, Biology, and other Life Sciences Signers

    (http://www.oism.org/pproject/b-sci.htm, February 24, 2006)

    Category: A
        Earl Aagaard, PhD, Roger L Aamodt, PhD, Hamed Abbas, PhD, Ursula K
    Abbott, PhD, Riaz F Abdulla, PhD, Wayne Aben, Earl A Abrahamson, PhD, J
    Wayne Achee, D T Achord, PhD, William Ackerman, Brian Adam, PhD, Daniel
    Adams, PhD, George B Adams, PhD, James W Adams, Jim Adadms, John E
    Adams, PhD, Phillip Adams, PhD, Richard E Adams, Richard L Adams, Roy M
    Adams, PhD, Wilton Adams, PhD, Wilton T Adams, PhD, John K Addy, PhD, C
    William Ade, Albert H Adelman, PhD, Barnet R Adelman, Ronald A Adkins,
    PhD, Norman Adler, PhD, Siegfried Aftergut, PhD, Kenneth Agnes, Jorge T
    Aguinadlo, Mumtaz Ahmed, PhD, Robert Ahokas, PhD, Edward Ahrens,
    Rolland W Ahrens, PhD, Robert M Ahring, PhD, Brian R Ainley, David J
    Akers, Robert J Alaimo, PhD, Vincent M Albanese, Timothy A Albers, MD,
    Rudolph C Albrecht, Fred R Albright, PhD, Robert Lee Albright, PhD,
    Garrett D Alcorn, MD, Thomas Alderson, PhD, Franklin D Aldrich, PhD,
    Richard J Aldrich, PhD, Samuel Aldrich, PhD, Samuel Aldrich, PhD,
    Steven J Alessandro, Alex F Alessandrini, Joe Alex, Ira Alexander,
    Robert Alford, R Allahyari, PhD, Emma G Allen, PhD, Eric R Allen, PhD,
    Kenneth Allen, Pampselo Allen, Roger B Allen, PhD, Robert T Van Aller,
    PhD, Carl Allesandro, Craig Allison, Albert L Allred, PhD, Patrick
    Aloutto, PhD, James Aloye, John Alsop, PhD, Sally Alston, Charles Alt,
    David Altman, PhD, Burton M Altura, PhD, Leo E Amborski, PhD, Donald F
    Amend, PhD, Marvin E Ament, Robert C Amero, Moris Amon, PhD, Bonnie
    Amos, PhD, Terrell Andersen, PhD, Wilford H Andersen, PhD, A E
    Anderson, Anderson, Bruce M Anderson, C M Anderson Jr, Cristopher
    Anderson, David Anderson, MD, David R Anderson, PhD, Donald Hervin
    Anderson, PhD, Donald N Anderson, PhD, Elmer Anderson, PhD, Gerald L
    Anderson, Ingrid Anderson, PhD, Janis W Anderson, John O Anderson,
    Julia W Anderson, PhD, Mary Anderson, Nathan Anderson, R L Anderson,
    Thomas Anderson, PhD, John R Andrade, PhD, Manuel Andrade, Ivan
    Andrasik, James Andrew, John S Andrews, PhD, Mel Andrews, Russell S
    Andrews, PhD, Mb Andrus, PhD, Francis M Angeloni, PhD, Claude B Anger,
    Ernest Angino, PhD, Kevin P Ankenbrand, David Arnold, John Anthes, PhD,
    Robt D Anthony, David R Appel, John Applegath, Charles Apter, PhD,
    Howard Arbaugh, John Arcadi, MD, Ed Arce, John Arch, Christopher Arend,
    William Arion, PhD, Z S Ariyan, PhD, Richard Armentrout, PhD, Walt
    Armer, Clifford Armstrong, Joseph C Armstrong, PhD, Marvin D Armstrong,
    PhD, Robert L Armstrong, PhD, Philip J Arnholt, PhD, Charles Arnold,
    PhD, Seymour Aronson, PhD, Adrian L Arp, PhD, Charles H Arrington, PhD,
    Dale E Arrington, PhD, A G Ash, A Ashley, PhD, Warren C Ashley, PhD,
    Bob Ashworth, Tom W Asmus, PhD, Robert D Athey Jr, PhD, Robert Douglas
    Athey, PhD, Mark Atwood, PhD, Walter Auclair, PhD, Louis A Auerbach,
    Keith H Aufderheide, PhD, J Augspurger, PhD, Frederick N Aukeman, Bruce
    S Ault, PhD, Alfred E Austin, PhD, Carl Fulton Austin, PhD, Robert L
    Austin, Victor H Averbach, PhD, Alex Avery, Philip Avery, Arthur J
    Avila, Joseph Avruch, MD, Robert C Ayers, PhD, T G Ayres, Dany Ayseur,
    Alison M Azar, Max Azevedo.

    Category: B
        Bryan Baab, Ronald R Bach, PhD, Frederick A Bacher, Drury L Bacon,
    Frank R Bacon, Robert Baczuk, J Badenhoop, PhD, Carl Baer, PhD, Edward
    A Baetke, Joseph A Baglio, PhD, J Brent Bagshaw, Andrejs Baidins, PhD,
    Carl Wm Bailey, PhD, David G Bailey, PhD, James Bailey, Robert L
    Bailey, PhD, Ronald M Bailey, John Bakane, Barton S Baker, PhD, Daniel
    M Baker, PhD, Don Robert Baker, PhD, Harold N Baker, PhD, Howard T
    Baker, J Baker, PhD, Louis Baker, PhD, Robert D Baker, PhD, Robert J
    Baker, W O Baker, PhD, Brent P Balcer, Andrew A Baldoni, PhD, Ransom
    Baldwin, PhD, A Richard Baldwin, PhD, Cliff Bale, P Balis, Greg
    Ballengee, Walter E Ballinger, PhD, Martin Balow, Arden A
    Baltensperger, PhD, Debendranath Banerjee, PhD, Kernan M Banker, Kernen
    Banker, Willard Banman, William Bannister, PhD, Ronald Barany, PhD, Ted
    R Barben II, Charleton C Bard, PhD, Charles E Bardsley, PhD, Mark J
    Bareta, Thomas Barfnecht, PhD, Franklin B Barker, PhD, Horace A Barker,
    PhD, Leroy N Barker, PhD, Dwight G Barkley, PhD, John E Barkley, PhD,
    Neal Barkley, B Barks, PhD, Anthony Barlow, PhD, Alex Barlowen, Richard
    Barnes, Robert F Barnes, PhD, L Bruce Barnett, PhD, Debra Barngrover,
    PhD, Louis J Barone, Kenneth Barr, Kenneth H Barratt, Clem A Barrere,
    PhD, Helen Barrett, Kenneth A Barrett, Oscar N Barron, B Bartley, PhD,
    Gary Bartley, Bratzatt, PhD, John Basinski, PhD, George Baskin,
    Jonathan Langer Bass, PhD, Alton Herman Bassett, Mark J Bassett, PhD,
    David Batchelder, Robert L Batdorf, PhD, Lynn S Bates, PhD, Robert W
    Batey, George Batten, PhD, Jack Battle, Armand Bauer, PhD, Larry G
    Bauer, PhD, Thomas Bauer, T Mack Baugh, Kurt Baum, PhD, Linda L Baum,
    PhD, Arthur N Baumann, Wolfgang Baumann, PhD, Lisa L Baumbach, PhD, Jim
    Baumer, PhD, A W Baumgartner, Monte Paul Bawden, PhD, Steve Bayless,
    Gary Beall, PhD, Herbert Beall, PhD, Paula T Beall, PhD, Samuel E
    Beall, Thomas Beard, Scott Beardemphl, Henry J Bearden, PhD, Wm
    Beardmore, PhD, James Beattie, PhD, Robert A Beaudet, PhD, Paul Becher,
    PhD, Bill Beck, Curt B Beck, Lloyd Beck, Clarence Becker, PhD, Ernest I
    Becker, Harry C Becker, PhD, John C Becker, Ralph Sherman Becker, PhD,
    Robert P Becker, PhD, Robert S Becker, PhD, Wilbur Becker, Arnold
    Beckman, PhD, Joseph A Beckman, PhD, Merrill Beckstead, PhD, Glenn
    Bedell, PhD, Thomas E Bedell, PhD, William C Bedoit, PhD, Curtis M
    Beechan, PhD, Scott K Beegle, Giselle Beeker, Francis J Behal, PhD, Pat
    Behm, Greg P Behrens, Richard Behrens, PhD, John Behun, PhD, Rudi
    Beichel, Arthur B Reindorff, PhD, Walter F Beineke, PhD, Ihor Bekersky,
    PhD, Gregory Bell, Robert Bell, Daniel T Belmont, PhD, Stephen Belmont,
    PhD, James Noble Bemiller, PhD, John Ben, Raymond L Bendure, PhD, James
    H Benedict, PhD, David Benforado, Ashley Bengali, PhD, Ford Benham,
    John Benjamin, PhD, William Benne, PhD, Donald W Bennett, G Bennett,
    PhD, RS Bennett, Sharon Beniot, Andrew A Benson, PhD, Sidney W Benson,
    PhD, William Benson, Ray Bentall, Kenton E Bentley, PhD, Allen W
    Benton, PhD, Wesley G Bentrude, PhD, Ray A Berard, PhD, Hugh
    Berckmueller, MD, J Berg, PhD, Ronald Berg, Alan Berger, MD, T F
    Berger, Arne Bergh, PhD, C B Bergin, Oswald R Bergmann, PhD, John J
    Berky, PhD, Elliot Berman, PhD, Louis Bernath, PhD, Julius R Berreth,
    Lester P Berriman, Dan Berry, James W Berry, PhD, Robert W Berry, PhD,
    Roy A Berry, PhD, William Berry, Charles F Bersch, Robert L Bertram, B
    Rodney Bertramson, PhD, Nedavia Bethlahmy, PhD, George W Bettge,
    Rowland S Bevans, PhD, Robert Beverly, Vicky L Bevilacqua, PhD, William
    R Bibb, PhD, Peter B Eichelberger, Michael D Bick, PhD, Arden Bicker,
    Ervin F Bickley Jr, Kenneth Bielat, PhD, Yan Bielek, Gregg Bierei, Theo
    Karl Bierlein, PhD, Joseph F Bieron, PhD, Donald Bigg, PhD, James
    Biggs, PhD, R Dale Biggs, PhD, Keith Bildstein, PhD, John M Bilhorn,
    PhD, John L Bills, PhD, Arthur Bing, PhD, Frank S Riordan, PhD, James L
    Bischoff, PhD, Guy W Bishop, PhD, John W Bishop, PhD, Marshall D
    Bishop, Benny Bixenman, Charles Black, PhD, Darvil Black, PhD, Tom
    Black, William Black, Larry G Blackburn, Eli W Blaha, PhD, Blair, PhD,
    Charles M Blair, Luther Blair, Paul V Blair, PhD, J Warren Blaker, PhD,
    Dav Blankenhagen, Nik Blaser, Clyde Blauer, George A Blay, PhD, Wm
    Blew, Charles William Blewett, PhD, David Blewett, Claire Bluestein,
    PhD, Aaron L Bluhm, PhD, Harold F Bluhm, M Blumenberg, PhD, Jack E
    Bobek, Thomas C Boberg, PhD, Sergey Boblcov, Terry Bobo, Jane Bock,
    PhD, Gary Bockus, Stephen J Bodar, PhD, Loren E Bode, PhD, George
    Boder, Robert J Boehle, Eldron Boehmer, J Neil Boger, MD, Colleen
    Boggs, Johnny Boggs, Leslie K Bogle, Joseph Terril Bohanon, PhD,
    Charles E Boklage, PhD, Nicholas C Bolgiano, PhD, Edward H Bollinger,
    PhD, A Bollmeier, James Boltz, Jerry C Bommer, PhD, Stephon T Bond,
    PhD, Walter D Bond, PhD, James M Bondi, Susan Boner, Patrick V
    Bonsignore, PhD, Lewis Book, Raymond Book, Jerry L Boom, PhD, James
    Boone, PhD, Lawrence E Boos, PhD, David Booth, PhD, Hamid Borazjani,
    PhD, Bordeaux, PhD, Robert Borg, Dan Borgnaes, PhD, Alex B Borkovec,
    PhD, William Bornhorst, David Borrownam, Borsari, William E Bosken,
    Kenneth J Boss, PhD, Robert Bosshart, PhD, Thomas Bossler, Howard Bost,
    PhD, Keith A Bostian, PhD, Steve Boswell, Steven T Boswell, Askel A
    Bothner By, PhD, Margurette E Bottje, PhD, William G Bottjer, Edmond M
    Bottorff, PhD, Michel Boudart, PhD, John H Boughton, PhD, R K Boutwell,
    PhD, Charles A Bower, PhD, John Roy Bower, PhD, John Bowers, Jean A
    Bowles, PhD, Lamar D Bowles, Robert E Bowling, PhD, John K Bowman,
    Lewis W Bowman, PhD, Robert S Bowman, PhD, Samuel Bowser, PhD, James E
    Box, PhD, Kevin Boyack, PhD, James Boyd, Jimmy W Boyd, Philip A Boyd,
    PhD, Ralph L Boyes, Bozlee, PhD, Robert G Brackett, PhD, Lawrence G
    Bradford, PhD, Bruce Bradley, Michael Bradley, Robert F Bradley, PhD,
    Robert S Bradley, George Bradshaw, W Newman Bradshaw, PhD, R Bradt,
    PhD, Robert Brady, J C Brakensieck, Cynthia R Branch, William Brandt,
    PhD, Stanton Braude, PhD, Richard H Braumlich, David Braun, Jennifer
    Braun, Kenneth Martin Brauner, PhD, Allan Brause, PhD, Ben Bray, PhD,
    Bruce G Bray, PhD, William Breach, Lee Brecher, PhD, Claude E Breed,
    Ted Breitmayer, A C Breller, Bart J Bremmer, William Breneman, Harold
    Brennan, John P Brennan, Abner Brenner, PhD, J Allen Brent, PhD, John H
    Bress, Joseph Breston, PhD, William A Brett, Randolph H Bretton, PhD,
    Harold W Bretz, PhD, Charles B Breuer, PhD, James Brewbaker, PhD, Doug
    Brewer, Gregory J Brewer, PhD, J R Brewer, Ken N Brewer, Robert N Brey,
    Robt N Brey, PhD, Edward Breyere, PhD, Darlene R Brezinski, PhD, P L
    Thibaut Brian, PhD, Alan G Bridge, PhD, P M Bridges, Andrew
    Briedenbach, Claudia Briell, James A Brierley, PhD, Edward M Briggs,
    James E Briggs, PhD, Robert B Brigham, Mont J Bright Jr, Karen Brignac,
    Tom Brignac, Frank Brimelow, Robert Bringer, PhD, Raymond S Brinkmey,
    PhD, James Brinks, PhD, Anne M Briscoe, PhD, Mike Briscoe, Paul
    Brittain, Michael Brittan, PhD, Michael W Britton, Alfred C Broad, PhD,
    Hyrum S Broadbent, PhD, Rainer Brocke, PhD, F S Broerman, Robert W
    Broge, PhD, Richard K Bronder, Fred A Brooks, Gordon Brooks, ND Brooks,
    Robert R Brooks, PhD, Charles O Brostrom, PhD, Robert J Brotherton,
    PhD, Rick A Brower, Albert L Brown, PhD, Billings Brown, PhD, Bruce L
    Brown, Charles Brown, PhD, Christopher J Brown, MD, David Brown, Gerald
    R Brown, PhD, Henry BR Brown, Henry S Brown, PhD, Herbert Brown, PhD,
    James Brown, James M Brown, PhD, Jeremy J Brown, Larry Brown, Lloyd L
    Brown, Melvin H Brown, PhD, Murray A Brown, PhD, Olen Brown, PhD, P T
    Brown, Richard Brown, Robert B Brown, Robert Brown, PhD, Robert E
    Brown, PhD, Roderick B Brown, MD, Ronald Brown, PhD, Roy W Brown,
    William M Brown, PhD, Don Brownfield, Paul Eugene Brubaker, PhD, Paul L
    Bruce, Carl W Bruch, PhD, Thomas Bruno, PhD, Kelly W Bruns, Lester G
    Bruns, PhD, Robert F Burns, PhD, Merlyn A Brusven, PhD, Frederick V
    Brutcher, Jr, PhD, Samuel R M Burton, Gary G Bryan, John D Bryan, Tom
    Bryan, John M Bryant, Ken Brzozowski, PhD, Russell A Buchanan, Carl
    Buck, PhD, Edward H Buckley, PhD, Stuart Buckmaster, Donald Buckner,
    Edsel T Bucovaz, PhD, Victor Buhrke, PhD, Daniel Bullard, PhD, Ervin T
    Bullard, PhD, David Bullock, Walter T Bulson, David Wm Bunch, PhD,
    Harry D Bunch, PhD, Hallie Flowers Bundy, PhD, Martin Bunton, James J
    Burchall, PhD, Daivd Burdeaux, Robert Burger, Roger C Burggraf, Leonard
    F Burkart, PhD, E A Burke, Marty Burke, Richard L Burke, PhD, Harold E
    Burkhart, PhD, David R Burley, PhD, Bryan Burnett, John N Burnett, PhD,
    Robert W Burnop, Frank B Burns, PhD, Robt D Burns, PhD, Mike Burnson,
    Michael Burrell, Richard S Burrows, PhD, Eddie Burt, PhD, Calvin C
    Burwell, John Burwell, Neal Busch, PhD, Rick Buschini, Robert Bush, T
    Bush, Edwin F Bushman, David Butler, George B Butler, PhD, James
    Butler, James L Butler, PhD, Philip Alan Butler, PhD, Rhendal C Butler,
    Stan Butt, Thomas A Butterworth, PhD, Sidney E Buttrill, PhD, Rodney G
    Butts, P D Bybee, Jr.

    Category: C
        Wm P Cadogan, PhD, Howard H Cady, PhD, Edward George Caflisch, PhD,
    Charles E Cain, PhD, David W Caird, Daniel L Calahan, PhD, Leonard J
    Calbo, PhD, A G Caldwell, PhD, Robert E Calhoo, PhD, John Calhoun, Mike
    Callahan, Chris Calvert, PhD, William Camerer, Mike Cameron, Frederick
    W Camp, PhD, Ernest Campaigne, PhD, John D Campanella, Douglas J
    Campbell, George Campbell, PhD, Larry Campbell, Milton Hugh Campbell,
    Warren E Campbell, PhD, Robt D Campo, PhD, Daniel T Canavan, Zoe
    Canellakis, PhD, Paul Canevaro, Peter Cannon, PhD, Peter J Canterino,
    PhD, Manfred Cantow, PhD, Walter Canzonier, Michael E Caplis, PhD,
    Thomas D Carder, William Thomas Cardwell, Darrel E Cardy, Harold E
    Carley, PhD, Dave Carlson, Edward C Carlson, PhD, Lawrence O Carlson,
    David W Carnell, E Louis Caron, PhD, Lyle L Carpenter, Robert
    Carpenter, Thomas Carpenter, Will D Carpenter, PhD, Brenda L Carr,
    Edward M Carr, Laura H Carreira, PhD, Marion M Carrion, PhD, Gilbert C
    Carroll, MD, J Randall Carroll, James A Carroll, PhD, John Carroll,
    PhD, Keith T Carron, PhD, Charles Carson, PhD, Richard M Carson, Mary E
    Carsten, PhD, Lynn K Carta, PhD, David L Carter, PhD, John P Carter,
    Louise Carter, Mason C Carter, PhD, William Carter, Louis B Caruana,
    PhD, Hugh W Carver, James Clark Carver, PhD, Chris Cash, Armano Casola,
    PhD, Patrick E Cassidy, PhD, J K Cassil, Stan J Casswell, Neal
    Castagoli, PhD, Billy R Catherwood, Renata E Cathou, PhD, Thomas E
    Catlett, Robert Lee Caudill, MD, John A Caughlan, Jerry Caulder, PhD,
    Steven L Cazad, Rosemary L Centner, Arthur V Chadwick, PhD, Pamela
    Chaffee, Rowand Chaffee, PhD, Charles T Chaffin, PhD, Paritosh M
    Chakrabarti, PhD, Bruce Chamberlain, David L Chamberlain, PhD, Dilworth
    W Chamberlain, PhD, Roger S Chamberlin, RS Chamberlin, Doyle Chambers,
    PhD, Glen D Chambers, Carroll W Chambiss, PhD, Sham-Yuen Chan, PhD, Shu
    F Chan, PhD, Sunney L Chan, PhD, Leonard B Chandler, PhD, Chung Jam
    Chang, PhD, Yung Feng Chang, PhD, Bruce R Charlton, Edward Charney,
    Andrew J Chase, Thomas J Chastant, Norman Chatterton, PhD, Brad N
    Chazotte, PhD, Lynn Chcoran, E Cheatham, Zafarullah K Cheema, PhD, John
    Chehaske, Craig F Cheng, K L Cheng, PhD, Thomas C Cheng, PhD, Wade
    Cheng, PhD, Kenneth P Chepenick, PhD, Roy Cherris, Arthur Chester, PhD,
    Alfred P Chestnut, PhD, Dhan Chevli, PhD, William Chewning, Long Chi
    Lee, PhD, Yuen S Chiang, PhD, R Chiarenzelli, David Chilcote, PhD,
    Ronald B Child, David T Chin, PhD, Shyamala Chitaley, PhD, John G
    Chittick, David Chleck, Ye C Choi, PhD, Frank W Chorpenning, PhD,
    Robert J Chorvat, PhD, Peter S Chrapliwy, PhD, Geo A Christenberry,
    PhD, Alan Christensen, Charles R Christensen, PhD, Duane Christensen,
    Kent Christensen, Richard Christensen, James B Christiansen, PhD,
    Richard Christiansen, PhD, Robert M Christiansen, PhD, Warner Howard
    Christie, PhD, Dennis Christopherson, Alfred L Christy, PhD, Kenneth G
    Christy, Jack C Chroy, Donald J Ciappenelli, PhD, Ja Cifonelli, PhD,
    Marc Cimolino, PhD, Joseph R Cissell, Edwin Claassen, PhD, Gregory S
    Claine, Leroy Clardy, Howard G Clark, PhD, Hugh Clark, PhD, Ian Clark,
    James Clark, PhD, Kent Clark, Paul B Clark, Thomas Clark, Duane G
    Clarke, PhD, John F Gates Clarke, PhD, Joseph W Clarke, Larry Clarke,
    Richard H Clarke, PhD, Richard P Clarke, PhD, Karen Clausen, Don
    Clauson, Harris Clay, CK Claycomb, PhD, David Clayton, PhD, Fred
    Clayton, PhD, Wallace Cleland, PhD, Wm L Cleland, William M Clement,
    PhD, W Clift, David Cline, Dennis Cline, Warren K Cline, PhD, David N
    Clum, Mike Clumper, Mary Coakley, PhD, Keith H Coats, PhD, W Frank Cobb
    Jr, Elmer Lendell Cockrum, PhD, James Codding, Charles W Coe Ii,
    William D Coe, Michael Coffman, PhD, Anthony Cofrancesco, PhD, David B
    Coghlan, Lawrence Cohen, Ernst M Cohn, C E Coke, PhD, Gene Louis
    Colborn, PhD, Edward E Colby, Avean W Cole, PhD, Clarence R Cole, PhD,
    Randall K Cole, PhD, Philip J Colella, Robert Coleman, PhD, William E
    Coleman, Robt Coley, J R Colgan, MD, Summer Colgan, Hans Coll, PhD,
    Donald W Collier, James Collier, PhD, Thomas F Collier, MD, PhD, Wm B
    Collier, PhD, Alan Collins, PhD, Frederick C Collins, PhD, Jane E
    Collins, William Henry Collins, Wm F Collins, PhD, Carlos A Colmenares,
    PhD, Andre Coltrin, Clair R Colvin, PhD, Robert Neil Colwell, PhD,
    William T Colwell, PhD, E Keith Colyer, Leon Combs, PhD, John Comeaux,
    Jack Comeford, PhD, John Commerford, PhD, Wayne M Compton, John
    Conconnan, Norman I Condit, F Dee Conerly Jr, John Conlan, Carter B
    Conlin, Paul K Conn, PhD, James Connell, John J Connelly, Wm J Connick,
    Jr, Roddy Conrad, PhD, Walter E Conrad, PhD, David L Constans, Thomas W
    Conway, PhD, Mark Cook, PhD, Addison G Cook, PhD, Charels Cook, Donald
    J Cook, PhD, Glenn C Cook, MD, Maurice G Cook, PhD, Melvin A Cook, PhD,
    Anson R Cooke, PhD, Bingham Cool, PhD, William E Cooley, PhD,
    Marguerite W Coomes, PhD, Anne M Cooney, Edward Cooney, George P
    Cooper, Harry C Cooper, Robert C Cooper, PhD, Thomas Cooper, PhD, A D
    Copeland, Harry B Copelin, Frederick A Copes, PhD, Carl Corbit, Stephen
    Corcoran, Christopher Cordle, PhD, Walter H Corkern, PhD, Kenneth C
    Corkum, PhD, William E Cormier, Creighton N Cornell, Stephen W Cornell,
    PhD, Arlen C Cornett, Holley Cornette, David G Cornwell, PhD, Deborah A
    Corridon, Allen Costoff, PhD, Kevin Cotchen, Wilfred A Cote, PhD, Grant
    Cottam, Ronald A Coulson, PhD, William H Courtney III, PhD, Raymond C
    Cousins, PhD, Fred Covelli, Wm A Cowan, PhD, John B Cowden, Ronald R
    Cowden, PhD, Brian Cox, Clifford H Cox, PhD, Donald J Cox, PhD, Edwin
    Cox, Frederick Cox, Neil D Cox, PhD, Alan Coykendall, Kenneth R Coyne,
    C H Cracauer, John Merrill Craig, R E Craigie Jr, Donald Lee Crain,
    PhD, Donald J Cram, PhD, John R Crandall, PhD, Frederick L Crane, PhD,
    Chris L Craney, PhD, Richard A Craven, Clara D Craver, PhD, Jonathan
    Crawford, David Craymes, Ron Creamer, Buford Creech, Anne E Cress, PhD,
    Phillip O Crews, PhD, Diana Creyes, Donald F Crie, Harry N Cripps, PhD,
    Joseph P Crisler, PhD, Robert Crist, J L Crittenden, Thomas Bernard
    Croat, PhD, Charlie Crocker, Luanne S Crockett, Michael Croft, Robert K
    Crookston, PhD, Edward Crosby, David Crosley, Tom Crossman, Kenneth A
    Crossner, PhD, Gene Autrey Crowder, PhD, Curtis Crowe, Edwin P Crowell,
    C Richard Crowther, PhD, Robert H Crowther, Frank C Croxton, PhD,
    Richard Cruce, William J Cruice, Edward H Crum, PhD, Cris Cruz, Richard
    L Cryberg, PhD, Billy Crynes, Donald F Cue, John R Culbert, Chris Cull,
    John S Cullen, Floyd Culler, A S Cullick, PhD, Richard W Cummins, PhD,
    Lawrence E Cunnick, Howard Cunningham, PhD, Thomas J Curphey, PhD, Ira
    B Current, William W Currier, PhD, Janet C Curry, John Curry, Maria A
    Curtin, PhD, Fred W Curtis, Jr, Chopin Cusachs, PhD, Herman C Custard,
    PhD, Thomas P Czepiel, PhD, James Oziomek, PhD, Shannon Czysz.

    Category: D
        Charles H Daggs, Robert S Dahlin, PhD, Donald Dahlstrom, PhD,
    Alfred Dakrig, Glenn I Dale, Harry Dalton, PhD, Michael Daly, George
    Damon, PhD, Jess Donald Daniels, PhD, Wayne Daniels, Jerry Danni, S
    Dantiki, PhD, Morris J Danzig, PhD, Josephe E Darsey, MD, PhD, Dean
    Daryani, Hriday Das, PhD, Theodore Dashman, PhD, Gregory W Daues, T C
    Dauphine, PhD, Dennis Dautreuil, Moses M David, PhD, Clayton L
    Davidson, James Davidson, Thomas Davidson, Harold W Davies, PhD, Julian
    A Davies, PhD, Bruce W Davis, PhD, Frances M Davis, PhD, H Turia Davis,
    Harriett Davis, Harry Davis, PhD, Kent R Davis, Paul Davis, Ralph
    Davis, Raymond Davis, PhD, S Davis, Thomas Davis, PhD, W Kenneth Davis,
    Wallace Davis, PhD, John A Davis Jr, PhD, Arthur D Dawson, PhD, David
    Dawson, Donald F Day, PhD, Harry G Day, PhD, Michael Day, PhD, R A Day,
    PhD, William Day, PhD, Donald W De Jong, PhD, Eugene De Rose, PhD, John
    Deacon, David L Dean, PhD, Sheldon W Dean, PhD, Warren E Dean, PhD,
    Donald Deardorff, PhD, David W Deberry, PhD, Edward Dale Deboer,
    Charles Deboisblanc, Francis Debons, PhD, Wayne Deckert, PhD, Paul
    Decusati, PhD, Gary Defoti, PhD, Rosalie F Degiovanni-Donnelly, PhD,
    John Dehn, PhD, Eugene Wm Dehner, PhD, Susan Deines, Phillip Delassus,
    PhD, William M Delaware, Joe D Delay, PhD, Robert M Delcamp, PhD, E F
    Delitala, Jon Delong, Anthony J Delucca, Winston R Demonsabert, PhD,
    David Denhardt, PhD, Frank W Denison, PhD, Robert Dennett, Richard
    Denney, Richard S Dennis, William E Dennis, PhD, Norman C Deno, PhD,
    Edmond J Derderian, PhD, Charles Desbordes, Wm Deskin, PhD, Raymond E
    Dessy, PhD, R P Destefano, PhD, William D Detlefsen, PhD, R Deufel,
    PhD, Marshall E Deutsch, PhD, Robert M Devlin, PhD, Frederick W
    Devries, Mel Dewsnup, Jerry J Dewulf, Alan Dexter, PhD, Cecil M
    Dinunno, Arthur S Diamond, Marian C Diamond, PhD, John K Dibitz,
    Phillip Dick, Richard J Dick, Charlesworth L Dickerson, PhD, Winifred
    Dickinson, PhD, Wm B Dickinson, PhD, Dave Dicksor, Henry A Diederichs,
    MD, Kenneth Diesburg, PhD, Jerry A Dieter, PhD, John Dieterman, Alm
    Dietz, Armand Digiacomo, PhD, Joseph B Digiorgio, PhD, Ken Dillard,
    Robert G Dillard, Daniel Dillon, Ray Dillon, Raymond Dillon, PhD,
    Raymond Dimartini, PhD, Robert Hudson Dinegar, PhD, Howard L Dinsmore,
    PhD, Ronald J Dinus, PhD, William Dinusson, PhD, R W Dirks, James D
    Dixon, PhD, Marvin P Dixon, PhD, Elliott Doane, PhD, Harry D Dobbs,
    PhD, Carroll Dobratz, PhD, Donald C Dobson, PhD, Gerard Dobson, PhD,
    Martin L Dobson, Nama Doddi, PhD, George C Doderer, Richard A Dodge,
    PhD, Gerald E Doeden, PhD, Eugene Doering, William A Doerner, PhD, J W
    Dohr, Michael F Dolan, Geoffrey E Dolbear, PhD, Wm Read Dolbier, PhD,
    Bruce J Dolnick, PhD, John M Domagala, PhD, John M Domagala, PhD,
    William Donald, PhD, Gary B Donart, PhD, Henry Donato, PhD, Wenju Dong,
    PhD, James E Donham, Susanne Donovan, David Dooley, Thomas P Dooley,
    PhD, Barbara Doonan, PhD, Harold E Doorenbos, PhD, Guy H Dority, PhD,
    Kenneth J Dormer, PhD, Joe Dotzlaf, Jocelyn Douglas, PhD, Kathleen
    Douglas, Michael G Douglas, PhD, Westmoreland J Douglas, PhD, Robert W
    Douglass, PhD, Spencer Douglass, John Doull, PhD, Arthur Ostantinos
    Doumas, PhD, Sandra Dowdell, Roland Downing, PhD, Tom Downs, PhD,
    William F Downs, PhD, David J Drahos, PhD, Bruce D Drake, PhD, Michael
    C Drake, PhD, Jean Draper, Edward A Dratz, PhD, James Drew, PhD, Larry
    A Drew, PhD, Harry J Driedger, MD, Albert John Driesch, Gary L
    Driscoll, PhD, Margaret Driscoll, Don A Sibley, PhD, James E Drummond,
    PhD, Harry V Drushel, PhD, G L Dryden, PhD, Gil Dryden, PhD, C F Duane,
    Del R M Dubbs, PhD, E H Dubois, S C Dubios, Leonard Duda, PhD, Patricia
    M Duda, Thomas J Dudek, PhD, Howard Dudley, Thomas Dudley, Dudt, PhD,
    Donald J Dudziak, PhD, C J Duet, Leroy Dugan, PhD, Harold R Duke, PhD,
    Gary R Dukes, PhD, Peter P Dukes, PhD, Philip Gordon Dunbar, PhD,
    Charles L Duncan, PhD, Warren Dunkel, Larry Dunn, Frederick C Durant
    III, Mary Durick, James Durig, PhD, John Durig, Gordon B Durnbaugh,
    Sophie Dutch, James Duvall, Paul B Duvall, MD, Ernest J Duwell, PhD,
    James P Dux, PhD, Roger L Van Duyne, PhD, Isaac Dvoretzky, PhD, Dushan
    Dvornik, PhD, Francis G Dwyer, PhD, Michael Dwyer, Alan C Dyar,
    Clifford Dykstra, PhD, J Robert Dynes, PhD, Philip J Dziuk, PhD.

    Category: E
        Bertram E Eakin, PhD, James Earle, Thomas Earles, D B Easty, PhD,
    Philip E Eaton, PhD, Kenneth Ebel, PhD, Gary Eberly, Floyd Eberts, PhD,
    DP Ebright, Lawrence T Eby, PhD, Bernard Ecanow, PhD, Carrie Eddy,
    Charles K Edge, PhD, Janes M Edgecombe, Robt Edgerton, PhD, John
    Edgington, Paul Edmiston, PhD, Charlie Edwards, J Gordon Edwards, PhD,
    Wm F Egelhoff, PhD, Donald A Eggert, PhD, Peter Egli, Richard Egly,
    PhD, William Ehringer, PhD, Dion R Ehrlich, MD, H P Ehrlich, PhD,
    Robert Eichelberger, PhD, Paul Eichenberger, Jacob Eichhorn, PhD,
    Kendrick R Eliar, PhD, Gary L Eilrich, PhD, Dean W Einspahr, PhD, Kurt
    F Eise, J David Ekstrum, Guindy Mahmoud Ismail El, PhD, Dennis Eland,
    Richard E Elden, Jack R Elenbaas, James Eley, PhD, Gabriel Elgavish,
    PhD, Hans Elias, PhD, Michael J Elkind, Arthur Eller, PhD, Douglas G
    Elliot, PhD, Alice E Elliott, PhD, Alice Elliott, PhD, Gary Elliott,
    Howard C Elliott, PhD, W S Elliott, David A Ellis, PhD, Everett L
    Ellis, PhD, Richard J Ellis, PhD, K Donald Ellsworth, Andy Elms, Sandy
    Elms, Howard G Elrlich, PhD, Shaker El-Sherbini, PhD, Donald W Emerich,
    PhD, Edward Emery, PhD, Philip H Emery Jr, PhD, Matt Emison, John L
    Emmerson, PhD, Alvin Engelke, Franz Engelmann, PhD, Charles F Engles,
    John Joseph Ennever, DDS, Leonard E Ensminger, PhD, Bruce Enyeart,
    Richard A Eppler, PhD, J Michael Epps, MD, Robert Allan Erb, PhD, John
    K Erbacher, PhD, William Erby, PhD, John Erdmann, John G Erickson, PhD,
    Joshua A Erickson, Klaas Eriks, PhD, Jack Eriksen, Jan Erikson, PhD,
    Jay A Erikson, PhD, R W Erwin, Theodore W Esders, PhD, Ramon Espino,
    PhD, Robert H Essenhigh, PhD, Daniel Esterline, PhD, John H Estes, PhD,
    Frances C Esteve, S Etter, Wm Henry Eustis, PhD, Charles A Evans, PhD,
    Claudia T Evans, PhD, Howard E Evans, PhD, Marjorie W Evans, PhD, R
    Evans, Thomas Walter Evans, PhD, Wm Evans, F Monte Evens, PhD, Martin E
    Everhard, MD, PhD, Eugene Eyster, PhD.

    Category: F
        David R Fagerburg, PhD, Stephen R Fahnestock, PhD, Richard B Lai
    Fatt, PhD, James R Fair, Jr, PhD, Dennis A Falgout, PhD, Donald
    Fancher, PhD, Don Fanslow, PhD, Farber, Earl Faria, Robert H Fariss,
    PhD, Charles Farley, Ollie Farnam, Wells Fransworth, PhD, Michael
    Farona, PhD, Charles Farrell, PhD, Eugene P Farrell, David Fashimpaur,
    Gerald Fassell, Arlo W Fast, PhD, Homer D Fausch, PhD, John R Favorite,
    Henry A Feddern, PhD, James Fedrich, PhD, Abraham S Feigenbaum, PhD,
    Harvey L Fein, PhD, Louis Feinstein, PhD, Robert Feisel, D Feller, PhD,
    Ronald L Felsted, PhD, Lorie M Felton, Steve Fenderson, Robert W Fenn,
    PhD, Donald Fenton, PhD, John Fenton, PhD, WJ Fergerson, Dave D
    Ferguson, David Ferguson, PhD, John Ferguson, Robert Ferguson, Richard
    L Ferm, PhD, William James Ferrell, PhD, Jorge Ferrer, Wm A Fessler,
    PhD, Dale A Fester, Edward M Fettes, PhD, H Richard Fevold, PhD, John A
    Feyk, Herbert J Fick, Byron D Field, Jack Field, PhD, Ray Field, PhD,
    Thomas Field, PhD, Tim Figgie, Prof Roy H Filby, PhD, Theodore H Filer,
    PhD, Tom Filesi, Warren FilleyFilley, MD, Charles Richard Finch, PhD,
    Paul Finkelstein, PhD, Charles Finkl, PhD, Peter S Finlay, PhD, Frances
    M Finn, PhD, John M Finn, PhD, James Fiordalisi, PhD, Bryant C
    Fischback, Dwayne Fischer, PhD, John Fischley, GL Fish, Wayne W Fish,
    PhD, J W Fishback II, Geo H Fisher, PhD, William H Fishman, PhD, Klaus
    Flach, PhD, John F Flagg, PhD, Eugene Flaumenhaft, PhD, Charles W
    Fleischmann, PhD, Alison Fleming, PhD, Bruce Ingram Fleming, PhD,
    Julius Fleming, Thomas H Fletcher, PhD, William Flis, Harold W Flood,
    David Flowers, G Flowers, PhD, Edward Gotthard Foehr, PhD, Robert R
    Foil, PhD, John E Folk, PhD, Paul V Fonnesbeck, PhD, Marc E Fontaine,
    PhD, Herman Fonteyne, John T Foorley, PhD, Wilford Foote, PhD, Michael
    S Forbes, PhD, George E Ford, PhD, J Ford, PhD, Thoams Ford, PhD,
    Edmund H Fording, Jr, President, Edward Forest, PhD, Eugene J
    Fornefeld, PhD, Albert J Forney, R C Forrester III, PhD, Denis Forster,
    PhD, Michael Forster, PhD, John Forsyth, PhD, Dennis Fost, PhD, Cy E
    Foster, D R E M Foster, PhD, Donald M Foster, PhD, Gerald Foster, PhD,
    John A Foster, Mac Foster, PhD, Norman C Foster, PhD, Walter E Foster,
    PhD, Chris Fountain, PhD, Eric B Fowler, PhD, Frank C Fowler, PhD, Gary
    D Fowler Jr, Dwaine Fowlkes, Gerald Fox, J Fox, Michael R Fox, PhD,
    Neil S Fox, PhD, James J Foy, PhD, Walter J Frajola, PhD, Roger
    Frampton, PhD, Guy J Del Franco, Charles E Frank, PhD, Clifford Frank,
    R S Frank, Gordon Franke, PhD, Julian Frankenberg, PhD, Neal E Franks,
    PhD, Martin S Frant, PhD, Bruce Frantz, Warren L Franz, PhD, Daniel W
    Frascella, PhD, Margaret S Fraser, PhD, Nile N Frawley, PhD, R Thomas
    Frazee, Randy Frazier, Roger Frazier, Stephen E Frazier, PhD, William R
    Frazier, Raymond Frederici, Lloyd R Frederick, PhD, Max Freeland, PhD,
    James F Freeman, PhD, Reola L Freeman, Kenneth French, PhD, Scott
    French, Melvin Frenzel, Arthur L Fricke, PhD, Joe Fiedlander, Raymond
    Friedman, PhD, H Friedmann, Herbert C Friedmann, PhD, Dwayne T Friesen,
    PhD, Charles R Frink, PhD, Fripiat, PhD, Harry K Fritchman, PhD, Alfred
    K Fritzche, PhD, Herbert Farley Frolander, PhD, David Fromson, PhD, U
    George Frondorf, H R Froning, PhD, Arthur A Frost, PhD, John Frost,
    PhD, Si Frumkin, Alfred E Fuehs, Robert S Fulghum, PhD, Forst D Fuller,
    PhD, Ron Fuller, Robert Fulton, PhD, Dennis L Funck, PhD, B L Funt,
    PhD, Francis S Furbish, PhD, R W Furner, Gabriel Fusco, PhD, John
    Fuzek, PhD.

    Category: G
        Sabit Gabay, PhD, Morris Gabel, Richard A Gabel, PhD, Jim Gadwood,
    Lanelle G Gafford, PhD, Frederick W Gage, A Gahr, PhD, Tinsley P
    Gaines, Robt G Galazin, Louis Galie, James Gallagher, PhD, Joan S
    Gallagher, PhD, Donald L Gallaher, Ethan C Galloway, PhD, Darrell
    Gallup, PhD, Yakob Galperin, PhD, David Gambal, PhD, James J Gambino,
    Bernard Wm Gamson, PhD, Harendra S Gandhi, PhD, Mary C Gannon, PhD,
    Richard H Garber, PhD, George F Garcelon, C M Garcia, Wayne Scott
    Gardner, PhD, Jerry Gargulak, PhD, Clyde H Garman, Ronald G Garmon,
    PhD, H Richard Garner, Robt J Garner, Jeanette Garr, PhD, Thomas M
    Garrett, PhD, Robert G Garrison, PhD, John E Garst, PhD, Daniel L
    Graver, Justine S Garvey, PhD, Todd Garvin, MD, Douglas L Garwood, PhD,
    Gary J Gascho, PhD, Jerry Gass, Jay B Gassel, Edward Wm Gassie, PhD, R
    H Gassner, A D Gate, George L Gates, Gerald O Gates, PhD, Anthony R
    Gatti, PhD, Eugene R Gaughran, PhD, Donald W Gauntlett, Henry T
    Gawrylowicz, David Gay, Richard L Gay, PhD, Joseph Gaynor, PhD, Rick D
    Gdanski, PhD, Roy L Gealer, PhD, Richard Geesey, PhD, Colin V Gegg,
    PhD, D C Gehri, PhD, Robert F Gehrig, PhD, Perry J Gehring, PhD, James
    E Geiger, Paul J Geiger, PhD, Philip Geis, PhD, Celine Gelinas, PhD,
    Gennaro, PhD, Joseph C Gentry, Boyd A George, PhD, Raymond George, PhD,
    W H Dreme George, Gerard Allen Geppert, Robert Gerger, Earl Robert
    Gerhard, PhD, George W Gerhardt, PhD, Henry D Gerhold, PhD, TC Gerhold,
    Michael Gerkin, Richard P Germann, PhD, Peter J Gerone, PhD, Mark
    Gerstein, PhD, Eric Gerstenberger, Joseph E Gervay, PhD, Forrest E
    Getzen, PhD, Alex Gezzy, Camillo Ghiron, PhD, Louis Charles Gibbons,
    PhD, Thomas G Gibian, PhD, Ken Giebe, Leo Giegzelmann, Frederic A
    Giere, PhD, Dewayne E Gilbert, PhD, Garrell Gilbert, Joel Gilbert,
    Peter Gilbert, William Gilbert, PhD, William Gill, PhD, Wm R Gillen,
    Bob Gillespie, Jeff Gillespie, William H Gillespie, Nicholas W Gillham,
    PhD, Travis H Gillham, George A Gillies, PhD, T Ja Gilligan, PhD,
    Jacques Gilloteaux, PhD, James R Gilman, Ernest R Gilmont, PhD, John
    Gilmore, PhD, John H Gilmore, Mark Gindling, Thomas H Giordano, PhD,
    Georgina Gipson, Johanna Glacy-Araos, Marvin Glass, Werner Glass, PhD,
    Clifford Glenn, Donald Glenn, John Glissmeyer, John W Glomb, PhD,
    Richard H Gnaedinger, PhD, Matthew Gnezda, PhD, William Godaif, Ludwig
    E Godycki, PhD, Frederick A Goellner, Grayce Goertz, PhD, Thomas
    Goettge, Eugene Goldberg, PhD, Randy Golding, PhD, William T Golding,
    Lionel S Goldring, PhD, Theodore P Goldstein, PhD, Patrick Goldsworthy,
    PhD, William Gong, PhD, Ely Gonick, PhD, Tim Good, William Good, Robert
    Goodman, Byron Goodrich, John Goodrich, Louie A Goodson, Korwin J
    Goodwin, John C Goon, V L Goppelt, Martin L Gorbaty, PhD, Milton
    Gorham, Joseph Gorsic, PhD, Timothy N Gorski, MD, PhD, Waldemar Gorski,
    PhD, Howard Gorsuch, Christopher Gosling, George R Goss, PhD, John R
    Goss, Albert Gotch, PhD, George Gott, John Gottschling, Thomas L Gould,
    PhD, Alan Goulet, John Graf, Bob Graham, Dee McDonald Graham, PhD, Gary
    G Graham, PhD, Joseph W Grahame, Robert E Gramera, PhD, Robert Gramera,
    PhD, Alphonse P Granatek, Clark A Granger, PhD, Donald J Grantham,
    Jurgen M Grasshoff, PhD, Kenneth Graues, Robert J Graves, Lewis Gray,
    Michael Gray, PhD, Steven Gray, Frank Graziano, PhD, Randolph K
    Greaves, Marvin L Green, Saul Green, PhD, George M Greene II, PhD,
    Harold Greenfield, PhD, Gerald A Greenhouse, PhD, Howard E Greenwell,
    Robert Griffith, Mike Greger, Charles T Gregg, PhD, David Gregg, David
    H Gregg, PhD, Everett D Greinke, David R Gress, Edward L Griffin,
    Gordon W Gribble, PhD, Ray H Griesbach, Edward Griest, PhD, Harold L
    Griffin, Leland Griffin, Durward R Griffith, Roy Griffiths, PhD, Tom
    Griffiths, Mark Grigsby, PhD, Paul E Grindrod, PhD, Teddy H Grindstaff,
    PhD, Ernest E Grisdale, Robert Dwight Grisso, PhD, Alfred W Grohe, Alan
    B Grosbach, MD, Joseph F Gross, PhD, Fred Grosz, PhD, Morris P
    Grotheer, PhD, Henry M Grotta, PhD, Leonard C Grotz, PhD, James Robb
    Grover, PhD, Frank Groves, PhD, Alfred Gruber, David P Gruber, Gerald
    Wm Gruber, PhD, Gerry Gruber, PhD, Geza Gruenwald, PhD, Paul M
    Gruzensky, PhD, Harold J Gryting, PhD, Robert F Guardino, PhD, Terry
    Guckes, PhD, Elaine Guenther, Charles G Guffey, PhD, Arnold J Gully,
    Kenneth H Gum, Robert C Gunness, PhD, Wolfgang H H Gunther, PhD, Earl S
    Gurley, Robert J Gussman, Lyle Gust, Dwight F Gustafson, David L
    Gustine, PhD, Gerald Gutowski, PhD, Alvin Guttag, Kelleen Gutzmann,
    John V Guy-Bray, PhD, Allan Guymon, PhD.

    Category: H
        Frederick C Haas, PhD, David S Olomon Hacker, PhD, Elard Haden,
    Rodney N Hader, Mark Hagadone, PhD, James Hagan, PhD, C Troy Haggard,
    Gerow R Hagstrom, PhD, Anthony Haines, Thomas Haines, PhD, Ben Hajek,
    PhD, Reino Hakala, PhD, Arnold Hakkila, PhD, Martha Hale, PhD, Charles
    Hall, PhD, Ken Hall, Kenneth L Hall, PhD, Nathan A Hall, PhD, Norm
    Hall, Phillip Hall, Rebecca Hall, Sieglinde Haller, John H Hallman,
    PhD, Donal W Halloran, Kevin Halstead, Edward E Hamel, PhD, William A
    Hamill, Gordon A Hamilton, PhD, James W Hamilton, PhD, Priscilla O
    Hamilton, PhD, John Hamaker, PhD, Robert M Hammaker, PhD, Jack A
    Hammond, Raymond E Hammond, Charles E Hamner, PhD, Linda C Hamphill,
    MD, Adrian J Hampshire, Richard O Hampton, PhD, Suleiman M Hamway, PhD,
    Diane K Hancock, PhD, Cadet Hand, PhD, John W Hand, John B Haney, MD,
    Dallas Hanks, Bill M Hann, George C Hann, Robert B Hanna, Samuel L
    Hansard, PhD, Joann B Hansen, PhD, Joann B Hansen, PhD, R Thomas
    Hansen, PhD, Steve Hansen, PhD, Rowland Hansford, Harry R Hanson, E W
    Hanszen, Michael L Haraczy, James E Hardcastle, PhD, Bryant Hardy,
    Edgar Erwin Hardy, PhD, P L Hardy Jr, Sandra Hardy, William Hardy,
    George B Hares, PhD, O W Hargrove, Wendell Harkey, Thomas Harkins, Mary
    L Harmon, Grant H Harnest, PhD, Paul M Harnsberger, Dean O Harper, PhD,
    Helen Harper, John D Harper, John E Harper, Todd Harper, B L Harris,
    PhD, Ben G Harris, PhD, Joseph B Harris, PhD, Burton Harrison, Ernest A
    Harrison, PhD, Francis L Harrison, Elbert N Harshman, PhD, Melissa
    Hart, Paul Hart, Randall E Hart, Robt D Harter, PhD, Robert R
    Hartsough, Nathan L Hartwig, PhD, Nicholas Hartwig, PhD, Charles R
    Hartzell, PhD, Clarence C Harvey, Kim L Harvey, John Harville, PhD,
    Eldert C Hartwig, PhD, Wm H Harwood, PhD, William L Hase, PhD, Caryl
    Haskins, PhD, William J Haslem, James R Hass, PhD, Kirk Hastings, Roger
    C Hatch, Herbert J Hatcher, PhD, Robert Haubrich, PhD, James Hauff,
    Arthur Haug, PhD, Victor Hauser, PhD, Rudolf M Hausler, PhD, Warren M
    Haussler, Helga F Havas, PhD, Robert Havens, Gerald B Havenstein, PhD,
    Anton J Havlik, PhD, Robert Hawthorne, Fred Hayduk, W P Hayduk, Douglas
    Hayes, PhD, Michael Hayes, PhD, Robertm Hayes, PhD, Frank L Haynes,
    PhD, Kenneth Heacock, Ronald A Head, PhD, Harold Franklin Heady, PhD,
    Robert S Hearon, Phillip C Hebert, John Heckman, PhD, Gregory Hedden,
    PhD, James H Hedges, PhD, Ross M Hedrick, PhD, Carl J Heffelfinger,
    PhD, Roger Heiland, J Heilman, PhD, Ron Heisner, Roger Heitland, James
    R Helbert, PhD, Stephen Helbing, Duane Helderlein, David Helfand, Henry
    Hellmers, PhD, John Helwig, Bruce C Hemming, PhD, Klaus H Hemsath, PhD,
    Charles A Hen, David E Henderson, PhD, James Henderson, PhD, Jeannine L
    Henderson, Jerry Henderson, Kenneth P Henderson, Lavell M Henderson,
    PhD, Charles Hendricks, Deloy G Hendricks, PhD, John P Hendrickson,
    Malcolm Hendry, PhD, Shawn Heneghan, PhD, Ernest J Henley, PhD, Jim
    Hennessy, Henry W Hennigan, William A Hannigan, Lester A Henning,
    Gustav Henrich, Jonathan F Henry, PhD, William Henry Jr, Wiley H
    Henson, Jr, PhD, James Hentges, PhD, John Frederick Herber, PhD, Lloyd
    E Herdle, PhD, William L Hergenrother, PhD, Ronald C Herman, PhD,
    Robert W Hermsen, PhD, Robert Hern, Sandy Herndon, Ernest C Herrmann,
    MD, PhD, Zvi Herschman, MD, J Wilson Hershey, PhD, John William Baker
    Hershey, PhD, Irwin Herskowitz, PhD, Fred Hertlein III, Charles H Herty
    III, PhD, John Herweh, Robert A Herzog, Robert P Heslop, MD, Eugene
    Hess, PhD, David A Hessinger, PhD, Norman E Hester, PhD, James V
    Hewett, PhD, Robert E Heyden, Heyen, PhD, Ken Hucke, Jack Hickey,
    Kenneth Hickey, PhD, David K Hickle, Howard M Hickman, James L Hickman,
    Karen Hickman, PhD, Donald Hicks, PhD, Harold E Hicks, Michael Hicks,
    Clarence E Hieserman, Margaret A Hight, Thomas M Hilderbrand, Robt E
    Hileman, PhD, Hilgenberg, Bob Hill, Jack F Hill, PhD, Robert F Hill,
    Robt M Hill, PhD, W B Hill, PhD, Carol C Hilton, Larry Hinderager,
    Barton L Hinkle, PhD, Jack Hinman, PhD, Roger R Hinshaw, B Hinton, PhD,
    Tod Hinton, Todd O Hinton, Wiillie L Hinze, PhD, Arthur Hirsch, PhD,
    Robt W Hisey, PhD, Donald O Hitzman, Jonathan Hoadley, Brian G Hoal,
    PhD, Farrell D Hobbs, Melvin C Hobson, PhD, Robert C Hochel, PhD,
    Frederick A Hodge, PhD, Lawrence H Hodges, Albert B Hoefelmeyer, PhD,
    Arthur Hoeft, Roger A Hoffman, PhD, Theodore P Hoffman, PhD, Thomas
    Hoffman, Edward Hoffmann, Christopher J Hogan, PhD, D Hoiness, PhD,
    David L Holcomb, Palmer J Holden, PhD, James Holder, MD, Tammy Holder,
    Glenn Springs Holdings Inc, Russell Holland, PhD, David Henry
    Hollenberg, PhD, David V Holli, John C Holliman, John H Hollis, Harry L
    Holloway, PhD, Frank Joseph Holly, PhD, R W Holman, PhD, Eric Holmes,
    PhD, Howard Holmes, PhD, William Holmes, H Duane Holsapple, Don H
    Holzhei, PhD, Otto A Homberg, PhD, Franklin I Honea, PhD, John
    Honeycutt, PhD, Arie L Hoogendoorn, PhD, Kenneth E Hoogs, MD, James P
    Van Hook, PhD, Harold H Hopfe, Mike Horan, Sylvester P Horkowitz, Edwin
    Hornbaker, PhD, Ewin W Hornung, PhD, Myer G Horowitz, PhD, Lloyd A
    Horrocks, PhD, M Duane Horton, PhD, Steve Horton, Donald P Hoster, PhD,
    Allan Houanson, Joel Oliver Hougen, PhD, Ralph L Hough, Walter A Hough,
    PhD, Rodney T Houlihan, PhD, Wm B House, PhD, James O Houseweart, Riley
    Housewright, PhD, Eric Houze, Dwight D Howard, K B Howard, Stephen K
    Howard, Walter Egner Howard, PhD, Wm L Howard, Sr, PhD, John Howatson,
    PhD, George Howe, PhD, John Howe, PhD, Terry A Howell, PhD, Wesley R
    Howell, PhD, Fritz Howes, Ward Howland, David R Howton, PhD, William
    Hoychuk, Paul J Hoyer, PhD, C Hoyt, Roger Hrudy, Sung L Hsia, PhD,
    Hsien-Gieh Sie, PhD, T E Hsiu, PhD, Kuo Hom Lee Hsu, PhD, Robert Y Hsu,
    PhD, Calvin Huber, PhD, Don M Huber, PhD, Arthur E Hubscher, Charlie
    Huddleston, P M Hudnall, PhD, Larry Hudson, Robt B Hudson, Fred R
    Huege, PhD, B Jerry L Huff, PhD, Norman T Huff, PhD, Dennis Huffaker,
    James Hufham, PhD, Barry Hugghins, Donald Hughes, PhD, Kenneth H
    Hughes, Kenneth J Hughes, Michael Hughes, PhD, Travis Hughes, PhD,
    Robert Hughey, Augustine Hull, Philip W Humer, PhD, Allan Humpherys,
    Ray Eicken Humphrey, PhD, John G Hundley, PhD, Joseph W Hundley Jr,
    Douglas Hunt, George C Hunt, Mack Hunt, Arvel H Hunter, PhD, May Anne
    Hunter, Dave Hurt, Samir Hussamy, PhD, Robert Huston, David Hutcheson,
    PhD, William Hutchins, James H Hutchinson, PhD, F B Hutto, PhD, Monte L
    Hyder, PhD, Caryl H Hyland, PhD, J Walter Hylin, PhD, Wm E Hymans, PhD,
    Arnold G Hyndman, PhD.

    Category: I
        Mike Ibarguen, Andrew Iezzi, Donald J Ifshin, Harold Igdaloff, Jon
    M Igleman, MD, D Igou, PhD, Donald K Igou, PhD, Charles A Ihrke, PhD,
    Robert M Ikeda, PhD, Phillip M Iloff, PhD, Samuel J Ing, MD, Criton S
    Inglessis, PhD, Criton C S Inglessis, PhD, Alvin R Ingram, PhD, Alfred
    Ingulli, Charles G Inman, Ronald S Inman, William B Innes, PhD, Kaoru
    Inouye, Lucy Ionas, Roar L Irgens, PhD, David Irvin, James B Irvine,
    Philip George Irwin, PhD, Sheldon E Isakoff, PhD, Martin Isaks, PhD,
    Teri Isakson, Don L Isenberg, PhD, Robt W Isensee, PhD, E W Itell, Olga
    Ivanilova, PhD, James A Ives II, Edwin H Ivey, Kenneth M Izumi, PhD,
    Robert A Izydore, PhD, Patrick T Izzo, PhD, Theodore Izzo.

    Category: J
        Mitchell J Jablons, MD, Bill G Jackson, PhD, Harold L Jackson, PhD,
    Kingbury Jackson, Rick L Jackson, MD, Wm John Jacober, PhD, William
    Jacobi, PhD, Francis A Jacobs, PhD, Francis A Jacobs, PhD, John C
    Jacobs, PhD, M L Jacobs, PhD, Richard G Jacobs, Elaine L Jacobson, PhD,
    Irven Allan Jacobson, Donald F Jacques, PhD, Jonah Jaffe, PhD, Mordecai
    Jaffe, PhD, Kenneth I Rwin Jagel, PhD, Ray Jaglowski, Albert A Jagnow,
    Kenneth S Jago, MD, Richard J Jambor, David E James, PhD, Douglas E
    James, HS James, Virgil E James, PhD, 154 Johnson Hall, PhD, Everett
    Williams Jameso, PhD, Leon Jameton, Jiri Janata, PhD, Donald Janes,
    Borek Janik, PhD, Maximo Jante, Frank H Jarke, Kenneth Jarrell, Neldon
    Lynn Jarvis, PhD, John P Jastrzembski, Augus W Jaussi, PhD, Lynn
    Jaussi, Max Jellinek, PhD, Carol Jenkins, Sean Jenkins, Vernon K
    Jenkins, PhD, Alfred S Jennings, PhD, Creighton Jensen, PhD, Leeann
    Jensen, PhD, Marcus M Jensen, PhD, Randolph A Jensen, Randolph Jensen,
    Randolph Jensen, Robert Jensen, Thomas Jensen, PhD, Timothy B Jensen,
    PhD, Stewart C Jepson, Anthony E Jernigan, Michael W Jezercak, PhD,
    Charles Joanedis, Joerz, Eileen D Johann, PhD, Timothy Johans, MD, H
    William Johansen, PhD, Karl Richard Johansson, PhD, Sune Johansson,
    Charles W Johnson, Delmar R Johnson, Donald C Johnson, PhD, Donald D
    Johnson, PhD, Donald Johnson, PhD, Frank J Johnson, Fred Johnson, PhD,
    Frederic A Johnson, PhD, Glenn R Johnson, PhD, I Johnson, PhD, James W
    Johnson, PhD, M W Johnson, PhD, Mark A Johnson, Mark Johsnon, Melvin
    Johnson, PhD, Ray E Johnson, PhD, Richard D Johnson, PhD, Robert V
    Johnson, PhD, Rodney B Johnson, Ronald Johnson, Terrance Johnson, PhD,
    Terrell K Johnson, Todd Johnson, PhD, William Johnson, Bonnie Johnston,
    H D Johnston, PhD, Johnston, MD, PhD, Marshall Johnston, PhD, Matt
    Johnston, Stephan E Johnston, Stephen A Johnston, PhD, William D
    Johnston, PhD, John E Jolley, PhD, Von D Jolley, PhD, AD Jones, Alan R
    Jones, PhD, Bill Jones, PhD, Chrisopher Jones, Christopher H Jones,
    Frank N Jones, PhD, Jack Jones, PhD, John D Jones, MD, Richard H Jones,
    PhD, Taylor B Jones, PhD, Wesley M Jones, PhD, Wilbur C Jones, PhD,
    Peter E Jonker, Richard Joos, PhD, Gary Jordan, Robt K Jordan, Richard
    D Jorgenson, PhD, Raymond P Joseph, Edward S Josephson, PhD, David
    Jowett, PhD, D Joye, PhD, R E Juday, PhD, Joseph M Judge, PhD, Hiram P
    Julien, PhD, Frederick J Julyan, PhD, John A Jung, PhD, Eric
    Jungermann, PhD, Wm A Junk, PhD, D E Junker, PhD, M L Junker, PhD,
    James Junkin, Richard Jurgensen, MD, Richard S Juvet, PhD.

    Category: K
        Matti Kaaranakari, Joe Kahn, John Kalafut, Norman W Kalenda, PhD,
    Robert J Kallal, PhD, Lisa Kalman, PhD, Beth Kalmes, Moses Kaloustain,
    PhD, Brian D Kaluzny, Margaret A Kaluzny, Victor V Kaminski, PhD, James
    M Kampfer, Ronald R Kamyniski, Antony Kanakkanatt, PhD, Joseph M
    Kanamueller, PhD, Stanley M Kanarowski, Bernard J Kane, Noel Andrew
    Patrick Kane, PhD, William Kane, PhD, Paul Thomas Kantz, PhD, James H
    Kanzelmeyer, PhD, Hillel R Kaplan, George Kapusta, PhD, Larry Kapustka,
    PhD, Richard D Karkkainen, Paul Karr, PhD, Kenneth S Karsten, PhD, Mark
    Kaschmitter, John D Kaser, PhD, Charles B Kasper, PhD, Robert J Kassal,
    Fellow, PhD, Raymond Kastendiek, Rosalind Kasunick, Williams S Kather,
    Herbert Katz, Joseph J Katz, PhD, Marvin L Katz, PhD, George B
    Kauffman, PhD, Jeffrey M Kauffman, Joel Kauffman, PhD, Thomas Kauffman,
    R G Kaufman, PhD, Robert Eugene Kay, PhD, Robert L Kay, PhD,
    Kazakevich, PhD, Armen R Kazanjian, PhD, Robt A Keeler, Iris Keeling,
    Harold M Keener, PhD, Robert D Keenum, Gerson Kegeles, PhD, Hubert
    Keily, PhD, Carroll Keim, Jerome B Keister, PhD, Morris Keith, Ed
    Kekec, Frederick Keller, PhD, Kenneth F Keller, PhD, Wm E Keller, PhD,
    Glen E Kellerhals, PhD, Craig T Kelley, Joseph Kelley, PhD, John
    Kellgren, PhD, Craig Kellogg, PhD, Colin M Kelly, PhD, Patrick Kelly,
    Raymond Kelly, PhD, W J Kelly, PhD, Frank N Kemmer, George Kemp, John D
    Kemp, PhD, Thomas Kenat, PhD, Shawn Kendall, L N Kendrick, Albert J
    Kennedy, PhD, John E Kennedy, PhD, William Kennedy, James Kennelley,
    PhD, Harris Kenner, Francis T Kenney, PhD, Geo C Kent, PhD, Jim Kent,
    Michael J Keogh, PhD, Joyce E Kephart, Donald L Kerr, PhD, Anna M
    Kerrins, Jesse Keville, Mel Keyes, PhD, Naaman H Keyser, Donald A
    Keyworth, PhD, Gregory B Kharas, PhD, Harold Kidd, PhD, Vincent J Kidd,
    PhD, Rodney Kiel, Terry Kienitz, Charles Kilgore, Dennis D Kilkenny,
    Theo D Kimbrough, PhD, Charles O King, PhD, F King, H H King, PhD, John
    W King, PhD, Joseph E King, Sanford King, PhD, Charles Kingrea, PhD, C
    Louis Kingsbaker, Jerome W Kinnison, Norma A Kinsel, PhD, Stephen C
    Kinsky, PhD, Ralph C Kirby, Earl Kirk, Clyde A Kirkbride, PhD, Hugh R
    Kirkpatrick, Ravi Kiron, PhD, Janet M Kirsch, Paul R Kirsch, Edgar W
    Kivela, PhD, Lassi Kivioja, PhD, Bruce H Klanderman, PhD, Amy G Klann,
    PhD, Miro Klecka, PhD, Vasilios Kleftis, RR Klein, PhD, W S Klein,
    Walter B Kleiner, PhD, Robert E Klenck, MD, Ronald W Klenk, PhD, John
    Kleyn, PhD, Gary Kline, Robert Kline, PhD, Roger C Klockziem, PhD,
    Melvin Klotzman, Anatole A Klyosov, PhD, Kent Knaebel, PhD, Edward A
    Knaggs, Stephen Knapp, Terence E C Knee, PhD, Wiliam Kneebone, PhD, B
    Kneeland, Tom Knetsley, Maurice Kniceley, James Knight, Jere D Knight,
    PhD, James Otis Knobloch, PhD, Charles P Knop, PhD, Charles P Knop,
    PhD, Floyd Marion Knowlton, Gregory D Knowlton, PhD, Christian W
    Knudsen Dr, PhD, Chung-Yu Ko, Ian Koblick, Henry Kobsa, PhD, Henry
    Kobsa, PhD, Arthur T Koch, PhD, D Koch, PhD, Robert Koch, Tyson Koch,
    William Koehl, PhD, Carol R Koehler, F Theodore Koehler, Janice
    Koehler, Gina L Koenig, Lee E Koepke, George O Kohler, PhD, James P
    Kohn, PhD, Frederick C Kohout, PhD, Randall Kok, PhD, Juha P Kokko, MD,
    PhD, Kurtis Koll, PhD, Bernard J Kolp, PhD, Stanley P Koltun, Roger W
    Kolvoord, PhD, Sam Kongpricha, PhD, Virgil Konopinski, Anthony Konopka,
    Dusan Konrad, PhD, David Kooyman, PhD, Charles B Koons, PhD, Frank
    Koontz, PhD, John T Kopfle, Bruce D Korant, PhD, Joseph Korch, Howard
    Kordes, John Kordosh, N Korens, Edmund C Kornfeld, PhD, Charles H
    Korns, PhD, Mary B Korpi, Mary Korpi, Daniel R Kory, PhD, Mark J
    Koslicki, Aaron D Kossoy, PhD, Robert Kostelniki, PhD, Robt A Koster,
    PhD, Eugene George Kovach, PhD, J L Kovach, PhD, Joseph E Kovacic, Nagy
    H Kovacs, PhD, Thomas F Kowalczyk Jr, Paul C Kowallis, Richard A
    Kowalsky, John N Kraeuter, PhD, E H Krafft, Richard Kraft, Jerry Kraim,
    PhD, John J Krajewski, PhD, Deborah J Krajicek, Karl J Kramer, PhD,
    Karl W Krantz, PhD, Jan Krason, PhD, Clyde H Kratochvil, MD, PhD,
    Robert Krauss, PhD, Arthur A Krawetz, PhD, Arthur Krawetz, PhD, Herman
    F Kraybill, PhD, John Krc Jr, Lawrence Krebaum, PhD, Ron Kreis, PhD,
    Carl Krespan, PhD, Joseph Z Krezandski, PhD, Roy Krill, Kevin Krist,
    PhD, Steve Kristoff, PhD, Mark S Kristy, MD, William G Krochta, PhD,
    Lillian A Kroenke, William J Kroenke, PhD, Rober Lee Kroodsma, PhD,
    John L Kropp, PhD, Julius R Kroschewsky, PhD, Philip M Krueger, PhD,
    Paul H Krumrine, PhD, Lorin R Krusberg, PhD, David J Kubicek, Donald
    Gene Kubler, PhD, Mitsuru Kubota, PhD, S Kubow, PhD, John F Read Kuc,
    PhD, James E Kuder, PhD, Marc Kudla, Donald Kuehl, Adelheid Kuehnle,
    PhD, George Kugler, PhD, Eugene J Kuhajek, PhD, Moira Kuhl, Michael
    Kuhlmann, Raymond E Kuhn, PhD, Kenneth Kuiken, PhD, Eugene Kulesza,
    Rudolph K Kulling, PhD, Samar Kundu, PhD, George W Kunze, PhD, Jing-Wen
    Kuo, PhD, James R Kuppers, PhD, David W Kurtz, PhD, Henry Kurusz, Peter
    Kusel, PhD, Andrew Kuzmission, Lydiane Kyte.

    Category: L
        Peter Labosky, PhD, R G Lacallade, Rosemary Lacher, Sanford Lacks,
    PhD, Joseph T Laemmle, PhD, Franklin Laemmlen, PhD, Robert J Laffin,
    PhD, Evan D Laganis, PhD, Thomas W Lagrelius, MD, B D Lagrone, Michael
    L Laird, Jerry Laman, Allen B Lamb, Allen Lamb, Donald J Lamb, PhD,
    Roger Lamb, John P Lambert, Andrew Lambie, John P Lambooy, PhD, Trevor
    G Lamond, PhD, David L Lamp, Richard J Landborg, PhD, Wm C Landgraf,
    PhD, Jerome Lando, PhD, L Landry, William G Landry, Carl L Lane, PhD,
    Charles J Lane, George Lane, Robert Lane, PhD, Robt Lane, PhD, Scott
    Lane, Conrad M Lang, PhD, Robert Carl Lange, PhD, Paul B Langford, PhD,
    Philip G Langley, PhD, H Norbert Lanners, PhD, Edward Lanser, Frank M
    Lanzafame, PhD, Lanzafame, PhD, Evelyn P Lapin, PhD, Daivd Larsen,
    Elisabeth Larsen, Eric B Larsen, PhD, Eric Russell Larsen, PhD, Howland
    A Larsen, PhD, Lloyd Larsen, PhD, Robert P Larsen, PhD, Ashley Larson,
    Bruce L Larson, PhD, Charles Conrad Larson, PhD, Dana E Larson, Kenneth
    Larson, Philip Larson, PhD, Reginald M Lasater, Jack S Lasky, PhD,
    Andrew Lasslo, PhD, Alan R Latham, PhD, P R Latour, PhD, Robert P
    Lattimer, PhD, Duane E Lau, Lloyd H Lauerman, PhD, Robert J Laufer,
    PhD, Wm E Laupus, MD, Robert Laurence, PhD, Jim Lauria, Thomas
    Lauterio, PhD, Marcel E Lavoie, PhD, Layle Lawrence, PhD, Eugene J
    Lawrie, Richard Lawson, Jeffrey C Lawyer, William A Laycock, PhD,
    Norman Lazaroff, PhD, Gerald R Leather, PhD, Bill Lech, Richard V
    Lechowich, PhD, Harvey D Ledbetter, PhD, Joseph Ledbetter, PhD, Brian W
    Lee, PhD, D M Lee, David J Lee, Donald Lee, PhD, William Lee, PhD,
    Clark Leedy, PhD, James L Leef, PhD, Keith Leese, Bob Lefelar, Robert A
    Lefever, PhD, Harold Legate, Jim Lehmann, David Leibman, Richard
    Leicht, Algird G Leiga, PhD, Joshua M Leise, PhD, Paul Leithart, MD,
    Vicoria M Leitz, PhD, W L Lemon, MD, Ronald C Lenox, PhD, Ronald S
    Lenox, PhD, Joseph W Leone, Bruno Leonelli, Joseph Leonelli, PhD,
    Gregory S Leppert, PhD, Dennis Leppin, David M Lesak, Jim Leslie,
    Howard Lessoff, Gregory S Lester, Elma Laterman, PhD, Benjamin S Leung,
    PhD, Allan L Levey, Karen N Levin, S Benedict Levin, PhD, Bernard
    Levine, PhD, Sidney B Levinson, Louis Leviticus, PhD, Seymour Levy,
    Stanley S Levy, PhD, Robert M Lewert, PhD, Gordon D Lewis, PhD, Milton
    Lewis, PhD, Peter A Lewis, PhD, Robert Lewis, Russell J Lewis, PhD,
    William Lewis, PhD, Chia-Yu Li, PhD, Wei Li, David Licht, Irwin A
    Lichtman, PhD, Charles G Liddle, DVM, William Liddle, Timothy E Lien,
    Steven C Limke, James C Lin, PhD, Merlin Lindemann, PhD, Henry R
    Linden, PhD, Wm T Lindsay, PhD, Lindeman, Milton J Linevsky, PhD,
    Bernard A Link, PhD, Donald Linn, PhD, Glenn Liolios, William G Lipke,
    PhD, Michael Lipton, PhD, Emil P Lira, PhD, Adam Lis, PhD, Wm E Liss,
    Ellen K Lissant, PhD, Kenneth J Lissant, PhD, Bruce A Lister, Mark
    Lister, PhD, Jim Litchfield, Arthur Litheredge, Frank Little, Frank
    Little, Fred Liu, PhD, John Liutkus, PhD, Harold Lloyd, Vern Lloyd,
    Fred P Lobban, Gene M Lobrecht, Charles Lochmuller, PhD, Royce Z
    Lockart, PhD, Krystyna Locke, PhD, Raymond K Locke, William Lockett,
    Eric Lodewijk, Eric Lodewyk, Alfred R Loeblich III, PhD, Robert
    Loffredo, PhD, R Loftfield, John T Loftus, Charles B Loggie, Thomas J
    Loginess, Francis M Logullo, PhD, H Y Loken, PhD, Stanley J Lokken,
    PhD, Earl E Long, John Long, PhD, Joyce M Long, Justin T Long, PhD,
    William H Long, PhD, John B Longenecker, PhD, Martin S Longmire, PhD,
    Ian S Longmuir, Paul A Lan Longwell, PhD, Ruskin Longworth, PhD, Jerome
    J Looker, PhD, Herb Lopatka, W F Loranger, PhD, Thomas A Loredo, Jerry
    A Lorenzen, PhD, Larry Lortscher, Robert A Loscher, Edward T Losin,
    PhD, Mark J Losset, Peter F Lott, PhD, Doug Loudin, Gerard A Loughran,
    L Hh Louis, PhD, Jerry Loupee, Ben Lovell, Harold L Lovell, PhD, John R
    Lovett, PhD, Jan Lovy, PhD, Mark Lowell, PhD, Umass Lowell, PhD,
    Douglas Lowenhaupt, JM Lowenstein, PhD, G A Lowerts, PhD, Charles B
    Lowrey, PhD, Justin Lowry, Kenneth J Little, Kathleen M Lucas, Wm R
    Lucas, PhD, Donald H Lucast, PhD, Peter J Lucchesi, PhD, William Luce,
    PhD, George W Luckey, PhD, TD Luckey, PhD, Richard R Ludlam, C T
    Ludwig, H Ludwig, Oliver G Ludwig, PhD, Ralph E Luebs, PhD, C Luger,
    Scott Lugibihl, Caroline N Luhta, Carl A Lukach, PhD, Thomas J Lukas,
    PhD, Forrest Luke, Robert M Lukes, PhD, Rufus Lumry, PhD, Douglas E
    Lund, PhD, R Dwayne Lunsford, PhD, Owen R Lunt, PhD, John H Lupinski,
    PhD, Channing Lushbough, PhD, Carol J Lusty, PhD, Walter Wilhelm G
    Lwowsk, PhD, Arthur Lyall, A Lvin H Lybeck, John Lydic, Thomas L Lye,
    Sidney Lyford Jr, PhD, W R Lyman, Rodney G Lyn, PhD, Keith D Lynch,
    PhD, William S Lyon, Harold Lyons, PhD.

    Category: M
        E Jerome Maas, PhD, Brian W Macarthur, PhD, Howard Maccabee, PhD,
    Bruce Macdonald, Digby D Macdonald, PhD, Michael J MacDonald, MD, PhD,
    P MacDougall, PhD, Robert M MacFarlane, Robert J Macher, Roy P Mackal,
    PhD, Bruce Macke, Joseph E MacMillan, PhD, Patrick K Macy, David A
    Madden, Scott E Maddox, Steve Maddox, Kenneth O Madsen, PhD, Raymond A
    Madson, Robert E Mady, John M Maerker, PhD, Charles A Magarian, Jules J
    Magda, PhD, John L Magee, Thomas Magee, Wm T Magee, PhD, Jerry
    Magloughlin, PhD, Om Prakash Mahajan, PhD, Kent Ira Mahan, PhD, Hugh D
    Maillie, PhD, Robert D Mair, PhD, J Malcom, Robert T Maleeny, Hans
    Weil-Malherbe, PhD, Jim Gorden Malik, PhD, Irving Malkin, James L
    Maller, PhD, D James J O Malley, PhD, Frank B Mallory, PhD, Joseph D
    Mallory, MD, Norman Malm, PhD, Tom Maloney, Joseph T Maloy, PhD, Robert
    Malstrom, PhD, Eugene Maltzeff, Edward Mancilla, Dorinda Mancini, Naga
    B Mandava, PhD, Baldev S Mangat, PhD, Frank D Mango, PhD, J David
    Manley, John D Manley IV, Warren O Manley, Kenneth G Mann, PhD, Francis
    Manning, PhD, Terry Manning, Sven Peter Mannsfield, PhD, Robt Mansell,
    PhD, Lee A Mansfield, Richard Mansfield, Greayer Mansfield-Jones, PhD,
    John R Manspeaker, John Manthey, Ronald Manus, PhD, Karl Maramorosch,
    PhD, L Frank Maranville, PhD, Gladys M Marcelli, PhD, Robert P
    Marchant, R Marcotte, PhD, Herman L Marder, PhD, Anthony Maresca, PhD,
    Brian Maridon, Michael J Marinak, Dan Marinello, Andrew C Marinucci,
    PhD, Michael Markels Jr, PhD, Jay G Marks, PhD, Paul Marnell, PhD,
    Dennis N Marple, PhD, Anthony D Marques, David Marquis, PhD, Marilyn
    Marquis, PhD, Thomas Marrero, PhD, Henry L Marschall, Sullivan Marsden,
    PhD, Wm Michael Marsh, A E Marshall Jr, Christopher R Marshall, PhD,
    Eugene Marshall, Harold G Marshall, PhD, Thomas E Marshall, PhD, David
    E Marshburn, MD, Roger W Marsters, PhD, Richard G Martella, Edward S
    Martin, PhD, Jack Martin, PhD, James W Martin, Michael Martin, PhD,
    Neils Martin, PhD, Peter M Martin, Ralph Martin, Richard Martin, PhD,
    Robert Martin, PhD, Scott Martin, Stanley Martin, T Scott Martin,
    Willard Martin, PhD, Francisco J Martinez, Robert A Martinez, Eric
    Martz, PhD, Carmine Mascoli, PhD, Jerzy Maselko, PhD, Louis T Mashburn,
    PhD, Thompson A Mashburn, PhD, Charles E Mason, PhD, Donald F Mason,
    PhD, Perry S Mason, PhD, Richard R Mason, PhD, Williams Mason, Lenita C
    Massey, MD, John L Massingill Jr, PhD, M Masthay, PhD, R Mastracchio,
    Joseph J Matarelli, William H Matchett, PhD, Robert Matejka, Walter K
    Mathews, PhD, Thomas W Mathewson, Robert J Mathieu, Mike Matis, David
    Mattthew, Charles Sedwick Matthews, PhD, Donald Matthews, Kenneth D
    Matthews, Charles Mattina, PhD, Guy C Mattson, PhD, Samuel A Matz, PhD,
    George T Matzko, PhD, Augustin D Matzo, Ralph W Maughan, Margaret N
    Maxey, MD, PhD, M J Maximovich, PhD, Arthur R Maxwell, PhD, Marion S
    Mayer, PhD, Theodor Mayer, PhD, Greg Mayes, Roger Mayhew, David F
    Maynard, PhD, Donald R Mayo, PhD, Ernst Mayr, PhD, Siegfried T Mayr,
    PhD, James Mayrath, PhD, David Mays, PhD, Larry Mayton, Robert R Mazer,
    S Mazil, PhD, G Mazis, John R McBride, PhD, Joseph J McBride, PhD, Ed
    Mccabbe, William D McCain Jr, PhD, Russell F McCann, Wm M McCardell,
    Danny W McCarthy, PhD, Glenn J McCarthy, Joseph F McCarthy, Niel
    McCarthy, PhD, Richard McCarthy, Richard McCarthy, Morley G McCartney,
    PhD, Clark W McCarty, PhD, Daniel G McChesney, PhD, James K McClanahan,
    Neil McClellan, Thomas McClelland, Chester M McCloskey, PhD, Marvin
    McClung, PhD, Jack L McClure, William Owen McClure, PhD, J R McCord,
    PhD, Joe M McCord, PhD, Rayford L McCoy, Philip G McCracken, PhD, K E
    McCready, Terry W McCreary, PhD, Donald A McCrimmon, PhD, Kevin
    Mccrory, George McCullars, MD, PhD, John Price McCullough, PhD, Kilmer
    S McCully, MD, PhD, John Dennis McCurdy, PhD, Harry C McDaniel, Ivan N
    McDaniel, PhD, Max Paul McDaniel, PhD, William D McDaniel, C McDaniels,
    David A McDevitt, Floyd McDonald, John McDonald, PhD, Lynn D Mcdonald,
    PhD, Mickey McDonald, Ted McDonald, PhD, Leslie M McDonough, PhD,
    Robert I McDougall, PhD, Edward McDowell, PhD, Thomas D Mcdowell, PhD,
    Wilbur B McDowell, PhD, Jennifer McDuffie, PhD, Paul McElfresh, PhD,
    Paul McElligott, PhD, Robert McElroy, J W Mcfarland, PhD, Omer H McGee
    Jr, Bill Mcgowan, PhD, Daniel McGuire, Mark McGuire, PhD, Stephen E
    McGuire, PhD, Lawrence Mchargue, PhD, Kenneth L McHugh, PhD, Charles G
    McKay, Roy McKay, William D McKee, PhD, Curus Milo McKell, PhD, William
    J McKenna, John J Mcketta Jr, PhD, Floyd McKinnerney, Michael Mckinney,
    PhD, Jerry McKnight, Stephen McKown, D McLain, PhD, Jerry D Mcmahon,
    Curtis J McMinn, Bryce H McMullen, PhD, Wilfred Mcmurphy, PhD, Ruth D
    McNair, PhD, Steve McNeely, PhD, William McNeill, PhD, Jasper L
    McPhail, MD, Clinton M McPherson, PhD, Richard McPherson, Robert
    Mcpherson, L D Mcqueen, PhD, Larry G McRae, PhD, Fred McSavis, PhD, C L
    McSpadden, Harry A McVeigh, PhD, David McVey, PhD, George W Mead,
    Robert C Meaders, Dean Meadows, Susan L Mearns, PhD, Alan J
    Mechtenberg, Richard Y Meelheim, PhD, E K Megerle, George H Megerle,
    Lester Meidenbauer, Dale J Meier, PhD, Jimmy Meier, Walter T Meinert,
    Norman A Meinhardt, PhD, Clifford L Meints, PhD, Merlin Meisner, Peter
    D Meister, PhD, George W Melchior, PhD, Robert F Rederick Meldau,
    Rodney Melgard, James R Mellberg, Bohdan Melnyk, Henry P Meloche, PhD,
    Daniel T Meloon, PhD, James R Melton, PhD, Jerry Melton, Robert S
    Melville, PhD, Ken Melybe, George D Mendenhall, PhD, Steven Menkus,
    Robert B Meny, Carl S Menzies, PhD, Alan C Merchant, MD, Paul B Merkel,
    PhD, Robert Mermelstein, PhD, John Lafayette Merriam, Ronald Merrill,
    PhD, Charles P Merrimen, PhD, Seymour Merrin, PhD, Allen Merritt, PhD,
    Henry N Merritt, PhD, Mark B Merritt, Robt E Merritt, Ross A Merritt, F
    P Mertens, PhD, Karen Mertins, Paul Louis Merz, PhD, Calvin D
    Messesmith, PhD, James Metcalf, Dean Metter, PhD, T Metzgar, PhD,
    Edmond G Meyer, PhD, Frederick G Meyer, PhD, Richard C Meyer, PhD,
    Robert Meyer, PhD, Earl L Meyers, PhD, Joseph N Miale, Edwin Michael,
    PhD, Wm E Michael, Wayne Michaelchuck, Nicholas Michaels, PhD, Lawrence
    A Michel, Lloyd R Michels, PhD, Therese Michels, PhD, David Michelson,
    M B Mick, Tim K Mickey, Duane S Mikkelsen, PhD, Douglas G Mikolasek,
    PhD, Daniel W Miles, PhD, William Miles, PhD, Otto Mileti, Richard
    James Millard, Alan Millen, Alan D Miller, PhD, Daniel Newton Miller,
    PhD, David R Miller, PhD, David W Miller, Dennis Miller, Dick Miller,
    PhD, Foil A Miller, PhD, Gail Miller, Gene Miller, PhD, Harold W
    Miller, James L Miller, PhD, Joseph H Miller, PhD, Larry Miller, Laura
    S Miller, Lawrence Miller, Lee Miller, Leslie T Miller, R Miller, PhD,
    Richard Miller, Robert C Miller, PhD, W Jack Miller, PhD, William
    Knight Miller, PhD, Spencer R Milliken, PhD, Ira K Mills, PhD, Jack
    Mills, PhD, Norman T Mills, Robert M Milton, PhD, Bryant A Miner, PhD,
    Robert S Miner, Jr, PhD, Thomas Miranda, PhD, Nawin Mishra, PhD, A
    Mishulovich, PhD, Ben G Mitchell, G C Mitchell, Patricia Mitchell,
    William W Mitchell, PhD, Arup P Mitra, Perry J Mixon, Gerald J
    Mizejewski, PhD, Julie A Mobley, John E Mock, PhD, Gabor Mocz, PhD, H
    Walter Moeller, Henry Moeller, PhD, James Moeller, William R Moeller,
    Marvin J Mohlenkamp, PhD, Jesse Mohrbacher, Javid Mohtasham, PhD,
    Albert J Moll, PhD, Jacob T Moll, MD, Kenneth Molly, Leo Monaghan,
    Mahmoud Abdel Monem, PhD, D Manos, Larry S Monroe, PhD, Harold Gene
    Monsimer, PhD, Al Montgomery, Gerald Montgomery, Monty Montgomery,
    David C Moody, PhD, Marcia Moody, PhD, Scott M Moody, PhD, Joan M
    Moore, Larry W Moore, PhD, Leonard O Moore, PhD, Richard Moore, PhD,
    Richard N Moore, Roger Moore, Tom D Moore, Walter C Moore, Peter T
    Mora, PhD, Ralph Moradiellos, Alice Moran, PhD, Moran, PhD, Ramon
    Morano, Timothy A Morck, PhD, George S Morefield, Dave Morgan, Lucian L
    Morgan, Paul Morgan, Stanley L Morgan, Thomas K Morgan, PhD, William T
    Morgan, PhD, David L Mork, PhD, Robert Morley, PhD, P H Mormile,
    Antonio Moroni, PhD, Paul H Morphy, Howard A Morris, PhD, John Morris,
    PhD, M C Morris, PhD, Paul Morris, PhD, Perry Morris, Robert Morris,
    Robert Morris, William E Morris, M E Morrison, PhD, Morrison, PhD, O
    Charles Morrison, Morrow, PhD, Wm S Morrow, PhD, George Morse, Jerome G
    Morse, PhD, Joe Mortensen, Richard F Mortensen, PhD, Raymond L Morter,
    DVM, PhD, Perry Morton, PhD, Susan Morton, T R Morton, Wayne Morton,
    Jacob Mortvedt, PhD, Thomas Moseley, Melvyn W Mosher, PhD, John R
    Mosley, PhD, Ronald J Mosso, Eldridge M Mount, PhD, Eldridge M Mount
    III, PhD, Charles F Mowry, Lee W Mozes, PhD, Walter J Mozgala, Barbara
    Mroczkowski, PhD, Richard C Much, Rosa M C Muchovej, PhD, Gordon M
    Muchow, PhD, Wim L Mueller, Robert Z Muggli, PhD, Francis Mulcahy, PhD,
    Jim Mullen, L Muller, Dennis M Mulvey, PhD, Dennis Mulvey, PhD, Karen E
    Mumm, T Munasinghe, PhD, David Munn, PhD, Dan Muno, Emil Moise Murad,
    Craig B Murchinson, PhD, Pamela W Murchinson, PhD, Fenoi Murdock, PhD,
    Stephen K Murdock, Richard C Murgittroyd, Robert S Murphey, PhD,
    Alexander J Murphy, PhD, Daniel B Murphy, PhD, John Murphy, PhD,
    Francis J Murray, PhD, James T Murrell, PhD, J Muse, PhD, James R
    Musick, PhD, R Musselman, PhD, Walter F Muzacz, Thomas J Muzik, PhD,
    John Mycroft, PhD, Clifford A Myers, Earl E Myers, PhD, Gerald B Myers,
    MD, Lyle L Myers, PhD, Ronald F Myers, PhD, Victor Mylroie, Thomas L
    Myron, Norbert R Myslins, PhD, Charles H Myslinsky.

    Category: N
        Robert Naegele, PhD, Danny Naegle, Kenneth A Nagy, PhD, Yathi
    Naidu, PhD, Gangadharan V M Nair, PhD, John D Nalewaja, PhD, Eugene
    Malinowksi, PhD, Robert K Nance, Richard Narske, PhD, Ruth Naser, Roger
    D Nass, John Nasser, Roger Natzke, PhD, James K Neathery, PhD, Kenneth
    H Nebel, John E Nebergall, Daniel W Nebert, MD, Dana Neely, James W
    Nehls, PhD, Thomas Neil, PhD, Robert Overman Nellums, George Nelms,
    PhD, Charles A Nelson, PhD, Errol Nelson, George D Nelson, R T Nelson,
    Richard D Nelson, Ronald Nelson, Stephen Nelson, Melodee Nemeth, Jerry
    E Nendon, A David Nesbitt, Ray B Nesbitt, Stanley Nesheim, Lowell E
    Netherton, PhD, Arthur Nethery, PhD, Joseph Navin Neucere, Harry J
    Neumiller Jr, PhD, Edward F Neuzil, PhD, Martin Newcomb, PhD, Roger
    Newell, PhD, John M Newey, Marlyn Newhouse, PhD, H Newsom, PhD, Geo S
    Nichols, PhD, Marcella Nichols, Richard A Nichols, PhD, Robert Fletcher
    Nickerson, PhD, Michael Nicol, Paula W Nicola, Dennis A Nie, James
    Niebaum, Edmund L Niedzielski, PhD, R Nieffenegger, Donald R Nielsen,
    PhD, John Merle Nielsen, PhD, Ronald A Nielsen, DDS, Joseph A Nieroski,
    John Tse Tso Ning, PhD, George Niznik, PhD, Christopher P Nizzi, Ella
    Mae Noffsinger, Jim Noffsinger, PhD, Daniel Nogales, PhD, Edward J
    Nolan, PhD, Martin Nolan, Wayland Noland, PhD, Leo A Noll, PhD, James A
    Nollet, Henry F Nolting, Henry F Nolting, David B Norby, Peter J Nord,
    PhD, Carroll R Norden, PhD, Ivan Nordin, PhD, Randy Noriyuki, Edward D
    North, PhD, L D Northcott, Dexter B Northrop, PhD, Scott H Northrup,
    PhD, Lilburn L Norton, PhD, Robert Norton, S H Norton, PhD, Wm T
    Norton, PhD, Susan Norwood, Thomas E Noseworthy, James A Novitsky, PhD,
    Robert Novy, PhD, Leonard James Nugent, PhD, Wm R Nummy, PhD, Ann T
    Nunnemaker, Frank Q Nuttall, MD, PhD, William E Nutter, PhD.

    Category: O
        Harold Oatfield, Gerald O'Bannon, PhD, Richard D Obarr, PhD, Donald
    Oberleas, PhD, Thomas W Obrien, PhD, John L Occolowitz, David Odde,
    PhD, George Odoherty, PhD, Vencil O' Donnell, John A Oeffner, Carl
    Oelze, Charles P Ofarrel, PhD, Marvin L Oftedahl, PhD, Naomi N
    Ogimachi, PhD, Pearl R Ogle, PhD, David J Ogren, Richard Oldack, Geo A
    Oldham, Bernie D Oliver, Kelly H Oliver, PhD, Lawrence Oliver, PhD, E
    Jerry Oliveras, Edwin A Olson, PhD, Mark Olson, Robert J Olson, Joanne
    M Ondrako, PhD, Wm D E Oneill, PhD, Anatoli Onopchenko, PhD, Joseph W
    Opie, PhD, Peg Opolski, Roger Orcutt, PhD, Stephen Orcutt, Fernando
    Ore, PhD, Errol Orebaugh, PhD, Gus G Orphanides, PhD, Demetrius G
    Orphanos, PhD, David A Orser, Ernest Orsi, PhD, Gary Orvis, Osborn, W E
    Osborne, Bert Osen, Maurice J Osman, Dave Osterhout, William Osterloh,
    PhD, Dan Ostlind, PhD, Prosper Ostrowski, Robert Otham, Edward O'Toole,
    PhD, Haruko Otoshi, Michael J Otto, PhD, Augustua C Ouano, PhD, G Out,
    PhD, Mack Overton, Dennis Owen, James R Owen, PhD, Terrence Owen, PhD,
    A D Owings, PhD, Oyelola, PhD, Jim L Ozbun, PhD.

    Category: P
        Gilbert Pacey, PhD, C Subah Packer, PhD, Richard Milton Paddison,
    MD, Algred Pagano, PhD, David S Page, PhD, Joseph R Pagnozzi, Ruth
    Painter, Felice Charles Palermo, Jay Palmer, PhD, John D Palmer, PhD,
    Timothy T Palmer, PhD, Muriel S Palmgren, PhD, Gyan S Pande, PhD, V N
    Pandey, PhD, Jack S Panze, Andreas M Papas, PhD, Joseph Papenfuss, PhD,
    James Pappas, Hemant B Parikh, Edward James Parish, PhD, Richard L
    Parish, PhD, Gerald M Park, Robert Park, PhD, William Park, Cyril
    Parkanyi, PhD, David Parker, George Parker, Nina Parker, PhD, T Parker,
    Thomas Parker, R M Parkhurst, Robert Parkhurst, Arthur Parks Sr, H L
    Parks, Lloyd M Parks, PhD, James Floud Parr, PhD, Stephen L Parrott,
    PhD, Robert W Parry, PhD, Michael L Parsons, PhD, Alice B Parsons,
    Stuart Parsons, Ralph E Pasceri, PhD, Mark Pastore, Robert Patarcity,
    Charlie Patchett, H Richard Pate, Mitchell Pate, Kirit Patel, Mangal
    Patel, Natu C Patel, P V Patel, PhD, Richard Paterson-Jones, James H
    Patrick, Gaylord P Patten, PhD, James C Patterson, James H Patterson,
    PhD, Roe Patterson, Sharon Patterson, Timothy Patterson, Wilbur I
    Patterson, PhD, James W Patton, PhD, Rolf Paul, PhD, Craig L Paulsen,
    Patricia Paulson-Ehrhardt, Albert Pavlic, PhD, Paul Pawlisch, PhD,
    Barry Payne, Dewitt A Payne, PhD, James Payne, PhD, Raymond A Paynter,
    PhD, Andy Peabody, Val E Peacock, PhD, Albert M Pearson, PhD, Anthony
    Pearson, PhD, Earl Pearson, PhD, F G Pearson, PhD, Doug Pease, Richard
    S Peckham, PhD, Richard Pedersen, Floy Pelletier, PhD, Floy Pelletier,
    PhD, Hugo Gabriel Pena, PhD, David Pendery, Stanley J Penkala, PhD,
    Mary A Penland, Robert Pennak, PhD, Charles R Penquite, Jeffrey G
    Penta, Wendell Pepperdine, PhD, Armand B Pepperman, PhD, J Percha,
    Luzviminda K Peredo, MD, James M Perel, PhD, Arthur S Perkins, FM
    Perkins, Thomas Perkins, PhD, Bill Perry, George Perry, PhD, John E
    Perry, Mikhail I Petaev, PhD, Douglas Peters, Elroy Peters, PhD,
    Raymond Peters, Joseph C Petersen, PhD, Al Peterson, Arthur W Peterson,
    David Peterson, PhD, Raymond W Peterson, Peter P Petro, PhD, George
    Petrosky, Thomas G Petrulas, Heriberto Petschek, Lawrence M Pfeffer,
    PhD, Douglas R Pfeiffer, PhD, Glenn Pfendt, Donald Pfittsiher, Robert
    Phalen, PhD, Tuan Duc Pham, PhD, Raj Phansalkar, PhD, George C Phelps,
    B Phillips, PhD, C Eric Phillips, Calvin Phillips, Dwayne Phillips,
    Ernest Phillips, John Phillips, John Phillips, Keith Phillips, Mitchel
    Phillips, MD, Steven J Phillips, MD, Wendell F Phillips, Wallae C
    Philoon, PhD, Cu Phung, PhD, George J Piazza, PhD, Perry T Piccard, Max
    Pickerill, PhD, Sean Piecuch, Matthew Lee Pierce, PhD, Susan K Prierce,
    PhD, Edwin T Pieski, PhD, Charles E Pietri, William J Pietrusiak,
    Arthur J Pignocco, PhD, D Pigott, PhD, Charles Pike, Paul E Pilkington,
    Vincent J Pileggi, PhD, Laurence O Pilgeram, PhD, Hyman Ira Pilgrim,
    PhD, David Pimentel, PhD, Bob Pinner, Anton J Pintar, PhD, William R
    Pioli, Michael R Piotrowski, PhD, Bernard Wallace Pipkin, PhD, Anthony
    W Pircio, PhD, Ed Piszynski, William Pitt, PhD, John P Pittman, PhD,
    Peter Pityk, Michael Piznar, James C Plagge, PhD, Ronald Plakke, PhD,
    Alan Edward Platt, PhD, Larry Plonsker, PhD, Karl W Plumlee, PhD,
    William A Plummer, PhD, Joseph S Plunkett, Wendy K Pogozelski, PhD, B
    Poling, PhD, Jack J Polise, Charles B Pollock, Karl Hallman Pool, PhD,
    George Poole, H K Poole, David D Porter, MD, Edward S Porter, Frederic
    E Porter, PhD, William W Porterfield, PhD, Denzil Poston, PhD, Harvey W
    Posvic, PhD, Louis Potash, PhD, Dale Potter, PhD, George Potter, PhD,
    Kenneth Potter, Rainer Potthast, PhD, Daniel B Pourreau, PhD, Joseph J
    Poveromo, PhD, Susan Powell, Kendall G Powers, PhD, Ernest Ppospischil,
    David Pramer, PhD, Hullahalli Prasan, PhD, Eugene Praschan, Ronald
    Prebys, Frank M Precopio, PhD, Prendegast, PhD, Richard S Prentice,
    William Preston, Martin Preus, PhD, Casey Jo Price, George W Price,
    Harold Anthony Price, PhD, R E Price, Steven Price, PhD, J Prieditis,
    PhD, Char W Prince, PhD, David Prinzing, Ronald L Prior, PhD, James E
    Pritchard, PhD, Barry Profeta, B Prokai, PhD, William H Prokop, Gary
    Proksch, PhD, Leon Prosky, PhD, Alan L Prouty, Michael Pruchnicki, MD,
    Zenon C Prusas, Michael J Pryor, PhD, William Pryor, PhD, Andrezej
    Przyjazny, PhD, Ronald J Pugmire, PhD, T O Purcell, PhD, E Dale
    Purkhiser, PhD, Charles Putnam, J W Putt, David Puzan, Albert Pye, PhD,
    Orrea F Pye, PhD, Eugene Pyrcioch, Louis Pytlewski, PhD.

    Category: Q
        Forrest Quackenbush, PhD, Earl R Quandt, PhD, James Quandt, James R
    Quinan, PhD, William Quisenberry.

    Category: R
        Daryl Raabe, Mj Rabinonitz, PhD, Joseph Rachlin, PhD, Jeff Racho,
    Charles Raczowski, PhD, Frederick J Radd, PhD, Richard Radeka, David R
    Raden, Rodney W Radke, PhD, Michael T Radvan, Keen Rafferty, PhD,
    Ronald O Rahn, PhD, Elliott Raisen, PhD, Charles Raley, PhD, C L Rambo,
    Harmon H Ramey, PhD, Alvin O Ramsley, Paul Ramstad, PhD, Philip G Rand,
    PhD, Charles C Randall, MD, Wm J Randall, PhD, Ann Randolph, PhD,
    Margene G Ranieri, PhD, Tom Rank, PhD, Stephen C Raper, Henry Rapoport,
    PhD, James B Rasmussen, Lowell Rasmussen, PhD, Lee Ratcliff, Mike
    Ratcliff, Egan J Rattin, Donald O Rausch, PhD, Gerald W Rausch, PhD,
    Michael Rawley, Stanley R Rawn Jr, Richard L Raymond, PhD, Stuart
    Raynolds, PhD, Gary D Rayson, PhD, Fred Reader, D L Reasons, Theodore L
    Rebstock, PhD, K Redig, Erick L Redmon, Jory Redo, PhD, Redwine, PhD,
    Allan H Reed, PhD, Sherman Kennedy Reed, PhD, Thomas Reed, PhD, Norman
    V Rees, Homer E Reeves, PhD, Terry A Reeves, MD, John Reffner, PhD,
    Thomas R Rehm, PhD, Claude V Reich, PhD, Alfred D Reichle, PhD, George
    Reid, PhD, William Reid, PhD, Anthony A Reidlinger, PhD, Richard
    Reinhardt, David Reiser, PhD, Richard Reising, PhD, Harold B Reisman,
    PhD, Paul Reiter, PhD, Richard H Reitz, PhD, Joseph F Remar, PhD,
    George Remmenga, Susan Rempe, PhD, Harris B Renfroe, PhD, Edward G
    Rennels, PhD, Hans H Rennhard, PhD, Kermit Reppond, F E Resch, Robert
    Resnik, PhD, William B Retallick, PhD, Melvin Rettig, George H
    Reussner, William R Rex, Walter L Reyland, Charles A Reynolds, PhD,
    Gary Reynolds, Joe E Reynolds, Max J Reynolds, James Rhoades, PhD,
    Richard G Rhoades, PhD, James D Rhodes, Kevin Rhodes, Robert A Rhodes,
    PhD, Mary Rhyne, James K Rice, Richard Rice, PhD, Dennis Rich, Bill
    Richards, Charles D Richards, PhD, Joseph D Richards, Gerald Laverne
    Richardson, Stephen G Richardson, PhD, Verlin H Richardson, PhD, Nancy
    D Richert, PhD, Frank Richey, PhD, Ed Richman, PhD, Selma Richaman,
    James M Richmond, PhD, Timothy Richmond, Thomas Richter, Robert Ricker,
    PhD, Nr Ricks, Ralph E Ricksecker, David Riddle, PhD, Susan Riebe,
    Martin Max Rieger, PhD, Paul E Rieke, PhD, Bernard J Riley, Cody Riley,
    J Herbert Riley, John T Riley, PhD, Michael Riley, Jerry F Rimmer,
    Beverly Riordan, Harold C Ripley, David Ririe, PhD, David Rislove, PhD,
    Harold W Ritchey, PhD, William Ritchey, PhD, Gary Alan Ritchie, PhD,
    Harlan Ritchie, PhD, Martin Ritchie, PhD, James S Ritscher, PhD, Robert
    B Ritter, Steven J Titter, PhD, Paul Rivers, PhD, John V Roach, Kenneth
    Roane, Ernest A Robbins, PhD, George W Robbins, Samuel E Roberts, F H
    Robertson, James A Robertson, PhD, Jerry Lewis Robertson, PhD, John S
    Robertson, PhD, Wilbert J Robertson, PhD, Gordon W Robertstad, PhD,
    Albert Robinson, PhD, Arthur B Robinson, PhD, Geor H Robinson, M
    Robinson, PhD, R E Robinson, PhD, Robert Robinson, PhD, T F Robinson,
    PhD, Terence L Robinson, PhD, Zachary W Robinson, Ken Robirds, John M
    Roblin, PhD, J La Rochelle, PhD, Peter A Rock, PhD, Robert M Roecker,
    PhD, Morris Rockstein, PhD, David Rockstraw, PhD, Theodore Rockwell,
    PhD, James W Rodde, Billy R Rodgers, PhD, Michael Rodgers, PhD, Harold
    V Rodriguez, PhD, Arthur P Roeh, Bruce A Rogers, Gordon H Rogers,
    Gwenda Rogers, Randy Rogers, Robert W Rogers, PhD, Tom Rogers, PhD,
    Charles R Rohde, PhD, Oliver Roholt, PhD, Dwayne Rohweder, PhD, Robert
    G Rohwer, Louis D Rollmann, PhD, Louis Rombach, PhD, Thomas Ronay, PhD,
    Wendell Hofma Rooks, Robt L Rooney, Simpson Roper, Robert Rorschach,
    Christopher La Rosa, Eugene J Rosa, PhD, John S Roscoe, PhD, Allan B
    Rose, Milton J Rosen, PhD, Ward Rosen, Richard A Rosenberg, PhD, Steven
    L Rosenberg, PhD, William E Rosenberg, Lawrence Rosendale, Leonard
    Rosenfeld, Bruce D Rosenquist, PhD, Harold L Rosential, PhD, Joseph
    Rosi, Randy Rosiere, PhD, James Ross, John P Ross, PhD, John Ross,
    William F Ross, Charlie Rossman, George Rothrock, PhD, Gaylord E Rough,
    PhD, George E Rouse, PhD, Verald K Row, Dighton F Rowan, PhD, James
    Lincoln Rowe, PhD, Melinda Rowe, Rex Rowell, Neil W Rowland, PhD, Brian
    Rowles, Ibrahim Rubeiz, PhD, Mae K Rubin, PhD, David D Rubis, PhD, Jim
    R Rucker, Thomas A Ruddin, MD, Charles F Rudershausen, PhD, Thomas
    Rudy, PhD, Rolland Rue, PhD, Robert H Ruf, PhD, Sue Ruff, John Ruhl, T
    H Ruland, Melvin D Rumbaugh, PhD, J H Rumely, PhD, Rosmarie Von Rumker,
    PhD, Paul Runge, Kelli Runnels, PhD, Olaf Runquist, PhD, Charles V
    Runyon, A L Ruoff, PhD, Robert Rupert, John A Rupley, PhD, George
    Rushton, Louis Rusoff, PhD, David Russell, Robert R Russell, PhD, Ross
    F Russell, PhD, Daberath Ryan, James M Ryan, PhD, James Ryan, James W
    Ryan, PhD, Julian Gilbert Ryan, Michele M Ryan, Timothy M Ryan, Wayne
    Ryan, PhD, Charles J Ryant, Jr, PhD, John Rybicki, David F Ryder,
    Alicja M Kirkien Rzeszotarsk, PhD, Waclaw J Rzeszotarski, PhD.

    Category: S
        Edward Sabo, John P Sachs, PhD, George D Sadler, PhD, J Evan
    Sadler, PhD, Leon Y Sadler III, PhD, W Alter Carl Saeman, Alfred
    Saffer, PhD, M M Said, PhD, George S Sajner, Alexander A Sakhnovsky,
    Mamdouh M Salama, PhD, Erdjan Salih, PhD, Wilmar L Salo, PhD, Robert H
    Salvesen, PhD, Paul Salzman, PhD, Dominick A Sama, PhD, Richard Sama, R
    E Sameth, B Samples, Edward Samsel, PhD, Frederick E Samson, PhD,
    Mohammad Samiullah, PhD, Jose Sanchez, PhD, Katherine Sanchez, John
    Paul Sanders, PhD, Burton B Sandiford, B Sandri, Robt Lee Sandridge,
    PhD, Gary L Sanford, PhD, Robt A Sanford, PhD, John T Sanner, John
    Sans, PhD, A Sam Sarem, PhD, Herbert P Sarett, PhD, Peter T Sarjeant,
    PhD, Somnath Sarkar, PhD, Daryl Sas, PhD, Joachim Sasse, PhD, Rudolph
    Sattler, Bryan B Sauer, PhD, Sally Saunders, Walt Saunders, David R
    Savello, PhD, Emilio A Savinelli, PhD, Kathleen Kido-Savino, Samuel
    Sawan, PhD, Frederick G Sawyer, PhD, Frederick Sawyer, PhD, James
    Scala, PhD, Frank Scalia, PhD, Barrett L Scallet, PhD, Charles J
    Scanio, PhD, Paul Scardaville, Henry F Schaefe, PhD, Frederic C
    Schaefer, PhD, Howard J Schaeffer, PhD, Robert R Schalles, PhD, James
    Schammerhorn, Carl Schauble, PhD, Gary Scheeser, Daniel Scheffel, Frank
    R Scheid Jr, Francis M Scheidt, PhD, Fred M Schell, PhD, Karl A
    Schellenberg, PhD, Jay Ruffner Schenck, PhD, Timothy Wm Schenz, PhD,
    Robert J Scheuplein, PhD, Alexander Schilling, PhD, F P Schilling, PhD,
    Keith Schimmel, PhD, Ray Schindler, Chester Schink, PhD, Schlichting,
    PhD, Clifford L Schmidt, PhD, Justin O Schmidt, PhD, Werner H Schmidt,
    Edward A Schmitt, Alvin Schmucker, Charles D Schmulbach, PhD, Robert C
    Schnabel, Charles F Schneider, Jr, Edward P Schneider, Howard A
    Schneider, PhD, J Schneller III, PhD, Arthur W Schnizer, PhD, Donald
    Schoenberg, Helem Schols, Melvin Schonhorst, PhD, Rex Schorzman, Robert
    Joseph Schramel, William Schrand, Mary G Schreckenberg, PhD, Robert A
    Schreiber, PhD, William Schreiber, PhD, Felix Schreiner, PhD, Alan D
    Schroeder, Alan Schroeder, Donald Schroeder, Hartmut Schroeder, PhD,
    James W Schroeder, Robert G Schroeder, Robert S Schroeder, PhD, Robert
    Schubring, Richard J Schuerger, PhD, Joseph Schufle, PhD, Charles M
    Schultz, Gerald Schultz, Roland Schultz, PhD, Robert Schumacher, Robert
    Schumacher, Garmond G Schurr, Mark Schusler, George W Schustek, Donald
    Frank Schutz, PhD, Peter T Schuyler, Karl A Schwape, Robert Schwartz,
    PhD, Henry G Schwartzberg, PhD, Jeffrey A Schwarz, Jeffry Schwarz,
    Florian Schwarzkopf, PhD, Florian Schwarzkopf, PhD, Otto R Schweitzer,
    PhD, Albert E Schweizer, PhD, Thomas R Schwerdt, George W Schwert, PhD,
    Howard Schwiebert, John J Sciarra, PhD, David F Scott, PhD, Deborah J
    Scott, PhD, J O Scott, James A Scott, John W Scott, PhD, Michael
    Screpetis, MD, Michael E Scribner, PhD, D G Scruggs, Walter T Scudder,
    PhD, Spencer L Seager, PhD, WH Seaman, George Sears, J Glenn Seay, Jack
    B Secor, PhD, Joseph Sedberry, PhD, Richard A See, David W Seegmiller,
    PhD, Ralph W Seelke, PhD, Charles F Seger III, Paul A Seib, PhD, Lewis
    S Seiden, PhD, Frank R Seidl, William Edgar Seifert, PhD, Harvey N
    Seiger, PhD, John H Seipel, PhD, Ronald Sekellick, Paul B Selby, PhD,
    Seleem, PhD, Maurie Semel, PhD, Robert Seng, Taze L Senn, PhD, James C
    Sentz, PhD, Alan J Senzel, PhD, Lisa Servais, William G Setser, Earl Wm
    Seugling, PhD, John Severns, Raymond F Sewell, PhD, Richard W Sewell,
    Frederick H Sexsmith, PhD, Frank David Seydel, PhD, Fritiof S
    Fjostrand, MD, PhD, James Shaeffer, PhD, James Shaffner, Donald G
    Shaheen, Terry Shannon, Kenneth N Sharitz, Sharkey, PhD, Dexter B
    Sharp, PhD, Kenneth Sharp, Sharp, Grant William Sharpe, PhD, M L
    Sharrah, PhD, Elwood R Shaw, Gordon Shaw, Richard Shaw, PhD, Sandy
    Shaw, Warren D Shaw, James J Shea, William Sheasley, PhD, Jennifer P
    Sheets, Ralph W Sheets, PhD, Paul Sheil, Bob Sheldon, Joseph Sheldon,
    Harvey D Shell, PhD, George C Shelton, PhD, David P Shepherd, PhD,
    Raymond L Shepherd, PhD, Peter Sheridan, Anthony Sherman, PhD, Joseph
    Sherrill, PhD, Frederick A Sherrin, Dennis Shevlin, PhD, Kevin J
    Shields, Robert M Shields Jr, PhD, Frederick F Shih, PhD, Avner
    Shilman, PhD, Vernon J Shiner, PhD, Lee Shiozawa, Charles Wm Shipman,
    PhD, Gene M Shirley, PhD, Frank Connard Shirley, PhD, Gilbert R
    Shockley, PhD, Steven E Shoelson, MD, PhD, Robert S Shoemaker, Merle D
    Shogren, Robert L Shone, PhD, John J Shore III, James Edward Shottafer,
    PhD, Adolph C Shotts, Loy William Shreve, PhD, Craig E Shuler, Patrick
    J Shuler, PhD, John B Shumaker, PhD, Cornwell Shuman, PhD, Eunice C
    Shuytema, PhD, Barbara Shykoff, PhD, Ronald E Siatkowski, PhD, Kent
    Sickmeyer, Dave Seibel, Merlin R Siefken, Steve Seifried, PhD, Arthur
    Siegel, John P Siegel, MD, Wm C Siegel, William Siegfried, James Ernest
    Siggins, PhD, Charles Signorino, PhD, John W Sij, PhD, Michael P
    Siklosi, PhD, Leonard S Silbert, PhD, Claude W Sill, Lucila Silva,
    Herbert Silverman, PhD, J Silverman, PhD, Walter Lawrence Silvernail,
    PhD, L Simerl, PhD, John Simion, Karl L Simkins, PhD, Joseph H Simmons,
    Carl Simms, Dorothy M Simon, PhD, Edward Simon, PhD, RJ Simon, Walter
    Simons, A Craig Simpson, John Simpson, Lynn Simpson, Michael B Simpson,
    Donald E Sims, Suman Priyadarshi Harain Sin, PhD, G Gail Singh, Vernon
    L Singleton, PhD, Kenneth Sinks, Lou Di Sioudi, Richard H Sioui, PhD,
    David M Sipe, PhD, Herbert H Sipe, PhD, Charles C Sisler, Mareu A
    Sitarsici, PhD, Sitarski, PhD, Richard L Sitton, Ron Sizemure, William
    Skagerberg, Mertonm Skaggs, Hugh B Skees, John R Skelley, Jerome P
    Skelly, PhD, Edward L Skidmore, PhD, Leslie D Skinner, Earl Skogley,
    PhD, Lawrence Skromme, Bolesh J Skutnik, PhD, Philip E Slade, PhD,
    Robert E Slater, W Roy Slaunwhite, PhD, Nelson Sigman Slavik, PhD, Jane
    A Slezak, PhD, Nathan H Sloane, PhD, A Slomowitz, DDS, Earl R Sluder,
    PhD, Thomas E Slusher, Gilbert Small, PhD, Glen Wm Smalley, PhD, James
    B Smart, PhD, William Donald Smart, Ronald Smedberg, PhD, Darryl E
    Smika, PhD, Robert Smiley, PhD, Alan Smith, PhD, Augustin Smith,
    Augustine N Smith, Bruce G Smith, MD, C Lavett Smith, PhD, Dale Smith,
    PhD, Dana L Smith, Danny Smith, David A Smith, PhD, Deboyd L Smith,
    Delmont K Smith, PhD, Elwin E Smith, Eric S Smith, Francis Marion
    Smith, Garmond S Smith, PhD, Garry A Smith, PhD, George Smith, Gilbert
    H Smith, PhD, Herbert L Smith, PhD, Ivan K Smith, James L Smith, PhD,
    James R Smith, Jay H Smith, PhD, John E Smith, PhD, Louis C Smith, PhD,
    Marian J Smith, PhD, Mark A Smith, PhD, Marvin F Smith Jr, Maurice
    Smith, Maynard E Smith, PhD, Nathan L Smith, PhD, Paul V Smith, PhD,
    Percy Lieghton Smith, Robert L Smith, PhD, Roger C Smith, Sam C Smith,
    PhD, Shofner Smith, T J Lee Smith, Thomas E Smith, PhD, Thomas Smith,
    PhD, Tim Smith, Wesley D Smith, PhD, Clara Smith Craver, Eileen
    Smithers, Smithrud, PhD, G Ray Smithson, Jr, Joseph Smock, Tom Smoot,
    PhD, Bronislaw B Smura, PhD, Snavely, Helen Snedberg, Richard L Snow,
    PhD, Thomas M Snow, David Snyder, PhD, Dudley C Snyder, PhD, George
    Snyder, PhD, Jack A Snyder, PhD, Joe Snyder, William H Snyer, Dave A
    Soerens, PhD, Lon Solomita, Xiaouhi M Song, PhD, P Sonnet, PhD, Quentin
    F Soper, PhD, Thomas M Sopko, David P Sorensen, PhD, Armand M Souby,
    Chris Soule, Everett Southam, PhD, Parks Souther, William Southern,
    PhD, Larry Southwick, Edmund Sowa, John R Sowa, PhD, Edward E Sowers,
    PhD, Darrel H Spackman, PhD, Sparks, PhD, Tom Sparks, Dean Spatz,
    Gerald E Speck, Robert L Speckman, Abraham Spector, PhD, Michael P
    Spector, PhD, Richard C Spectors, Jack M Speece, Steven Tremble Spees,
    PhD, John L Speier, PhD, Philip Speir, Aaron B Speirs, Kemet Spence,
    PhD, James P Serber, Richard J Sperley, PhD, Leroy Spilde, PhD, Leo H
    Spinar, PhD, Bill Spindler, Robert F Spink, Jan J Spitzer, PhD, Paul
    Spivey, Gary A Splitter, PhD, Marie T Spoerlein, PhD, Ralph J Spohn,
    PhD, Robert B Spokane, PhD, Lucian M Sprague, PhD, Robert C Springborn,
    PhD, Allan Springer, PhD, David T Springer, PhD, Timothy A Springer,
    PhD, J C Sprtsbergen, PhD, G J Sprokel, PhD, Michael Spurlock, PhD,
    Alexander Squire, James P Srebro, Charles St Jean, DVM, Thomas M
    Stabler, William Jacob Stadelman, PhD, Edward Stadelmann, PhD, Leon
    Stadtherr, PhD, Alice Stafford, Mark Stahmann, PhD, Joseph Staley,
    Gilbert Stallknecht, PhD, Charles H Stammer, PhD, Daniel Stamps, Norman
    W Standish, PhD, Edward A Stanley, PhD, E J Stanton, Gary M Stanwood,
    Mark A Staples, PhD, Stephen E Stapp, Don S Starcher, James C Stark,
    PhD, Kelly L Stark, Donn Starkey, Robt I Starr, PhD, Arnold E Steele,
    Kathleen P Steele, PhD, Sanford L Steelman, PhD, Stephen N Stehlik,
    Howard Steinberg, PhD, Wm Stekiel, PhD, Peter Stelos, PhD, Paul
    Stelzner, David G Stephan, PhD, Larry C Stephans, Frank Stephens, PhD,
    Stuart Stephens, PhD, Robt L Stern, PhD, Rune L Stjernholm, PhD, Alvin
    Rae Stetson, Frank Stevens, James I Stevens, M F Stevens, PhD, Robert
    Stevens, Frank J Stevenson, PhD, Robert L Stevenson, PhD, William C
    Stevenson, Charles Steward, PhD, Kerry K Steward, PhD, Darryl Stewart,
    Ivan Stewart, PhD, Mark Stewart, Robt B Stewart, Werner K Stiefel,
    Chris Stier, Fred B Stifel, PhD, Gerald Still, PhD, E N Stillings,
    Donald L Stinson, PhD, Richard Stinson, PhD, C Chester Stock, PhD, Geo
    J Stockburger, PhD, Bill Stoeppel, James O Stoffer, PhD, Robert L
    Stoffer, PhD, G Stohrer, PhD, Leonard Stoloff, Howard Stone, PhD,
    Robert M Stone, PhD, Wm H Stone, Robson Storey, PhD, John S Storges,
    PhD, Clara A Storvick, PhD, Dennis E Stover, PhD, Richard Strachan,
    PhD, P Stransky, Robert R Strauss, PhD, Roger W Strauss, PhD, E Whitman
    Strecker, Edward Strickling, PhD, Sarah T Strinden, PhD, Bruce C
    Strnad, PhD, Walter Strohecker, Charles Strohkirch, PhD, Allen
    Strother, PhD, Wilfred Stroud, Kirk Struce, Arthur Struempler, PhD,
    Jeffrey Sturm, Duane H Strunk, M Howard Strunk, Dick Strusz, Henry
    Stry, Ralph E Styring, Warren Stubblebine, PhD, T Elton Stubblefield,
    PhD, John Stubbles, PhD, Ben G Studebaker, Alan M Stueber, PhD, David O
    Stuebner, Doug Stueve, Mark Stuever, Dale Stukenholtz, PhD, Eugene C
    Stump, PhD, Felipe Suarez, Bala Subramaniam, PhD, John Sulkowski,
    Daniel T Sullivan, DDS, David Sultana, Wayne Summons, Sherman Archie
    Sundet, PhD, Bob Sutaria, Charles Suter, G Russell Sutherland,
    Frederick H Suydam, PhD, James A Svetgoff, Karl Svoboda, Skip Swanner,
    Thomas Swanson, William A Sweeney, PhD, Ronald L Sweet, PhD, Richard
    Swenson, R P Swift, PhD, Robinson M Swift, PhD, Elizabeth D Swiger,
    PhD, Ronald J Swinko, Chauncey M Swinney, PhD, Robert D Sydansk, Donald
    E Sykes, PhD, Leif Syrstad, S S Szabo, PhD, Danuta Szalecka, Wojciech
    Szalecki, PhD, Steven Szambaris.

    Category: T
        Lars Taavola, Charles E Tackels, Delley Tafel, PhD, David Taft,
    PhD, B A Tait, PhD, Larry Talley, PhD, Katherine Talluto, PhD, John
    Talpas, Kim H Tan, PhD, John Tanaka, PhD, Rita Tao, Waino A Tapale,
    Armen Charles Tarjan, PhD, Milton A Taves, PhD, Douglas H Taylor, PhD,
    Gene Warren Taylor, PhD, Harold M Taylor, PhD, John E Taylor, PhD, Paul
    J Taylor, PhD, Richard Taylor, PhD, Robt Techo, PhD, Stephen Tedore,
    Robert W Temple, David M Tennent, PhD, Martha Tennent, Harold Tenney,
    Wilton R Tenney, PhD, Aubrey Tennille, PhD, Lowell G Tensmeyer, PhD,
    Thomas Tepas, Kenneth J Terbeek, PhD, Glenn A Terry, PhD, W G Teubner,
    Richard Tew, PhD, Ram Tewari, PhD, Raymond Thacker, PhD, Warren A
    Thaler, PhD, Walter E Thatcher, PhD, John Thebo, Brenda Theis, Don
    Theis, Wayne Therrell, Richard C Theuer, PhD, Lawrence Thieben, Gregory
    Thiel, Thomas Thiel, Lawrence Euegene Thielen, Vernon J Thielmann, PhD,
    John D Thirkill, Kris V Thiruvathukal, PhD, Edward F Thode, PhD,
    Richard W Thoma, PhD, Charles Thomas, Jr, PhD, Dean Thomas, Dudley G
    Thomas, Forrest D Thomas, PhD, Gerald Thomas, PhD, James Thomas, PhD,
    Jerry Thomas, Christina Thompson, Ellen Thompson, Gerald E Thompson,
    Grant Thompson, PhD, Herbert B Thompson, PhD, Jack Thompson, Louis M
    Thompson, PhD, Louis Thompson, PhD, Mary Thompson, PhD, Neal P
    Thompson, PhD, Ralph N Thompson, Richard D Thompson, Richard Thompson,
    PhD, Robert R Thompson, PhD, Ted Thompson, Eyvind Thor, PhD, G J
    Thorbecke, PhD, Henry Thorland, Charles Thorman, PhD, Francis Thorne,
    PhD, David Thornton, Robert Thornton, PhD, Ruth D Thornton, PhD, Thomas
    Thorpe, Peter E Throckmorton, PhD, Lewis J Throop, PhD, John G Thweatt,
    PhD, Melinda Tichenor, Albert W Tiedemann, PhD, Thomas Tighe, Frank M
    Tiller, PhD, Henry C Tillson, PhD, Torke E Timell, PhD, William Timm,
    Richard Timmons, PhD, Samuel W Tinsley, PhD, James Tobey, Robert A
    Tobey, PhD, Stephen W Tobey, PhD, Douglas M Tollefsen, PhD, Manolis M
    Tomadakis, PhD, Arthur J Toompas, Vladimir P Torchilin, PhD, Calvin D
    Tormanen, PhD, Joseph Torosian, Mary E Totaro, Ildiko Toth, PhD, Paul E
    Toth, Robert Totusek, PhD, Mike Touchinski, Donald R Tourville, PhD,
    Laura L Tovo, PhD, D A Towner, Peter Toynbee, Ralph Trambarulo, PhD,
    John H Trapp, Tim Trapp, Del Traveller, Jeffrey C Trewella, PhD, Wm W
    Trigg, PhD, Robert B Trimble, PhD, Glover B Triplett, PhD, Charles F
    Trivisoono, Joseph M Tropp, Alvah F Troyer, PhD, G I Troyer, Richard A
    Trudel, Judith L Truden, PhD, Patricio Eduardo Trujillo, John Trulio,
    PhD, Larry Trzupek, PhD, Richard Trzupek, Jane Tsai, A Tschaeche,
    Walter R Tschi, PhD, Manuel Tsiang, PhD, Billy Bob Tucker, PhD, Mary
    Ann Tucker, Richard Tucker, W Daivd Tucker, Paul Tueller, PhD, Laland W
    Tufts, Robert J Tuite, PhD, Bryan Tullis, Donald Tuomi, PhD, Peter
    Turbett, Natasha Turkai, Anthony Turkevich, PhD, Brian Turner, Ella V
    Turner, PhD, E Brent Turnipseed, PhD, Henry A Tuttle, Ian C Twilley,
    PhD, James Twohy, Knorad T Wu, PhD, Ed Tyczkowski, PhD, Tony Tye,
    Edmund E Tylutki, PhD.

    Category: U
        George Uhlig, PhD, Joseph J Ulliman, PhD, Alexander Ulmer, E H
    Ulrich, Kathleen Umstead, Paul W Unger, PhD, Simon Upfill-Brown, Wm A
    Uricchio, PhD, Dave Uscheek, O Manuel Uy, PhD.

    Category: V
        Richard Vacherot, James Vacik, PhD, Kyriake U Valassi, PhD, Laura
    Valdes, Siva Vallabhaneni, Vida Vambutas, PhD, Horn H H Van, PhD,
    Rheenen B Van, PhD, Strien R E Van, PhD, Willard Van Asdall, PhD,
    Theodore Van Bruggen, PhD, Clayton Van Hall, PhD, Wayne Van Meter, PhD,
    Richard J Van Pelt, Steve Vanata, John L Vandeberg, PhD, Thomas H
    Vanderspurt, PhD, Jerry G Vandertuig, PhD, John Warren Vanderveen,
    Donald Vandervelde, Christina Vandervende, PhD, Sam Vandivort, Edward
    Vandrunen, Tina K Vandyk, Richard M Vaneffen, PhD, Naoloa Vanorden,
    PhD, Jerry Vanseckle, Richrad S Varga, William York Varney, PhD, James
    E Varnon, PhD, Bangalore S Vasu, PhD, Robert Dahlmeier Vatine, PhD, Eva
    Vavrousek-Jakuba, PhD, Thomas M Veazey, PhD, Rodney D Veitschegger Jr,
    MD, Steve Venner, Carl J Verbanic, PhD, Anthony J Verbiscar, PhD, John
    R Vercellotti, PhD, Laval Verhalen, PhD, Lonnie W Vernon, PhD, Jim
    Vess, Kent Vickie, Edward J Vidt, Richard A Vierling, PhD, Herbert M
    Vines, PhD, Alfred Viola, PhD, Luciano Virgili, PhD, Robert L Vitek Sr,
    C J Voelkel, Dennis E Voelker, C L Voellinger, Bill Vogel, Richard W
    Vogel, Roger F Vogel, Paul Vogt, Staci Voll, Gert P J Volpp, PhD, Jim
    Volz, Paul A Volz, PhD, James Vomocil, PhD, Hans Von Amsberg, PhD,
    Howard Voorhees, PhD, Norman Vorcheimer, PhD, Frederick H Vorhis,
    Carroll Voss, Deone Voss, Donald L Voss, Edward W Voss, PhD, Duc Vu.

    Category: W
        Lois Wachtman, Robert Wade, PhD, Thomas J Wade, PhD, Allan G
    Waelchli, Salome G Waelsch, PhD, A R Wagner, Anne M Wagner, Frederick
    Wm Wagner, PhD, Chien Moo Wai, PhD, John Wakeman, PhD, Wm D Wakley,
    PhD, F A Walas, Mike Wadlington, Harry M Walker, PhD, Jerry C Walker,
    PhD, Jimmy N Walker, Russell W Walker, PhD, William C Walker, PhD,
    William T Walker, Haven N Wall Jr, MD, Brent Wallace, David R Wallace,
    Edwin G Wallace, PhD, John Wallace, Lynn Wallace, Michael Wallace,
    James Waller, PhD, Wm Walls, Kevin K Walsh, Robert Jerome Walsh,
    William T Walter, Arthur E Waltking, Theo R Walton, PhD, Wilber Walton,
    Frederick F Wangaard, PhD, Mansukhlal C Wani, PhD, R Wanke, PhD, Edward
    H Ward, PhD, Robert S Ward, W C Warlick, Brian Warner, James A
    Warnhoff, Lawrence Warzel, PhD, Robert Washburn, Stephen S Washburne,
    PhD, Maurice Wassmann, G S Wassum, Calude G Wasterlain, PhD, David
    Waters, PhD, James D Waters, Charles Watkins, PhD, Michael J Watkins, W
    D Watkins, B Watne, PhD, Thomas L Watschke, PhD, Jeff Watson, Dean D
    Watt, PhD, Kenneth E F Watt, PhD, Kyle L Watt, Mark Weatherston, Harry
    Weaver, Jay Weaver, William M Weaver, PhD, A Dinsmoor Webb, PhD, Jack W
    Webb, James Webb, Michael Webb, William Paul Webb, PhD, Arthur P Weber,
    PhD, David F Weber, PhD, David J Weber, Mary Weber, William Weber, PhD,
    John R Wesbster, Orrin J Webster, PhD, Owen Webster, PhD, Wm J Wechter,
    PhD, David S Weddell, PhD, George G Weddell, Robert G Weeks, Howard H
    Weetall, PhD, Gene Wegner, PhD, Charles W Wehking, Timothy S Wehmes,
    Donald C Wehner, A R Weide, MD, T Craig Weidensaul, PhD, Patrick L
    Weidner, Edward D Weil, PhD, Roy Weiland, Eugene C Weinbach, PhD,
    Leonard H Weinstein, PhD, Donald J Weintritt, Eugene Weipert, PhD, Wm W
    Weiss, George A Weisgerber, PhD, Leonard Weisler, PhD, FD Weiss, MD,
    Harvey J Weiss, MD, PhD, Eugene P Weisser, Barry R Weissman, Frank J
    Welch, PhD, Donald C Wells, Larry Wells, PhD, Shane Wells, Jerome R
    Welnetz, Lisa M Welter, PhD, Irving Wender, PhD, Michael G Wendling,
    Roger Michael Weppelman, PhD, Leslie M Werbel, PhD, Robert J Werth,
    PhD, Wescott, PhD, Richard West, Warwick R West, Richard S Westberry,
    DDS, Gerald T Westbrook, Carl A Westby, PhD, Tammy Westerman, D T
    Westermann, PhD, Wm M Westhoff, John A Westland, PhD, Thomas
    Westmoreland, PhD, Henry G Weston, PhD, Raymond Westra, PhD, Edgar F
    Westrum, PhD, James Wm Westwat, PhD, Robert L Wetegrove, PhD, Robert L
    Wetegrove, PhD, John E Wey Jr, Joseph Whalen, PhD, Keni Whalen, Richard
    Whalen, PhD, James Wharton, PhD, Frank C Wheeler, PhD, Thomas J
    Wheeler, John M Whelan, PhD, D K Whigham, PhD, Roy L Whistler, PhD,
    Hall Whitacre, Alan W White, PhD, James D White, PhD, Joe Lloyd White,
    PhD, Randall White, Richard White, William White, Kenneth E Whitehead,
    Richard Whiteley, PhD, Joe U Whiteman, PhD, Charles Whiteside, PhD,
    Jack Whiteside, James R Whitley, PhD, Wendell K Whitney, PhD, Roy E
    Whitt, Leslie Whitton, PhD, Donald E Whyte, PhD, Harry Wiant, PhD,
    Donna Wichers, William Wickham, PhD, Steven Widen, PhD, Vernon R
    Widerquist, Joseph R Wiebush, PhD, Grace M Wieder, PhD, Robt R
    Wiederkehr, PhD, Matthew Wielgosz, Doug Wiens, Tadeusz Karol
    Wiewiorowski, PhD, Alan R Wiggins, Larry Wiginton, Charles Wilber, PhD,
    Gary Wilcox, PhD, Gene Wild, PhD, Kenneth A Wilde, PhD, Tom V Wilder,
    Richard Wildermuth, W V Wilding, PhD, Bill B Wiley, PhD, Jim Wiley,
    Robert A Wiley, PhD, Stella H Wilkes, Donald W Wilkie, Robert A
    Wilkins, PhD, Peirre A Willermet, PhD, C H Williams, PhD, D J Williams,
    Denise Williams, Donald H Williams, PhD, Douglas Williams, J F
    Williams, PhD, Jack M Williams, PhD, James M Williams, Karla E
    Williams, Richard Williams, PhD, Tom V Williams, PhD, Gene Wills, PhD,
    Alan P Wilson, Armin Wilson, PhD, Byron J Wilson, PhD, James Wilson,
    Jeffrey P Wilson, PhD, Leslie Wilson, PhD, Lowell Wilson, PhD, Robert
    Wilson, PhD, Wilbur William Wilson, PhD, James D Winefordner, PhD,
    David Wing, PhD, John R Wingard, Gary M De Winkle, Bruce Winn, Robert S
    Winniford, PhD, Weldon E Winsauer, Anthony E Winston, Lesley Winston,
    William Winter, PhD, Harry Winterlin, Wray L Winterlin, Richard B
    Winters, MD, Craig Wise, Richard M Wise, PhD, Robert H Wise, Jr,
    Lawrence A Wishner, PhD, Eugene H Wissler, PhD, Paul C Witbeck, Peter C
    Witherell, PhD, Mark Witowski, Gilbert Witschard, PhD, Jerry Witt, PhD,
    George K Wittenberg, PhD, Lloyd D Witter, PhD, Frank A Witzmann, PhD,
    Gerald Woehick, Charles E Woelke, PhD, William E Woenker, Robert C
    Wohl, PhD, David A Wohleber, PhD, Peter J Wojtowicz, PhD, Jim Wolf,
    George Wolfe, John B Wolff, PhD, Jerry Wolfkill, Tammy L Wolfram, Peter
    Wolle, Woller, K Wong, PhD, Ka-Chun Wong, Laurence Wong, PhD, Otto
    Wong, PhD, Earl C Wood, MD, Henry Wood, PhD, John L Wood, PhD, Malcolm
    Wood, Mike Wood, Roberta L Wood, Scott Emerson Wood, PhD, Thomas Wood,
    PhD, William A Wood, PhD, William A Wood, PhD, Joseph Eliot Woodbridge,
    PhD, Robert T Woodburn, Frank Woodfield, Jim Woodford, David J Woods,
    Jack Woods, David Woodward, PhD, Richard Woodward, Marvin S Wool, David
    Dilley Wooldridge, PhD, Tyler A Woolley, PhD, Gerald B Woolsey, PhD,
    Barbara E Workentine, PhD, David Eugene Worley, PhD, Richard F Worley,
    DDS, Walt Worsham, PhD, Johathan Worstell, PhD, James G Worth, Von
    Worthington, Donald P Wrathall, PhD, Charles H Wright, PhD, Glenn
    Wright, PhD, Jerry Wright, Nathan Wright, Paul M Wright, PhD, Robert
    Wright, MD, Robt W Wright, PhD, William Wright, Yao Hua Wu, PhD,
    Stephen Walker Wunderly, PhD, David Wurm, PhD, Reece E Wyant, Philip R
    Wyde, PhD, Kathi Wyldeck, PhD, John Wylie, Margret J Wyllie, E Staten
    Wynne, PhD, Elmer S Wynne, PhD, Leslie K Wynston, PhD, R A Wynveen,
    PhD, Richard F Wyse, Stephen L Wythe, PhD.

    Category: Y
        Gilbert Yan, Will Yanke, William H Yanko, PhD, John Lee Yarnall,
    PhD, Sidney Yaverbaum, PhD, David A Yeadon, Randy Yeager, Elisabeth
    Stelle Yearick, PhD, Carlton S Yee, PhD, Ying C Yee, PhD, Charles Yeh,
    Wilbur Yellin, PhD, Yin Chao Yen, PhD, Stuart Yntema Sr, John H Yopp,
    PhD, Masami Yoshimura, PhD, Marvin Yost, PhD, Richard A Yost, PhD,
    David C Young, PhD, G Young, Ralph S Young, Raymond H Young, PhD,
    Robert D Young, William D Young Jr, Ralph Yount, PhD, Morgan Chuan Yuan
    Sze, PhD, Stephen A Yuhas, Mary Alic Yund, PhD, Libby Yunger, PhD.

    Category: Z
        Jeffrey Zachman, Stanley E Zager, PhD, Edwarfd P Zahora, Ihor
    Zajac, PhD, Ethel S Zalay, PhD, Andreas A Zavi, PhD, John Zebrowski, Wm
    N Zeiger, PhD, Allen Zelman, PhD, Jiri Zemlicka, Kerry Zemp, Donald F
    Zetik, PhD, Dong Er Zhang, PhD, Timothy D Ziebarth, PhD, Edward N
    Ziegler, PhD, John Benjamin Ziegler, PhD, Wm A Ziegler, W E Zieman,
    Charles W Ziemer, PhD, Ferdinand Zienty, PhD, Robert G Zimbelman, PhD,
    Arthur J Zimmer, PhD, Curt Zimmerman, John G Zimmerman, PhD, Tommy
    Zimmerman, PhD, Gary Zimmermann, Donald Zink, PhD, Ronald F Ziolo, PhD,
    Steven L Zirkelbach, MD, Thomas A Zitter, PhD, Darryl E Zoch, Marvin H
    Zoerb, Harry D Zook, PhD, Charles Zubritsky, David Zuckerberg, Carl
    Zuehlke, PhD, Perr Zuman, PhD, Edward J Zuperku, PhD, Soloman
    Zwerdling, PhD, Steven C Zylkowski.
           Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming

    (http://www.sepp.org/statment.html, February 24, 2006)

    WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 27, 1992--As independent scientists,
    researching atmospheric and climate problems, we are concerned by the
    agenda for UNCED, the United Nations Conference on Environment and
    Development, being developed by environmental activist groups and
    certain political leaders. This so-called Earth Summit is scheduled to
    convene in Brazil in June 1992 and aims to impose a system of global
    environmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on
    the population of the United States and other industrialized nations.
        Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific
    theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that
    catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels
    and requires immediate action. We do not agree.
        A survey of U.S. atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of
    1991, confirms that there is no consensus about the cause of the slight
    warming observed during the past century. A recently published research
    paper even suggests that sunspot variability, rather than a rise in
    greenhouse gases, is responsible for the global temperature increases
    and decreases recorded since about 1880.
        Furthermore, the majority of scientific participants in the survey
    agreed that the theoretical climate models used to predict a future
    warming cannot be relied upon and are not validated by the existing
    climate record. Yet all predictions are based on such theoretical
    models.
        Finally, agriculturalists generally agree that any increase in
    carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel burning has beneficial effects
    on most crops and on world food supply.
        We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and
    economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking
    notice of recent changes in the underlying science. We fear that the
    rush to impose global regulations will have catastrophic impacts on the
    world economy, on jobs, standards of living, and health care, with the
    most severe consequences falling upon developing countries and the
    poor.

    David G. Aubrey, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic
            Institute.
    Nathaniel B. Guttman, Ph.D., Research Physical Scientist, National
            Climatic Data Center.
    Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D., Meteorologist, Lawrence Livermore National
            Laboratory.
    Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Center for Meteorology and Physical
            Meteorology, M.l.T.
    Robert C. Balling, Ph.D., Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona
            State University.
    Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Environmental Sciences,
            University of Virginia.
    Roger Pielke, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State
            University.
    Michael Garstang, Ph.D., Professor of Meteorology, University of
            Virginia.
    Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D., Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation
            Laboratory.
    Lev S. Gandin, Ph.D., UCAR Scientist, National Meteorological Center.
    John A. McGinley, Chief, Forecast Research Group, Forecast Systems
            Laboratory, NOAA.
    H. Jean Thiebaux, Ph.D., Research Scientist, National Meteorological
            Center, National Weather Service, NOM.
    Kenneth V. Beard, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University
            of Illinois.
    Paul W. Mielke, Jr., Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Statistics, Colorado
            State University.
    Thomas Lockhart, Meteorologist, Meteorological Standards Institute.
    Peter F. Giddings, Meteorologist, Weather Service Director.
    Hazen A. Bedke, Meteorologist, Former Regional Director, National
            Weather Service.
    Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D., Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University.
    Roy Leep, Executive Weather Director, Gillett Weather Data Services.
    Terrance J. Clark, Meteorologist, U.S. Air Force.
    Neil L Frank, Ph.D., Meteorologist.
    Michael S. Uhart, Ph.D., Meteorologist, National Weather Service.
    Bruce A. Boe, Ph.D., Director, North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board.
    Andrew Detwiler, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., Institute of Atmospheric
            Sciences, S. Dakota School of Mines & Technology.
    Robert M. Cunningham, Consulting Meteorologist, Fellow, American
            Meteorological Society.
    Steven R. Hanna, Ph.D., Sigma Research Corporation.
    Elliot Abrams, Meteorologist, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, Inc.
    William E. Reifenyder, Ph.D., Consulting Meteorologist, Professor
            Emeritus, Forest Meteorology, Yale University.
    David W. Reynolds, Research Meteorologist.
    Jerry A. Williams, Meteorologist, President, Oceanroutes, Inc.
    Lee W. Eddington, Meteorologist, Geophysics Division, Pacific Missile
            Test Center.
    Werner A. Baum, Ph.D., former Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, Florida
            State University.
    David P. Rogers, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Research Oceanography,
            Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
    Brian Fiedler, Ph.D., Asst. Professor of Meteorology, School of
            Meteorology, University of Oklahoma.
    Edward A. Brandes, Meteorologist.
    Melvyn Shapiro, Chief of Meteorological Research, Wave Propagation
            Laboratory, NOM.
    Joseph Zabransky, Jr., Associate Professor of Meteorology, Plymouth
            State College.
    James A. Moore, Project Manager, Research Applications Program,
            National Center for Atmospheric Research.
    Daniel J. McNaughton, ENSR Consulting and Engineering.
    Brian Sussman, Meteorologist.
    Robert D. Elliott, Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological
            Society.
    H. Read McGrath, Ph.D., Meteorologist.
    Earl G. Droessler, Ph.D., North Carolina State University.
    Robert E. Zabrecky, Meteorologist.
    William M. Porch, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Los Alamos National
            Laboratory.
    Earle R. Williams, Ph.D, Assoc. Prof. of Meteorology, Massachusetts
            Institute of Technology.
    S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Univ. of Virginia,
            President, Science & Environmental Policy Project.

        Please note: Affiliations listed are for identification purposes
    only.
                THE LEIPZIG DECLARATION ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

    (http://www.sepp.org/leipzig.html, February 24, 2006)

        As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate
    problems, we--along with many of our fellow citizens--are apprehensive
    about emission targets and timetables adopted at the Climate Conference
    held in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. This gathering of politicians
    from some 160 signatory nations aims to impose on citizens of the
    industrialized nations--but not on others--a system of global
    environmental regulations that include quotas and punitive taxes on
    energy fuels to force substantial cuts in energy use within 10 years,
    with further cuts to follow. Stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide--
    the announced goal of the Climate Treaty--would require that fuel use
    be cut by as much as 60 to 80 percent--worldwide!
        Energy is essential for economic growth. In a world in which
    poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use
    that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. We
    understand the motivation to eliminate what are perceived to be the
    driving forces behind a potential climate change; but we believe the
    Kyoto Protocol--to curtail carbon dioxide emissions from only part of
    the world community--is dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and
    economically destructive to jobs and standards-of-living.
        More to the point, we consider the scientific basis of the 1992
    Global Climate Treaty to be flawed and its goal to be unrealistic. The
    policies to implement the Treaty are, as of now, based solely on
    unproven scientific theories, imperfect computer models--and the
    unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from an
    increase in greenhouse gases, requiring immediate action. We do not
    agree. We believe that the dire predictions of a future warming have
    not been validated by the historic climate record, which appears to be
    dominated by natural fluctuations, showing both warming and cooling.
    These predictions are based on nothing more than theoretical models and
    cannot be relied on to construct far-reaching policies.
        As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that--
    contrary to the conventional wisdom--there does not exist today a
    general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming
    from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists
    now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and
    balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever--in direct
    contradiction to computer model results.
        Historically, climate has always been a factor in human affairs--
    with warmer periods, such as the medieval ``climate optimum,'' playing
    an important role in economic expansion and in the welfare of nations
    that depend primarily on agriculture. Colder periods have caused crop
    failures, and led to famines, disease, and other documented human
    misery. We must, therefore, remain sensitive to any and all human
    activities that could affect future climate.
        However, based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot
    subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate
    catastrophes and calls for hasty actions. For this reason, we consider
    the drastic emission control policies deriving from the Kyoto
    conference--lacking credible support from the underlying science--to be
    ill-advised and premature.

        This statement is based on the International Symposium on the
    Greenhouse Controversy, held in Leipzig, Germany on Nov. 9-10, 1995,
    and in Bonn, Germany on Nov. 10-11, 1997. For further information,
    contact the Europaeische Akademie fuer Umweltfragen or The Science and
    Environmental Policy Project in Arlington, Virginia.
                     SIGNATORIES TO THE LEIPZIG DECLARATION

    (http://www.sepp.org/LDsigs.html, February 24, 2006)

        The following is a partial list only. Following the Kyoto
    Conference on global warming, the original Declaration was slightly
    amended. The posting of 33 additional signatories is pending
    verification that the scientists still agree with the statement. The
    list will be updated as these verifications come in.

    Dr. John Apel, oceanographer, Global Oceans Associates, formerly with
            Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.
    Dr. David Aubrey, Senior Scientist, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole
            Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts.
    Dr. Duwayne M. Anderson,Professor, Texas A&M University.
    Dr. Robert Balling, Professor and Director of the Office of
            Climatology, Arizona State University; more than 80 research
            articles published in scientific journals; author of The Heated
            Debate: Greenhouse Predictions vs. Climate Reality (1992); co-
            author, Interactions of Desertifications and Climate, a report
            for the UN Environmental Program and the World Meteorological
            Organization; contributor/reviewer, IPCC.
    Dr. Jack Barrett, Imperial College, London, UK.
    Dr. Warren Berning, atmospheric physicist, New Mexico State University.
    Dr. Jiri Blumel, Institute Sozialokon. Forschg. Usti nad Labem, Czech
            Republic.
    Bruce Boe, atmospheric scientist and Director of the North Dakota
            Atmospheric Resources Board; member, American Meteorological
            Society; former Chairman, AMS Committee on Planned and
            Inadvertent Weather Modification.
    Dr. C.J.F. Bottcher, Chairman of the Board, The Global Institute for
            the Study of Natural Resources, The Hague, The Netherlands;
            Professor Emeritus of physical chemistry, Leiden University;
            past President of the Science Policy Council of The
            Netherlands; former member, Scientific Council for Government
            Policy; former head of the Netherlands Delegation to the OECD
            Committee for Science and Technology; author, The Science and
            Fiction of the Greenhouse Effect and Carbon Dioxide; founding
            member of The Club of Rome.
    Dr. Arthur Bourne, Professor, University of London, UK.
    Larry H. Brace, physicist, former Director of the Planetary Atmospheres
            Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; recipient NASA Medal
            for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
    Dr. Norman M.D. Brown, FRSC, Professor, University of Ulster.
    Dr. R.A.D. Byron-Scott, meteorologist, formerly senior lecturer in
            meteorology, Flinders Institute for Atmospheric and Marine
            Science, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
    Dr. Joseph Cain, Professor of planetary physics and geophysics,
            Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Institute, Florida State University;
            elected Fellow, American Geophysical Union; formerly with NASA
            Goddard Space Flight Center (scientific satellites) and the
            U.S. Geological Survey.
    Dr. Gabriel T. Csanady, meteorologist, Eminent Professor, Old Dominion
            University, Norfolk, Virginia.
    Robert Cunningham, consulting meteorologist, Fellow, American
            Meteorological Society.
    Dr. Fred W. Decker, Professor of meteorology, Oregon State University,
            Corvalis, Oregon; elected Fellow, AAAS; member, RMS, NWA, AWA,
            AMS.
    Lee W. Eddington, meteorologist, Naval Air Warfare Center.
    Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser, atmospheric scientist, Lawrence Livermore National
            Laboratory (1963-1986); Participating Guest Scientist, Lawrence
            Livermore Natl. Lab. (1986-1996), more than 40 refereed
            research papers and major reports in the scientific literature.
    Dr. John Emsley, Imperial College, London, UK.
    Dr. Otto Franzle, Professor, University of Kiel, Germany.
    Dr. C.R. de Freitas, climate scientist, University of Auckland, New
            Zealand, Editor of the international journal Climate Research.
    Dr. John E. Gaynor, Senior Meteorologist, Environmental Technology
            Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
            Boulder, Colorado.
    Dr. Tor Ragnar Gerholm, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of
            Stockholm, member of Nobel Prize selection committee for
            physics; member, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and Royal
            Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, author of several
            books on science and technology.
    Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor, Technical University of Braunschweig.
    Dr. Thomas Gold, Professor of astrophysics, Cornell University, Ithaca,
            New York.
    Dr. H.G. Goodell, Professor, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
    James D. Goodridge, climatologist, formerly with California Dept. of
            Water Resources.
    Dr. Adrian Gordon, meteorologist, University of South Australia.
    Prof. Dr. Eckhard Grimmel, Professor, University Hamburg, Germany.
    Dr. Nathaniel B. Guttman, Research Physical Scientist, National
            Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina; former
            Professor of atmospheric sciences/climatology; former Chairman,
            AMS Committee on Applied Climatology.
    Dr. Paul Handler, Professor of chemistry, University of Illinois.
    Dr. Vern Harnapp, Professor, University of Akron, Ohio.
    Dr. Howard C. Hayden, Professor of physics, University of Connecticut.
    Dr. Michael J. Higatsberger, Professor and former Director, Institute
            for Experimental Physics, University of Vienna, Austria; former
            Director, Seibersdorf Research Center of the Austrian Atomic
            Energy Agency; former President, Austrian Physical Society.
    Dr. Austin W. Hogan, meteorologist, co-editor of the journal
            Atmospheric Research.
    Dr. William Hubbard, Professor, University of Arizona, Dept. of
            Planetary Sciences; elected Fellow of the American Geophysical
            Union.
    Dr. Heinz Hug, lecturer, Wiesbaden, Germany.
    Dr. Zbigniew Jaworski, University of Warsaw, Poland.
    Dr. Kelvin Kemm, nuclear physicist, Director, Technology Strategy
            Consultants, Pretoria, South Africa; columnist, Engineering
            News; author, Techtrack: A Winding Path of South African
            Development.
    Dr. Robert L. Kovach, Professor of geophysics, Stanford University,
            Palo Alto, California.
    Dr. David R. Legates, Professor of meteorology, University of Oklahoma.
    Dr. Heinz H. Lettau, geophysicist, Increase A. Lapham Professor
            Emeritus, University of Wisconsin.
    Dr. Henry R. Linden, Max McGraw Professor of Energy and Power
            Engineering and Management, Director, Energy and Power Center,
            Illinois Institute of Technology; elected Fellow, American
            Institute of Chemical Engineers; former member, Energy
            Engineering Board of the National Research Council; member,
            Green Technology Committee, National Academy of Engineering.
    Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Sloane Professor of Meteorology, Center for
            Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute
            of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
    Dr. J. P. Lodge, atmospheric chemist, Boulder, Colorado.
    Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, atmospheric scientist, Professor, University of
            Missouri at Columbia, reviewer/contributing author, IPCC.
    Dr. George E. McVehil, meteorologist, Englewood, Colorado.
    Dr. Helmut Metzner, Professor, Tubingen, Germany.
    Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor and Director of the State Office of
            Climatology, University of Virginia; more than 50 research
            articles published in scientific journals; past President,
            American Association of State Climatologists; author, Sound and
            Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming (1992);
            reviewer/contributing author, IPCC.
    Sir William Mitchell, physicist, University of Oxford, U.K.
    Dr. Asmunn Moene, former chief of Meteorology, Oslo, Norway.
    Laim Nagle, energy/engineering specialist, Cornfield University, UK.
    Robert A. Neff, former U.S. Air Force meteorologist: member, AMS, AAAS.
    Dr. William A. Nierenberg, Director Emeritus, Scripps Institute of
            Oceanography, La Jolla, California; Professor Emeritus of
            oceanography, University of California at San Diego; former
            member, Council of the U.S. National Academy of Science; former
            Chairman, National Research Council's Carbon Dioxide Assessment
            Committee; former member, U.S. EPA Global Climate Change
            Committee; former Assistant Secretary General of NATO for
            scientific affairs; former Chairman, National Advisory
            Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres.
    Dr. William Porch, atmospheric physicist, Los Alamos National
            Laboratory, New Mexico.
    Dr. Harry Priem, Professor of geology, University of Utrecht.
    Dr. William E. Reifsnyder, Professor Emeritus of biometeorology, Yale
            University; elected Fellow, American Association for the
            Advancement of Science; former Chairman, National Academy of
            Science/National Research Council Committee on Climatology; AMS
            Award for Outstanding Achievement in Biometeorology.
    Dr. Alexander Robertson, meteorologist, Adjunct Professor, Memorial
            University of Newfoundland, Canada; author of more than 200
            scientific and technical publications in biometeorology and
            climatology, forestry, forest ecology, urban environmental
            forestry, and engineering technology.
    Dr. Thomas Schmidlin, CCM, Professor of meteorology/climatology, Kent
            State University, Ohio; Editor, Ohio Journal of Science;
            elected Fellow, Ohio Academy of Science; member, AMS.
    Dr. Frederick Seitz, physicist, former President, Rockefeller
            University, former President, U.S. National Academy of
            Sciences; former member, President's Science Advisory
            Committee; recipient, U.S. National Medal of Science.
    Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Executive Director, Center for Climate/Ocean
            Resources Study and the Cooperative Institute for Research in
            the Integrated Ocean Sciences; contributed to the initial
            development of the Climate Change Program of the National
            Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration; investigated climate-
            related resource variabilities, sustainable development, and
            basic environmental climatology for the UN, World Bank, and
            USAID.
    Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist; President, The Science &
            Environmental Policy Project; former Director, U.S. Weather
            Satellite Service; Professor Emeritus of environmental science,
            University of Virginia; former Chairman, federal panel
            investigating effects of the SST on stratospheric ozone; author
            or editor of 16 books, including Global Climate Change (1989)
            and Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate
            (1997).
    Dr. A. F. Smith, chemical engineer (ret.), Jacksonville, Florida.
    Dr. Fred J. Starheim, Professor, Kent State University.
    Dr. Chauncey Starr, President Emeritus, Electric Power Research
            Institute; winner, 1992 National Medal of Engineering.
    Dr. Robert E. Stevenson, Secretary General Emeritus, International
            Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans, and a
            leading world authority on space oceanography; more than 100
            research articles published in scientific journals; author of
            seven books; advisor to NASA, NATO, U.S. National Academy of
            Science, and the European Geophysical Society.
    Dr. George Stroke, Professor, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology,
            Munich, Germany.
    Dr. Heinz Sundermann, University of Vienna, Austria.
    Dr. George H. Sutton, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii.
    Dr. Arlen Super, meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lakewood,
            Colorado.
    Dr. Vladimir Svidersky, Professor, Sechenoc Institute, Moscow, Russia.
    Dr. M. Talwani, geophysicist, Rice University, Houston, Texas.
    Dr. W. F. Tanner, Professor, Florida State University.
    Peter Arnold Toynbee, chemical engineer, F. Institute of Energy,
            London, England.
    Dr. Christiaan Van Sumere, Professor, University of Gent, Belgium.
    Dr. Robin Vaugh, physicist, University of Dundee, UK.
    Dr. Robert C. Wentworth, geophysicist, Oakland, California, formerly
            with Lochheed Reseach Laboratory.
    Dr. Robert C. Whitten, physicist, formerly with NASA.
    Dr. Klaus Wyrtki, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii Sea Level
            Center.
                         TELEVISION NEWS METEOROLOGISTS

    (affiliation for identification purposes only)

    Elliot Abrams, meteorologist, Senior Vice President, Accuweather, Inc.
    Richard Apuzzo, meteorologist, WXIX-TV (FOX), Cincinnati, Ohio; member,
            AMS, NWA, SKYWARN; recipient of ``Best Weathercast'' awards
            from Associated Press and United Press International.
    Andre Bernier, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio.
    Sallie Bernier, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio.
    Bob Breck, meteorologist, WVUE-TV (ABC), New Orleans, Louisiana.
    Matthew Bye, meteorologist, KPIX-TV (CBS) San Francisco, California.
    A. J. Colby, meteorologist, WICU-TV (NBC), Erie, Pennsylvania.
    Dr. Neil L. Frank, meteorologist, HOU-TV (CBS), Houston, Texas, former
            Director, National Hurricane Center.
    Dick Gance, meteorologist, Weather Forecasting, Inc., Concord, Ohio.
    Dick Goddard, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio.
    Shane Hollett, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio.
    Mark Johnson, meteorologist, WEWS-TV (ABC), Cleveland, Ohio.
    Roy Leep, meteorologist, WTVT-TV (CBS), recently retired; Director,
            Gillette Weather Data Services, Tampa, Florida; elected Fellow,
            American Meteorological Society; former member, AMS Executive
            Council; among the group of TV meteorologists invited to the
            White House for a briefing on global warming.
    Mark Koontz, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio.
    Jon Loufman, meteorologist, WKYC-TV (NBC), Cleveland, Ohio.
    Dan Maly, meteorologist, WOIO-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio.
    Ryan McPike, atmospheric scientist, WICU-TV (NBC), Erie, Pennsylvania.
    James T. Moore, meteorologist, KSWO-TV (ABC) Lawton, Oklahoma.
    Scott R. Sabol, meteorologist, WBOY-TV (NBC), Clarksburg, West
            Virginia.
    Dr. Joseph Sobel, meteorologist, Pennsylvania Public Television
            Network; Senior Vice President, Accu-Weather, Inc., State
            College, Pennsylvania; co-author, Changing Weather: Facts and
            Fallacies About Climate Change and Weather Extremes.
    Brad Sussman, meteorologist, WEWS-TV (ABC), Cleveland, Ohio, AMS, NWA,
            Broadcast Seal Committee Chair NWA.
    Brian Sussman, meteorologist, KPIX-TV (CBS) San Francisco, California;
            member, American Meteorological Society (served on AMS
            Education Committee), 12-time recipient of the ``Best
            Weathercast'' award from the Radio and Television News
            Directors Association and Associated Press.
    Anthony Watts, meteorologist, KHSL-TV (CBS), Chico, California.
    Don Webster, meteorologist, WEWS-TV 9 (ABC), Cleveland, Ohio.
    Brian Westfall, meteorologist, Weather Forecasting, Inc., Akron, Ohio.

        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much and with that, thank
    you very much. I look forward to working with you to making
    sure we get the most out of our research dollars and that we
    become energy sufficient, self-sufficient in the years ahead.
    Thank you very much.
        Chairman Boehlert. And let the Chair note that he looks
    forward to our continued working partnership and I don't
    consider you a skunk at the lawn party. First of all, this is
    not a lawn party and secondly, you referred to yourself in that
    manner. I refer to you as a valid colleague and hope springs
    eternal. One day we might succeed in convincing you that global
    climate change is for real. With that, the Chair----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. It's only who causes it that's the real
    debate here.
        Chairman Boehlert. With that, the Chair is pleased to
    recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start out
    by echoing one of the things that Mr. Rohrabacher had said in
    applauding the President for coming forward in the State of the
    Union Address and talking about a vision or making it a
    priority that we do improve technology, we improve education in
    math and science, produce more engineers and also energy
    independence. These are fantastic ideas and these are things
    that we need to be working on. I'm afraid that what we really
    are at here now is where the rubber meets the road and there
    are some places where already it seems to be slipping, that
    there isn't the commitment to this vision from the
    Administration. But before I get into that, I want to start
    by--unfortunately, Dr. Bartlett's not here. Earlier on, he
    spoke about the importance of training engineers--and sometimes
    I feel guilty.
        I used to be an engineer; got degrees in actually, a
    Bachelor's and a Master's in engineering and I don't practice
    engineering, but I sometimes feel guilty for doing that, come
    here and talk about the importance of engineers and having more
    engineers and I left all that behind, but Dr. Bartlett even
    made it worse when he was talking about going from--we have too
    many lawyers and too many political scientists, not enough
    engineers. I went from being an engineer, I got my Ph.D. in
    political science and therefore I went apparently to the dark
    side, but I try to redeem myself here and I think the
    engineering background helps me tremendously, engineering about
    problem solving. That's what we are here to do in Congress,
    we're all here, is to solve problems. Now, I look back at what
    inspired me to become an engineer and it was really my
    education before I got to college.
        And I'm very disappointed that the Math and Science
    Partnership Program is being cut drastically. The amount
    proposed this year will only fund those existing grants. I just
    think it's a tremendous way to get--I was also a college
    professor. I think it's great to be able to get those at the
    college level involved with the high school levels, other
    levels, elementary education, in order to inspire kids to go
    ahead and go into science, math, engineering. Dr. Bement,
    what's the reason--is there some reason for cutting that? Is
    the Administration not seeing it as effective or what is the
    purpose of that?
        Dr. Bement. My answer to that, Mr. Lipinski, is that the
    Math and Science Partnership came subsequent to Systemic
    Initiative support from the Foundation and those test beds
    provided a tremendous amount of understanding of good practice
    and also the importance of getting community involvement, as
    well as business sector involvement in education to go from
    commitment to involvement. Those lessons have been learned, but
    they've been learned in a program that could only reach a few
    dozen school districts. The time has come now to take those
    lessons learned and to implement them and propagate them more
    broadly among the 15,000 school districts that we have in the
    country and one can't really argue that the Administration is
    not paying attention to education when really, they're focused
    on implementation and propagation----
        Mr. Lipinski. Okay, my time's very short. I don't think
    that we've figured out all the answers. Yes, I agree we need to
    propagate it, but I think there's more to learn. I think we
    could put more of that--I have to move on quickly. I just want
    to add I'm very glad, happy that the Chairman is committed to
    MEP. In my district, manufacturing has declined tremendously.
    Manufacturers are coming to me and saying we need some kind of
    help in order to compete and this is one way that's been
    proven--one program that's proven to help the American
    manufacturers compete. One last thing, Mr. Gutknecht
    mentioned--talking about DARPA--if Dr. Marburger maybe would
    comment on a bill that Ranking Member Gordon introduced to
    create ARPA-E, which is ARPA for Energy. If you're familiar
    with that and what your thoughts are on it?
        Dr. Marburger. First of all, I want to declare I am
    familiar with DARPA because when I was doing active science, I
    got a lot of my research support from the early DARPA. At that
    time it was called ARPA and I was doing very basic research, by
    the way. Similar programs were also funded by the National
    Science Foundation and other agencies at that time. My view
    about these types of organizations that we can imagine can be
    effective in agencies, my view is that we should listen to the
    Cabinet officials and administrators and directors of those
    agencies to see--whom we rely on to guide the agency, manage it
    to get the maximum benefit of our taxpayer dollars. We should
    rely on their judgment and so in the American Competitiveness
    Initiative, we did not put in a lot of requirements on these
    high-priority agencies that are testifying here today.
        We decided that we would propose to increase their budgets
    and then let them decide if they needed to propose additional
    mechanisms and reorganizations within their agencies and they
    may well do that, either now or later on in the program after
    all--we have a commitment to continue to increase their budgets
    over a period of years. It may well be that in subsequent
    budgets or even in the near future agencies may decide that
    they need to change their organization to spend these funds
    more effectively. We're going to rely on the Presidentially
    appointed leadership of those agencies to tell us what the most
    important thing to do with those funds is.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I thank all of you for the work
    that you're doing and Doctor, I'm very happy that NSF is
    getting an increase in funding this year.
        Dr. Marburger. Thank you.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. Dr. Schwarz.
        Mr. Schwarz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly. I'm not
    going to cut into anybody's lunch time here. I know better.
    First, thank you very much to the American Competitiveness
    Initiative, think big, please, think big whether it's nuclear
    or nano or bio, think big and go get them. And there are people
    out there who would set up barriers in this country. There are
    Luddites among us and we know that, you know that. I can think
    of several. The trial bar comes to mind, but who's thinking?
    Question. What has happened with the rare isotope accelerator?
    What's going on, Secretary Bodman, Dr. Bement, perhaps can tell
    me. My interest is because I don't quite, but represent
    everything around Michigan State University which has one of
    the largest accelerators in the country and is ready, willing
    and able and then, in the Midwest, as well, Argonne, I know,
    was in the mix, so what's happened, what's going on, when is
    this going to move forward? The research community, at least
    the nuclear research community feels this is a very important
    project.
        Secretary Bodman. I'm aware of the interest in Michigan and
    Illinois. We look very hard at the importance of the RIA
    program. It is important. As we allocated the funds and looked
    at the potential increases that we're dealing with, this is a
    billion to a billion and a half dollar project, to build it and
    operate it and we simply couldn't afford it with everything
    else that we're doing. We think it's important, so we have a
    program in place that over the next five years will be spending
    funds in significant amounts, $5, $6 million a year to fund
    this activity and to work with foreign-based partners who are
    already in this business, both in Germany and in Canada, I know
    are two of the three that are being considered. In the year
    2011, that's when we are planning, at least as we look forward
    to the flow of funds in this department, we would be looking
    forward to doing preliminary engineering design and so in
    effect, it's going to be put off five years; that's at least as
    we see it. And I know that's not happy news for you, nor will
    it be happy news for Congresswoman Biggert, who has departed,
    but those are the facts as we see it.
        Mr. Schwarz. I just wanted to assure you, Mr. Secretary,
    that Michigan State University is ready and willing whenever
    you are. Thank you, sir.
        Secretary Bodman. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Boehlert. Ready to go, huh? Mr. Matheson.
        Mr. Matheson. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, everybody, for
    being here today and Secretary Bodman, I appreciate your being
    here. We had a discussion last year, at this very hearing--it
    was right after you became Secretary--about the uranium mill
    tailings pile near Moab, Utah and a lot has happened since we
    had that discussion a year ago. As you know, the environmental
    impact statement process was completed and the record of
    decision decided that the pile should be moved, which is, of
    course, as you may recall what I was hoping would happen and
    I'm glad that it has and that that decision has been made to
    move forward.
        I wanted to discuss with you, though, what the next step's
    going to be because it's going to be, roughly speaking, a $450
    million project to move this pile. It's the largest of all the
    mill tailings piles the DOE's been in charge of that they've
    had to move. This is much bigger in scale than the others. And
    the reason I want to talk to you about it is I was concerned
    with the budget that was submitted last week where we see a
    reduction in the recommended amount to be spent on removal of
    this pile. The budget rates for this year is $22.8 million,
    which is actually almost 20 percent less than what was
    appropriated in the current fiscal year for this project and
    I'm concerned that we may be getting into a circumstance where
    this is going to drag out not over eight years to move this
    pile, but 22 years or longer and wanted to know if you had any
    insight into what the decision making was about dropping the
    budgeting down and stretching this program out or if you had
    any information you could share with me on that?
        Secretary Bodman. First of all, I'm happy that you seem to
    be happy that we made a decision to move forward with this,
    sir. Secondly, I think it's an error, which often seems to
    happen in the government where there is a correlation between
    the amount of money spent in a particular year and the physical
    process or the things that must be done. I do know I don't have
    all the details. I would be happy to give them to you in
    writing, but I do believe that there's an environmental impact
    statement that has to be done and that there is work that will
    be done in 2007 preparing the place where the tailings will be
    placed and so there is quite a rigorous program that has been
    laid out and that we expect to make the schedules that, you
    know, as advertised. If you think that it's going to be 22
    years----
        Mr. Matheson. I hope not.
        Secretary Bodman.--I would be happy to investigate that and
    see to it that that's not the case.
        Mr. Matheson. I hope it's not and I hope that just in the
    name of short-term savings we don't get into a longer term as
    I'm sure you know where I'm coming from. In the long run
    sometimes, you're better off spending more money up front than
    letting something get stretched out over time. At the end of
    the day, we end up spending more taxpayer money when we let
    things get stretched out for a long period of time.
        Secretary Bodman. Well, you are quite right about that and
    we're seeing that in a number of different areas. On the other
    hand, I am satisfied that this Department, in the past, has not
    distinguished itself at times, particularly in the
    environmental management area, in having rushed into something
    without adequate planning and without an adequate discussion of
    exactly what it's going to cost and how long it will take. And
    I--we're trying to do this in a rigorous fashion.
        Mr. Matheson. Understood.
        Secretary Bodman. I hope you appreciate that.
        Mr. Matheson. I do, and if I could just--I may send you
    just a quick written question, if we can just get a sense of
    what the Department views the schedule over the next few years
    for doing that, I'd really appreciate that.
        Secretary Bodman. Be happy to do it, sir.
        Mr. Matheson. Okay, thank you. And with that, I'll yield
    back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall.
        Mr. Hall. Chairman, I thank you and I'm looking for some
    happy news. I'm looking for better news than I expect. I think
    all of us agree with Mr. Rohrabacher and the other gentlemen
    and ladies that have discussed here today about economic growth
    in our country and how we depend on knowledge based industries
    and resources. To that end, I don't think there's any question
    that this year's budget proposal seeks to bolster math and
    science education. The President mentioned it in his speech the
    other evening. I've heard it from almost every podium how
    important it is and I agree with it. It provides jobs for
    citizens and solutions to their problems. One of the most
    important, though, and one of the greatest challenges today, I
    think, is energy and all of us agree that we need to move
    toward what they call energy independence and I've heard, Mr.
    Bodman, you speak about the 60 percent reliability we have on
    people that maybe don't trust us totally or we don't trust them
    or we're fearful of it.
        I've heard the President make similar statements and I
    certainly agree with him. And I'm pleased to see that the
    budget highlights alternative fuel technology; solar, biomass,
    nuclear, hydrogen and clean coal and all of these are going to
    help us, but I must say that I'm a little distressed to see
    that the Administration has also chosen to zero out some very
    important oil and gas research programs. If we want to become
    energy independent from foreign sources, then we need to
    support innovation in this area, I think, to the hilt and
    Secretary Bodman, as you know, independent producers drill
    about 90 percent of the Nation's wells and produce 85 percent
    of the Nation's oil and gas, so this isn't something that we're
    pitching to the majors that report huge profits every year and
    something that maybe the people feel that they ought to be
    having to put some of that back in the refineries or helping us
    with their energy problems.
        Now, I'll subscribe to most of that, but troubling to me is
    the Administration's proposal to end a program that we've all
    passed here, this committee's passed them for the last four
    years. I passed the budget, the ultra-deep arrangement three
    times as a Democrat and once as a Republican. It survived the
    conference committee each time and I think it's the will of
    this Congress. And I won't get into the royalty waivers because
    ultra-deep program doesn't have any such waivers. We excluded
    those waivers from this. We knew it would be objectionable. We
    didn't put that in there.
        But the program's designed for independent producers, not
    the majors. They help out by taking it over afterwards, and
    dozens of universities, companies all across this country and
    research labs everywhere are ready to move in and carry out
    this energy bill that we just proposed, but I think the thing
    that concerns me most and maybe you can explain it a little bit
    better to me, I sure hope you can, because I'm really concerned
    about it and the Department of Energy, FY 2007 Presidential
    budget request and the budget highlights on page 50, where it
    lays out their fossil energy research and development and under
    natural gas technologies and petroleum/oil technologies, for FY
    2007 request is zeroed out. Is that correct? Is that the
    recommendation of the Department of Energy?
        Secretary Bodman. It is the recommendation of the
    Administration, yes, Mr. Hall.
        Mr. Hall. Then I won't ask you to express your opinion on
    it at this time, but I'm going to want to talk to you about it
    later and maybe ask you to give us some more information on it.
        Secretary Bodman. Well, I'd be happy to provide any
    information, sir, as I can.
        Mr. Hall. You always have been and I'm very hopeful that we
    can work something out on this, but at page 52 of the report it
    says, ``The FY 2007 budget proposed to terminate the oil
    technology and natural gas technologies' research and
    development programs. Federal staff paid from the program
    direction account will continue to work toward an orderly
    termination of this program.'' What federal staff would that
    have been?
        Secretary Bodman. This is the staff that is working on the
    research and development programs in the laboratories--as well
    as in the Energy Department.
        Mr. Hall. And you have access to that?
        Secretary Bodman. Do I have access to that?
        Mr. Hall. Do you have access to it?
        Secretary Bodman. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Hall. Let me be more specific. We get to the ultra-deep
    water and unconventional natural gas and other petroleum
    research fund that we've created; for 10 years we've been
    trying to pass an energy bill. For four years we've had these
    provisions in it and the request, it states that ``ultra-deep
    water and unconventional natural gas and other petroleum
    research fund was created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as a
    mandatory program beginning in FY 2007. The program would be
    funded for mandatory federal revenues from oil and gas leases.
    The budget proposes to repeal the program through a future
    legislative proposal consistent with the decision to terminate
    the discretionary oil and gas programs.'' And FY 2005 shows the
    current appropriation and goes on through the FY 2007, that
    they're zeroed out. Are you aware of that?
        Secretary Bodman. Yes, sir, I'm aware of it.
        Mr. Hall. All right, then, might I ask you if you intend to
    try to repeal the program through a future legislative
    proposal, what type proposal would that be?
        Secretary Bodman. Well, I think you'll find that the
    Congress will receive from the Administration a proposal to
    rescind that portion of the Energy Bill that deals with this
    particular program. My further understanding, sir, is that
    Congress, in passing the bill and the President, in signing the
    bill and creating the bill, has provided for the funding of
    this particular program starting in the year 2007 and that to
    the extent that Congress does not respond favorably to the
    proposal from the Administration, this Department will obey the
    law and we'll just----
        Mr. Hall. Well, I know you'll do that. My argument's not
    directly with you, it's with the decision that's been made
    somewhere.
        Secretary Bodman. I understand, but I'm just telling you
    that my understanding is that there is funding provided, that
    it's mandatory and we will pursue the matter. We have already
    done that which the law requires us to do. We have conducted
    the solicitation, the responses to the solicitation have been
    submitted and we are in the process of evaluating those at the
    current time.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. Gentleman's time
    has expired. Chair recognizes Mr. Wu.
        Mr. Hall. In that case, I yield back my time.
        Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Wu.
        Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I fully support
    the President's initiative to increase funding for greater
    competitiveness and innovation in America, but our budget, as
    passed, is simply not consistent with these goals. Immediately
    after the President made these proposals in the State of the
    Union Address, we cut college student financial aid by $12
    billion and that was an Administration proposal to cut college
    financial aid by $12 billion. We've got to walk the walk as
    well as talk the talk. Competitiveness is, in large part, about
    job creation and I can see nothing more important than a
    college education. It is also about job retention and we must
    work to make the President's competitiveness initiative more
    than just words and rhetoric; our citizens deserve that.
    Research and development funding should be increased overall
    and not just for the favorite few programs at the expense of
    the rest. Again, we've got to walk the walk as well as talk the
    talk.
        The Administration seeks to completely gut the Advanced
    Technology Program and to decrease funding for the
    Manufacturing Extension Partnership, two programs with a proven
    record of creating and retaining manufacturing jobs today and
    into the future. We need results, not just empty promises and
    faulty reasoning. We in Congress have consistently stood our
    ground and increased overall science and technology investment
    above and beyond the Administration's request and I encourage
    my colleagues to continue to do so.
        Dr. Marburger, I have a couple of questions for you. It has
    been two years since allegations of scientific manipulation and
    censorship were first made against this Administration. Despite
    your assurances that these claims had no validity whatsoever
    and that you were looking into this very important matter,
    allegations have continued to surface. They are not confined to
    a single office or agency. The recent incidents concerning Dr.
    Hansen at NASA, the reports about problems at NOAA, the
    mysterious transformation of the Technology Administration's
    report on off-shoring, and the suspension of a forest research
    grant at Oregon State University suggest that these problems
    are continuing in the Federal Government.
        Despite your assurances to the contrary, it appears that
    this Administration continues to confuse the roles of science
    policy and politics. It seems to many that information
    inconsistent with a favored political message is being
    suppressed and I submit to you, sir, that it is not just in
    science. That's exactly what happened in the Intelligence
    Committee and that's why we are stuck in a situation in the
    Middle East. It is time to stop politicizing science and
    muzzling scientists. This incident involving the publication of
    Science, in my home State, of a forest regeneration study by a
    student from Oregon State University is truly, truly troubling.
        The Bureau of Land Management suspended the federal
    research grant that funded this work, suspended it based on
    trumped up charges that the authors had violated a grant
    agreement. BLM almost immediately reversed itself in a
    firestorm of controversy and the grant suspension has been
    lifted, but the chilling effect of the BLM action continues to
    reverberate in the academic community. Dr. Marburger, this is a
    very serious problem. Why are we still learning about these
    incidents of scientific suppression two years after you wrote
    to this committee and this Congress assuring us that scientific
    integrity was not a problem in this Administration? For an
    Administration that takes more than a dozen hours to report a
    shooting, two years is a very, very long time and we still have
    this problem. Why is that so?
        Dr. Marburger. Congressman, I couldn't agree more with the
    undesirability of politicizing science. Unfortunately, science
    does have a credibility that stands by itself and everyone who
    has an opinion or an idea wants to grab a little of that
    credibility to bolster their own opinion. I'm not familiar with
    the case in Oregon State University and I'd be glad to look
    into it and respond to you and to any other specific incidents
    that you would like to direct me to. I personally believe,
    based on my own observation and interviews with leadership in
    the agencies, that there is not, in fact, an effort by this
    Administration to censor science or politicize it in any way.
        Mr. Wu. Dr. Marburger, what has your office done
    specifically to investigate the many, many allegations?
        Dr. Marburger. Whenever I hear of an allegation of this
    sort, I ask for a briefing on it either through my staff or
    directly from the agency where the incident occurred. I get all
    of the information----
        Mr. Wu. Since my time is expiring, maybe we could have
    another answer in writing addressing each of the specific
    incidents and we would appreciate receiving that.
        Dr. Marburger. I would be glad to do so.
        Mr. Wu. And perhaps we could further bolster your efforts
    by asking for a GAO report on the same topic, investigating
    whether these incidents are real and perhaps we could also get
    the National Academy of Sciences involved at some point.
        Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis.
        Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being
    late to this hearing. Ms. Jackson Lee and I were just finished
    at the mark up in Judiciary, so we're happy to be here now
    talking about these topics. And Dr. Bement, you have talked and
    the National Academy of Sciences has, I think, suggested that
    the icebreakers in the Antarctic Program be owned by the Coast
    Guard rather than charged to the NSF. This budget this year,
    again, has the money coming from the NSF. Any hope that we're
    going to get to implement that recommendation that we get those
    back to the responsibility of the Coast Guard?
        Dr. Bement. I don't recall actually making that statement.
    We have established an MOU with the Coast Guard, in which case
    the Coast Guard retains operational responsibility for the
    icebreakers and we have the responsibility for tasking the
    Coast Guard for the use of icebreakers. Based on that tasking,
    they then present us with a plan and then we negotiate the
    price and sometimes those negotiations are tough.
        Mr. Inglis. Let me make sure, I didn't mean to indicate
    that you had said anything about the icebreakers being
    transferred back to Coast Guard; the National Academy of
    Sciences has recommended that and I'm inclined to agree with
    that recommendation, so is a way of freeing up funds in your
    budget would be my main goal in transferring back to Coast
    Guard.
        Dr. Bement. We certainly appreciate your interest in that
    and we're also looking forward to the final report by the
    National Research Council on the issue.
        Mr. Inglis. It's helpful. I guess it's a question that has
    a direction to it. In other words, some hope that we can move
    back to a situation where the NSF budget is not taxed by those
    doing the icebreaking operations.
        And for all of the witnesses, one of the challenges, I
    suppose, in running your agencies is identifying the truly
    innovative projects and devoting resources to those, and these
    are the high-risk kind of breakthrough technologies. If you
    could give us a couple of lines on how it is in your agency you
    attempt to focus some resources on the truly innovative
    realizing that you've got to balance that with the things that
    will be yielding practical results soon and anybody that wants
    to start, I'd be happy to----
        Secretary Bodman. I'd be happy to start and we are working
    on broadening the types of feedstock that can be used to
    manufacture ethanol from corn or sugar cane to less valuable
    materials to so-called switch grass or corn stover or other
    materials and the President has asked for and provided for
    roughly, a $50 million increase from roughly $100 million to
    $150 million that will enable us. Before, I think, we were
    focusing entirely on the corn stover. We will now be able to
    work on a variety of feedstock. So that's one area.
        And the second one is in the solar energy and we are quite
    optimistic that by using also an additional $50 million
    approximately that has been indicated for that program. We will
    do a solicitation and be looking at the improvement of the
    efficiency of affordable cells that are currently making
    electricity at a price of roughly 20 to 25 cents. We need to
    cut that in half and there are some approaches that we have
    talked about that we believe have the potential. It's not
    certainty, but the potential of substantially reducing that,
    maybe cutting it in half, so those would be two suggestions.
        Dr. Sampson. At Commerce, we're focusing, in this budget
    increase, on nanotechnology, moving from just a pure art;
    research on the lab bench from nanotechnology to application in
    the manufacturing context. Secondly, hydrogen; the hydrogen
    economy, the safe manufacture, storage, sale of hydrogen. And
    then thirdly, quantum information science. If we're successful
    in moving down the road toward quantum computing, it will
    result in computers that can solve the most complex cases in
    seconds that today's most advanced supercomputers could not
    solve in years and so those are the areas that are identified
    for R&D funding at NIST.
        Chairman Boehlert. Gentleman's time--all right. Go to it.
    The wrong part, the end of the table.
        Mr. Inglis. No, I say you're at the beginning of the table.
        Chairman Boehlert. Yes.
        Dr. Bement. Let me say, Mr. Inglis, that the number one
    priority at the Foundation is moving the frontier forward,
    advancing the frontier, so that it would take a very long time
    to go through examples, but beyond that, let me say that we are
    trying to promote high-risk research. We do that by giving our
    program officers up to five percent of their budget to invest
    in new ideas that are scientifically feasible but also entail
    high risk. Each of our directors have part of their budget set
    aside, peer reviewed activities, but they are also oriented
    toward high-risk research. And finally, I could mention the
    LIGO experiment, which is Laser Interferometer Gravitational
    Wave Observatory, to measure gravitational waves. That is
    really an example of very high-risk research in terms of the
    level of investment, but also the precision of measurement
    required. As a result of that investment, we have advanced
    optics technology, we've advanced laser technology and we've
    advanced active and passive damping technology beyond anyone's
    imagination.
        Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you and the gentleman's time is
    expired. Earlier in an exchange with Secretary Bodman, Mr.
    Honda asked some very important questions and it's our
    understanding now, in checking with the staff, that you did
    include in your testimony answers to the questions from Mr.
    Honda. We're going to bring those to his attention and so we
    hope he will be satisfied that you have been responsive in a
    timely fashion. If he's not satisfied, then we'll hold his hand
    and call you up and say we want more.
        Secretary Bodman. Here they are, sir.
        Chairman Boehlert. Okay, thank you.
        Secretary Bodman. They were delivered on October 26, 2005
    and----
        Chairman Boehlert. Fine, and I think that was not brought
    to Mr. Honda's attention and it will be, so thank you very
    much, Mr. Secretary, for your responsiveness. Chair recognizes
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this very
    important hearing. I'm delighted my colleague shared with you
    that we were unavoidably detained in a mark up in Judiciary.
    Needless to say, this is a crucial hearing for America. As we
    sit here today, I think we can be very confident that China now
    graduates more scientists in the multiple disciplines than we
    do in a year. So we know that there are challenges that we have
    to confront together and you all present in a wonderful array
    of disciplines. But as we have made the very complementary, if
    you will, support statements as relates to the President's
    American Competitiveness Initiative, might I, for the record,
    restate which I know has already been restated, that despite
    these increases, the overall federal Science and Technology
    budget has been cut by one percent.
        Even in the face of the tragedy of the tsunami, we find
    that NOAA, indeed, for oceanic and atmospheric research has
    declined by eight percent even though NASA and NIH are, in
    fact, flat. We also see that DOE sustains major cuts throughout
    energy efficiency and for the second year, DOE would have to
    eliminate the Gas and Oil Technologies Program. On the other
    hand, I think there are some opportunities that we have if we
    can shed ourselves of the partisanship that seems to plague
    this terrible shortage and question of science and technology
    proudness in American. For example, the President's budget
    would double basic R&D in physical sciences at some of our
    agency in 10 years, frankly, many of us who are Democrats
    believe it should be done in five years. We cannot wait. Some
    would say that we cannot fall behind on our clock.
        In addition, I think it is important to note, for those of
    us who live in the inner city and rural districts, broadband
    access is paltry. There are no new federal investment in
    broadband access. That speaks poorly of a nation who is at the
    cutting edge of research. And then, as I said earlier, this
    particular budget fails to provide adequate funding to invest
    in the development of clean, sustainable energy alternatives
    such as bio-based fuels, as well as new engine technologies for
    flexible fuel vehicles. Of course, I come from the energy
    capital of the world and I am certainly not going to step away
    from that. We're proud, in Houston, Texas, to have a number of
    major oil companies and gas companies who are on the cutting
    edge of technology, but as we well know, the Internet was
    created by the wisdom of government scientists, no matter what
    anyone might articulate, and therefore, I know that we can do a
    better job in alternative fuel.
        So I have a number of questions that I hope I can have
    reasonable time for you to respond. First of all, Secretary of
    Energy, Dr. Bodman, might I say to you we need to see you more.
    In these months of crisis with energy prices soaring, the
    question of the environment versus energy, the question of the
    whole issue of, as I said, gas technology, oil technology and
    alternative fuels, frankly, I don't know how the energy policy
    of America has been articulated. I frankly don't believe it
    should be articulated from the Administration with closed door
    meetings. You're the Secretary of Energy. We need to see you
    more. And I think there needs to be policies that are
    progressive and innovative that are bipartisan.
        I was not sure of the line of questioning that my good
    friend and colleague, Mr. Hall, was approaching you with, but I
    know very well the details of the royalty provisions because
    they were passed under the Clinton Administration and at the
    time, I supported them, coming from Houston, Texas. I frankly
    thought there was reason, in order to encourage the domestic
    development here in the United States. But I believe this
    Administration owes a responsibility to this nation to look at
    those royalties and assess whether they are viable at this time
    when we are struggling economically, particularly in the
    sciences and looking at alternative sources of fuel. Why not
    use those dollars, why not waive those royalties as we speak
    and provide those dollars to be invested back in science and
    alternative fuel?
        So let me start, Dr. Marburger, and Dr. Bement can answer
    these, as well. To the good graces of this committee, we passed
    legislation signed by the President that established the Dr.
    Mae Jemison Grant Program--you may be familiar with her math
    and science outreach. I'd like to know your sense of whether
    those kinds of programs should be funded. When I say math and
    science outreach to minorities and others and women to avoid
    statements to encourage young people to be engaged in the
    sciences. The bill was passed through the authorization and
    signed by the President. Do you believe those kinds of programs
    should be supported? Dr. Bement, if you would comment on that,
    as well. Secretary Bodman, if you would comment on why you
    don't have enough money for federal funding of alternative
    fuels and why you continue with Yucca Mountain.
        Chairman Boehlert. Just let the Chair observe that you used
    the entire five minutes to ask a series of questions and to
    answer all of the questions adequately, I think it would take
    another 10 to 15 minutes and so the panelists will have your
    questions and I would ask the panelists to respond in writing
    to the specific questions made by Ms. Jackson Lee.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, Mr. Chairman, I beg your----
        Chairman Boehlert. The Chair has----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. If they can ask for one--If they can
    answer the question each in one minute, I think that would be
    appropriate and then they can answer the rest----
        Chairman Boehlert. But the Chair would observe, and I've
    been in the Chair a long time and you've been a valued Member
    of the Committee for a long time, but that when you use all the
    time allotted to you just to ask a series of questions and then
    have every right to expect answers to them, but that is going
    to be very time consuming. There are other members of the panel
    who also have an interest in picking the brains of these very
    distinguished gentlemen and we want answer to our questions,
    too. The Chair has always been generous and I will be generous
    now and I will give them an opportunity to respond, but I also
    want them to respond to the last question specifically and the
    other questions in writing because quite frankly, I'm not
    prepared to sit here until this evening to get all the answers
    to all the questions.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would
    yield----
        Chairman Boehlert. I'll be glad to yield.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Dr. Marburger and Dr. Bement--is it--how
    do you pronounce your name, sir? What is it?
        Dr. Bement. Bement.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Bement.
        Chairman Boehlert. And Dr. Marburger?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, to answer----
        Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Bement?
        Ms. Jackson Lee.--the question on the Dr. Mae Jamison
    Program and I'd like the Secretary to answer in one minute
    about the royalties. If there are other questions that they can
    answer in writing----
        Chairman Boehlert. Gentlemen, the Floor is yours.
        Ms. Jackson Lee.--I would appreciate----
        Chairman Boehlert. We'll start with Dr. Marburger.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. This is a serious hearing, Mr. Chairman. I
    thank the----
        Chairman Boehlert. This is a serious hearing and as you've
    observed, you were forced out of the hearing because you had a
    very serious hearing in Judiciary Committee----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Boehlert.--and all of us have a lot of serious
    business that don't relate directly to this committee, but we
    all have to be considerate of the time constraints on our
    colleagues and our very distinguished witnesses. So with that,
    Dr.
        Marburger----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate that.
        Chairman Boehlert.--please respond specifically.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I'm always considerate.
        Dr. Bement. Thank you, Congresswoman. In fact, I do believe
    that programs to encourage young people from all classes and
    socioeconomic levels and under-represented groups to study
    science, technology, engineering, mathematics fields, the so-
    called STEM fields, are very important. I think that
    scholarship programs like that are good and I advocate these
    types of programs because they have an important impact on all
    of young people, not just under-represented minorities. Let me
    state that this is one of our highest priorities. If you look
    at a cluster of programs that have very high impact, like TCUP,
    HBCU-UP, CREST, AGEP, LSAMP, and Noyce Program, collectively,
    we have increased those budgets on the average of 22.4 percent
    in '07 budget and these programs are joined and they're
    cooperative collaborations both from our EHR directorate as
    well as our Research and Related Activities directorate, so we
    have a full court press in this area.
        Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Secretary, would you respond?
        Secretary Bodman. First of all, the Interior Department is
    the department that deals with the matters of royalties.
    Secondly, my understanding is that President Clinton, under his
    leadership in the late '90s passed a law that would relieve the
    oil companies, as a part of their program, from paying
    royalties in order to stimulate more oil and gas drilling. That
    was the object. Apparently, he was successful.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. We don't need it now.
        Secretary Bodman. I'm sorry?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. We don't need it now.
        Secretary Bodman. I understand that. On the other hand, a
    deal was made and a contract was drawn. I have spent a lot of
    my time since I came to this Administration traveling the
    world, visiting with other countries, talking about the
    sanctity of contracts and making an agreement and I think that
    if the deal were changed at this point in time, even in the
    face of the profitability that the oil and gas companies have,
    in my judgment, that would be an error. Could they live with
    it? I would imagine that they could. Could I live with it? I
    certainly could. But it's not something that I would advocate.
        Chairman Boehlert. I would hope that when we revise and
    extend our remarks, we talk about commitments or arrangements.
    Too many deals made in Washington that offend a lot of people,
    but I must admit, Ms. Jackson Lee has touched on a subject that
    hits all of us right here and she's got some merit to what
    she's saying and I'm really concerned about that and so that's
    something you're going to be hearing more about from us on a
    bipartisan basis. With that, the Chair will recognize, and I
    would note, Ms. Jackson Lee, that I've given you double the
    amount of time accorded some other Members----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Boehlert.--because they're thoughtful questions
    and I appreciate them. Mr. Miller.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you. Dr. Marburger, I know that you're in
    a hurry this morning, but I really urge you to go back and read
    this article again. It is apparent, based upon your summary of
    the article that you read it entirely too quickly. The last
    paragraph that says, ``I am thus left with nothing to report,''
    only refers to that portion of the column that begins here, and
    that is a discussion of how five research scientists at
    Caltech, and I assume research scientists at Caltech are the
    real deal. I mean, that's a pretty good school, right? That
    since that report that had found such disfavor, they had never
    gotten a federal research grant again.
        Now, the reason that this whole matter came to this
    columnist's attention was that there was an article just a
    couple, three weeks ago, there was some press coverage two or
    three weeks ago that one of the world's leading preeminent
    climate scientists, Jim Hansen of NASA, was being urged to
    soften what he had to say by a NASA spokesman and the NASA
    spokesman had resigned and that she said she'd gotten many
    calls of other instances that the columnist said, how does she
    describe it? All were from people with similar tales of
    government funded scientists intimidated by heavy handed public
    relations departments, and she pursued one of the stories,
    which was this one. What she says is that all of that part of
    the story is confirmed, referring to the part above, how
    they've never gotten a grant and they believed it was--another
    grant--they believed it was in retribution for what they'd done
    in that research report.
        And what was confirmed was that your office had killed a
    press conference and a press release just as Secretary Abraham
    was about to speak on the hydrogen cell research in Europe as
    evidence that it was the Bush Administration's concern for the
    environment. Your spokesman does say pretty much the same thing
    in this article that you said this morning, that that was so
    that you could talk to the Department of Energy. Nobody at
    NASA, all of them were speaking without attribution, seemed to
    buy that at all. They thought it was political.
        So please read this article again and Dr. Marburger, also,
    please read the report of about two and a half years ago by the
    Union of Concerned Scientists, that were multiple reports of
    intimidation of scientists, of scientists having their grants
    revoked, which is Mr. Wu's tale earlier of the scientists from
    his district that you said you hadn't heard about, reports
    being edited, revised, censored because their findings were
    unpalatable, of advisory panels being stacked with scientists
    whose views were not necessarily in the mainstream of the
    scientific community, but were very compatible with what the
    Administration believed. Please read that article again this
    morning and that report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, Mr. Miller. I'd like to make
    this point to Mr. Miller. This committee is vitally concerned
    with scientific inquiry. We want to be informed by scientists.
    We don't want to intimidate them. And when matters are brought
    to the attention of the Chair that question the process, that
    would indicate that perhaps the process is not working as
    desired, the Chair is very active. I would point out that I am
    most familiar with the Hansen case, as it's now known, around
    this town. I want to point out that NASA took immediate action.
    Mike Griffin, the Administrator of NASA, took immediate action
    to advise one and all within that agency that scientific
    inquiry is not to be stifled, scientific opinion is not to be
    stifled. I applauded him for that.
        I want to point out that this committee took to task
    another committee because we thought that other committee, in
    this instance, Energy and Commerce, in dealing with Dr. Mann
    and his associates on the so-called hockey stick theory
    involving global climate change, we thought that the Energy and
    Commerce Committee was not proceeding in an appropriate manner.
    Rather than conducting public hearings, discuss the subject and
    to question the science, they launched an investigation to
    intimidate the scientists and I made that very public. In this
    instance, there are a lot of questions to be asked and I am
    convinced that Dr. Marburger, in his capacity, and I am
    convinced that each of the gentlemen before me in their
    capacity, would agree with the basic premise that science
    should inform us, we should not engage in trying to intimidate
    scientists who happen to have an opinion different from the
    political orthodoxy of the day.
        I like to point out to people that you and I, Mr. Miller,
    both work in a town where everyone likes to say they're for
    science-based decision making until the scientific consensus
    leads to a politically inconvenient conclusion, then some
    people want to go to Plan B. But I am convinced, after all the
    effort and energy of my staff and I in looking into these
    matters, that's there's no secret plot hatched on high to
    intimidate science, but there are some people who get off the
    reservation and this 24-year-old rogue assistant in the Public
    Affairs Department is a case in point, thinking that he was,
    you know, aiding the cause and did something that was totally
    unappropriate. I would further point out that that young rogue
    is no longer on the payroll of the United States Government and
    that swift, prompt, decisive, crystal-clear action was taken by
    the Administrator of NASA. The word went out to the scientific
    community, as the word should go out from this Chair and from
    all of you very distinguished gentlemen that we want to be
    informed by science. We don't want to intimidate scientists.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Miller.
        Mr. Miller. Mr. Chair, may I point back, since you pointed
    out a few things?
        Chairman Boehlert. Yes, sir, I'd be glad to do it, Mr.
    Miller.
        Mr. Miller. First of all, I readily can say the Democratic
    Party is also plagued by 24-year-olds who are remarkably self-
    important and get us all into trouble. I do not want to
    disagree with my Chairman. He is certainly one of the fairest
    chairmen here and does preside over this committee in a very
    nonpartisan way, certainly a bipartisan way. However, the
    Democrats on this committee have tried to make this question a
    subject of committee hearings. We did that two and a half years
    ago when the Union of Concerned Scientists issued their report
    and Mr. Chairman, you would not agree to conduct committee
    hearings on that point. We now have the issue of Jim Hansen,
    one of the world's preeminent climate scientists who has been
    told by a 24-year-old to keep quiet. We have Mr. Wu's specific
    instance in Oregon. Dr. Marburger says he'll look at this on a
    case-by-case basis, but we have heard from many others that
    this is not a case-by-case matter, this is something that
    crosses all the scientific research agencies. We have the
    instance in this morning's paper of five Caltech research
    scientists who have not gotten a single grant since they issued
    an unpalatable report. Mr. Chairman, will you agree to hold
    hearings on this topic?
        Chairman Boehlert. Wait to get an answer from Dr. Marburger
    after he has had an opportunity to look into the matter and
    report back. I'm not reluctant to have hearings on anything. My
    job is not to be a cheerleader for the Administration even
    though it's the Administration that I gladly identify with and
    proudly identify with, I stand up to the Administration when I
    don't agree with the Administration and there are occasions
    when I don't. Secretary Bodman knows, for example, that on the
    Energy Policy the Administration advanced, I didn't think it
    handled the challenge in the correct way and I was a leader of
    the opposition, trying to make something better.
        But the point is, I'd be glad to hold hearings when I think
    they are in the jurisdiction of this committee and when they
    involve something where there is compelling evidence that
    indicates that this committee has to take its time and energy
    to hold hearings and right now, we're talking about the
    American Competitiveness Initiative, we're talking about the
    American Energy Initiative. Those are vitally important
    subjects. We have very distinguished Americans before us that
    are giving us their time, they're sharing with us their wisdom
    and we're learning from that process.
        This committee's going to have a whole series of
    Subcommittee hearings over the ensuing weeks and months to try
    to bring all of this to a logical conclusion where we establish
    responsible public policy that's responding to the national
    need in the proper way. So with that, let me tell you I will be
    glad to entertain any request from any Member of the Committee,
    Republican or Democrat, for hearings. I want those requests
    backed up by supporting documentation that the hearings are
    warranted or justified.
        And quite frankly, it's my sincere feeling, from the heart,
    from the gut, from the head, that this institution, the
    Congress of the United States, in which we proudly serve, is
    far too partisan, far too partisan. The election is over. Let's
    get on with identifying, with shaping responsive public policy
    in a responsible way. With that, let me have one last question
    for Dr. McQueary because you've been sitting here all this time
    so patient and I want to give you an opportunity before you
    leave to address one question.
        The President's budget contains strong new support--wait a
    minute. I want to make sure I got the right question. All
    right, there you go. How are DHS--this is very important
    because it's relevant to you and it's also relevant to
    Commerce. How are DHS and NIST working together with industry
    to ensure that high quality standards are being developed for
    homeland security related technologies such as biometrics and
    cyber security and inter-operable communications and how would
    the proposed reduction in funding for standards within DHS S&T
    affect the future of DHS' internal program, its relationship
    with NIST and its relationship with the makers and users of
    homeland security technologies? That's a big question, but it's
    also very important.
        Dr. McQueary. It's a very important question. The--I need
    to emphasize that the relationship that we have with NIST, in
    my judgment, could not be better, starting with when Dr. Bement
    was there. We worked out that relationship. We have a NIST
    person on detail to Science and Technology that actually heads
    up the standards work that we do. All of the work that we deal
    with in standards is a consensus standard approach in which we
    engage not only NIST but ANSI and any other standards agency
    around the country to try to make sure that what we propose to
    do in either draft standards or in final standards represent a
    point of view that those who would be most affected by it could
    use.
        We also have a NIST person that is working with us in our
    critical infrastructure protection area. Now, with that said,
    the issue on the budget, a part of that reduction, there are
    two things you see in the number; one, is we made a substantial
    move of monies into the management and administrative account,
    which we needed to do in order to properly account for how our
    funds are being spent. That is one issue. The other is the
    DNDO, or the radiation standards. That will be paid for out of
    the DNDO budget. We will assist them, but fundamentally the
    budget, for what they have to do in developing standards there.
    So the accommodation of those two things represent the primary
    change in that number. I'm not concerned that we're about to
    start sliding standards at all with that, with the budget level
    we have.
        Chairman Boehlert. And how about the relationship with
    NIST? I mean, do you feel that's solid?
        Dr. McQueary. The relationship is excellent. I knew Bill
    Jeffrey. It was good there when we were with Dr. Bement. Bill
    Jeffrey I knew when he was working for Dr. Marburger, and so we
    have a very good relationship with them and look forward to
    continue it. It's an excellent organization.
        Mr. Boehlert. Dr. Sampson, do you want to give us your take
    on that?
        Dr. Sampson. Well, I would concur. We have worked very
    closely with Homeland Security on biometric standards. Dr.
    Jeffrey is a true leader. He is a excellent scientist. He's a
    good manager. He's a good colleague with partner agencies, and
    so we have a very strong relationship.
        Mr. Boehlert. We promised to get you gentlemen out before
    the sun sets today, but as a famous talk show host used to say,
    for the last word, I will recognize Ms. Jackson Lee for a short
    intervention.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is an
    intervention to you, please. Thank you for your kind remarks
    regarding the royalty payments. I do want to say that,
    hopefully, in a bipartisan manner, we can have hearings. I
    indicated that Houston still considers itself the energy
    capital of the world and I represent it proudly, but that
    language and contract were passed during a time when there was
    a necessity to encourage development and the energy industry
    was, of course, experiencing some difficult times. I hope we'll
    have the opportunity to consider it and reconsider it, not on
    breaking contract, but on the progressive or forward-thinking
    of what we can do to enhance alternative fuels.
        Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much and I agree----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And I hope we can have hearings was my
    question.
        Chairman Boehlert. And I thank you very much. I would like
    to claim jurisdiction over the whole wide world. Unfortunately,
    this committee does not have jurisdiction. It's in the
    Resources Committee.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Waive it.
        Chairman Boehlert. And we'll go hand in hand to the
    Resources Committee and then make the case. But thank you very
    much. I appreciate all the time you've given us in your very
    busy schedules. I know you will be responsive in a timely
    manner to the written questions we submit. I also know from
    personal experience, and it's not just because I'm the
    Chairman, my colleagues reported the same thing, all of you
    gentlemen have had dialogue over the telephone, in person, in
    office meetings with various Members of this committee. I
    commend you for your great work for the Nation. And, Dr.
    Bement, I'm glad to see you smiling. This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                                   Appendix:

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by John H. Marburger III, Director, Office of Science and
            Technology Policy

    Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

    Q1.  What level of funding is proposed in the Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07)
    budget request specifically for studying potential environmental and
    safety implications associated with nanotechnology? Please provide
    agency-specific budget levels and describe for each agency the research
    that it plans to focus upon. How is nanotechnology environmental and
    safety research coordinated with R&D on potential new nanotechnology
    products? How is it coordinated with the needs of regulatory agencies?

    A1. In accordance with the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
    Development Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-153), information regarding the
    spending for environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research related
    to nanotechnology will be provided in the National Nanotechnology
    Initiative (NNI) Supplement to the President's FY 2007 Budget. The
    Supplement will be delivered to the Committee after it is reviewed and
    approved by the 25 NNI agencies. (As called for under P.L. 108-153, the
    supplement will include a description of the amount of Small Business
    Innovative Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Research
    funds directed at nanotechnology research and development. Collection
    of these data from all of the NNI agencies has delayed completion of
    the report, but publication is imminent.)
        Although the Government generally does not perform safety testing
    or research on specific products, environment and safety research
    (whether on nanotechnology-enabled materials or otherwise) is performed
    on classes of compounds or materials based on a number of criteria,
    including the likelihood of exposure and potential for toxicity (based
    on preliminary data or similarities with other compounds). Such
    research falls within the jurisdiction of several agencies, including
    the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency,
    the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the
    National Institutes of Health's National Toxicology Program.
        Within the National Science and Technology Council's Nanoscale
    Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, the Nanotechnology
    Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group provides for
    coordination among the research agencies and those agencies with
    regulatory responsibilities. A document is in preparation that
    identifies the research needed to support risk assessment and
    regulatory decision-making.

    Q2.  In his testimony to the Science Committee on February 15, Dr.
    Sampson mentioned that in April 2005, the Office of Science and
    Technology Policy completed a Strategic Plan for a U.S. Integrated
    Earth Observing System. How did the strategic plan guide development of
    the Administration's FY07 budget request for activities related to the
    earth observing technologies? What is the Administration's FY07 request
    for the activities that are identified as contributing to, or are a
    part of, the strategic plan for earth observing systems? Of that
    amount, how much is for new initiatives created to support the
    strategic plan and how much is for previously existing programs?

    A2. The 15-agency U.S. Group on Earth Observations (USGEO), as a
    Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council's Committee
    on Environment and Natural Resources, develops plans and guidance for
    an Integrated Earth Observing System (IEOS). The primary goal of IEOS
    is to fully utilize and optimize our existing (substantial) investments
    in Earth observing systems through improved prioritization, integration
    and coordination. Many of the Earth observation programs throughout the
    Federal Government are beginning to voluntarily align themselves with
    the goals and processes of the USGEO.
        With the publication of the U.S. Strategic Plan for IEOS in April,
    2005, the USGEO has been focusing on the development of plans to
    implement the IEOS. Near-term Opportunity Plans have been developed and
    will be released in the next several weeks. These plans address a wide
    range of societal benefit areas, from reducing loss of life and
    property from disasters to supporting sustainable agriculture, to
    improving public health. The plans will be factored into the agency and
    OMB for the FY 2008 planning activities and budget request. The USGEO
    has also begun mid- and long-term planning for these and some
    additional areas.
        With the FY 2007 budget request, agencies are beginning to address
    the priorities outlined by USGEO and the IEOS Strategic Plan. In
    addition, many of the Earth observation programs throughout the Federal
    Government are beginning to voluntarily align themselves with the goals
    and processes of the USGEO.
        Some examples of increases (over 2006 estimate) in the President's
    Request in the areas of the six Near-Term Opportunities include:

              An Air Quality Assessment and Forecast System: $2.5M
            increase at NOAA.

              Improved Observations for Disaster Reduction: $12.36M
            increase at NOAA for Tsunami observation and warning programs
            at NOAA; $2.8M increase at USGS for National Streamflow
            Information Program; $27.4 million for EarthScope at NSF.

              A Global Land Observation System: $98 million at NASA
            to procure a next-generation Landsat instrument to continue the
            30-year record of land imagery. In addition, the $16M increase
            in Landsat funding at USGS in FY 2006 is also requested for FY
            2007. The Administration has directed the USGEO to develop a
            long-term plan to meet U.S. operational land observing needs
            for decades to come, but there is no immediate budget
            implication for FY 2007.

              National Integrated Drought Information System: $4M
            increase at NOAA.

              A Sea Level Observation System: $13.5 million
            increase at NSF for the Ocean Observatories Initiative and
            $56.0 million for the Alaska Region Research Vessel.

              An Architecture and Data Management System for the
            U.S. integrated system: $6.8M increase for NOAA data centers
            that provide access to environmental records.

    Q3.  In the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004, the Office
    of Science and Technology Policy was directed to submit to Congress by
    October 25, 2005 an implementation plan for the National Windstorm
    Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP) which would include a designation of
    the lead agency for the program. Has a lead agency been designated?
    When will the implementation plan be delivered to Congress? What do the
    four agencies involved in NWIRP propose to spend on these programs in
    FY07?

    A3. The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program implementation plan
    has been completed and was delivered to Congress on April 5, 2006. The
    plan recommends that a coordinated, comprehensive multi-agency, multi-
    disciplinary group be established as a working group of the National
    Science and Technology Council's Committee on Environment and Natural
    Resources, Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction. The charter of the
    working group is to reduce the impact of wind hazards by facilitating
    better communication among agencies, effectively allocating collective
    resources and operating within a common framework. This working group
    shall meet at least quarterly, report to the Subcommittee on Disaster
    Reduction annually and work with State, local officials and non-
    government organizations as appropriate. All federal agencies
    contributing to the plan shall be members of the working group and the
    chair of the working group will rotate between NIST, NSF, NOAA and FEMA
    with each agency serving a two-year term as chair. Existing research
    and development activities contain components that are relevant to wind
    research. However, the lack of common criteria to identify wind hazard
    reduction programs in different agencies makes identifying budgets
    across agencies relevant to wind impossible or meaningless at this
    time. An early action of the working group will be to inventory and
    analyze wind-related research programs to assess current investments in
    the different aspects of wind hazards and to optimize the portfolio to
    address the highest priority wind research.

    Question submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

    Q1.  Improvement of math and science education is a major longstanding
    responsibility of NSF. The President's proposed competitiveness
    initiative provides a funding increase for NSF of nearly eight percent.
    Unfortunately, this same budget proposal actually cuts NSF's K-12
    education programs by seven percent.

         Dr. Marburger, why is NSF not an important participant in the part
    of the President's competitiveness initiative that calls for grants to
    implement research-based math curricula and interventions, to provide
    professional development for in-service teachers so they can
    effectively teach advanced placement courses in science and math, and
    to attract more qualified individuals to science and math teaching?

    A1. The Department of Education is the focus of the ACI education
    component because of its close and direct connection to local school
    districts and State education agencies. While NSF funds a number of
    programs that seek to develop better teaching practices and materials,
    it does not provide funding to disseminate the products of that work to
    teachers across the country. It is the Department of Education that is
    best able to take projects and materials developed (often by NSF-funded
    projects), evaluate those materials for their efficacy, and disseminate
    them across the country. NSF programs provide unique tools and
    capabilities that are complementary to the education component of ACI,
    and I can assure you that NSF and the Department of Education will be
    working together to ensure that these new programs are coordinated with
    similar NSF programs.
        NSF support for K-12 math and science education is still a very
    important component of our overall efforts, and these programs will
    also benefit from the President's American Competitiveness Initiative.
    The FY 2007 Budget proposes an increase in funding for NSF's Education
    and Human Resources Division (HER) of $19.53 million, or 2.5 percent,
    to a total of $816 million. Although the percentage increase for EHR is
    smaller than it is for some of the research directorates, it should be
    recognized that the Research and Related Activities account includes
    support for K-12 activities. Also, because of the scheduled transition
    of the Math and Science Partnerships program to the Department of
    Education, as well as the end of a one-year pilot program for Young
    Scholars, the overall budget does not accurately depict the general
    trend which is to increase funding for the majority of education
    programs.
        EHR is realigning its K-12 programs over FY 2006 and FY 2007,
    resulting in the consolidation of several programs. During FY06, two
    EHR divisions--Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education (ESIE) and
    Research, Evaluation and Communication (REC), will be combined into the
    Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings. This
    realignment includes the consolidation of a number of programs in order
    to meet current needs in education research, development and
    evaluation. In addition, during FY06, three programs--Research on
    Learning and Education (ROLE), Evaluative Research and Evaluation
    Capacity (EREC), and Interagency Education Research Initiative (IERI)--
    will be combined into the Research and Evaluation on Education in
    Science and Engineering (REESE) program. The consolidation effort will
    continue in FY07 with the three additional programs--Instructional
    Materials Development (IMD), Teacher Professional Continuum (TPC), and
    Centers for Learning and Teaching (CTL)--being merged into the new
    Discovery Research K-12 program. The Math and Science Partnerships
    program has also been moved to the Division for Undergraduate
    Education.
        Within the new Division of Research on Learning in Formal and
    Informal Settings, funding for Discovery Research K-12 and for Informal
    Science education is increased by $10.71 million or 11.5 percent, and
    $2.94 million or 4.7 percent, respectively. Funding for long-term,
    high-risk education research within REESE program goes down by $6.87
    million due to the phase out of IERI. The Discovery Research K-12
    program grows to move research results into the classroom on a shorter-
    term.
        To fully appreciate the level of funding that NSF directs toward
    improving K-12 education, one must look beyond the Division of Research
    on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings, the new division that is
    the primary center for K-12-focused activities. Numerous programs in
    other divisions within EHR also provide funding to improve K-12
    education. For example, while the Advanced Technological Education
    (ATE) program is funded through the Division of Undergraduate Education
    primarily to improve two- and four-year programs in technological
    education, many projects and centers funded through this program have
    strong links to high school students who frequently begin college level
    work while still in secondary school. The ATE budget increases in FY07
    by $990,000 to $45.92 million. Similarly, the Robert Noyce Scholarship
    Program, a program aimed at helping individuals with degrees in STEM
    fields to transition to careers in K-12 teaching, enjoys a budget
    increase of over 11 percent in FY07. Funding for the National STEM
    Digital Library, an on-line resource for educators and students, also
    increases by $500,000 in FY07.
        Within the Division of Graduate Education, the budget for the
    Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education program, a program that
    puts STEM graduate students into K-12 schools where they improve
    communication and teaching, increases by 8.7 percent to $46.8 million.
        Beyond the EHR directorate, there are a number of programs in the
    Research and Related Activities Account that devote significant
    resources to the goal of improving K-12 education. For example, the new
    Middle and High School Geosciences Program, administered by the
    Geosciences Directorate, will provide $3 million to improve geosciences
    education in grades 6-12. Additionally, the Geosciences Directorate
    will expand support for the network of Centers for Ocean Science
    Education. Within the Integrative Activities Directorate, funding for
    the Science of Learning Centers increases by $4.29 million to $27.0
    million. And within the Engineering Directorate, funding for the
    Research Experiences for Teachers increases by $100,000 to $4.10
    million and for GK-12 fellowship support increases by $180,000 to $3.37
    million. Beyond that, Engineering Research Centers are required to
    include K-12 education and outreach activities in their work plan. And
    much of the work funded by the Social, Behavioral and Economics
    Directorate is targeted advancing our understanding of education and
    workforce development.
        Additionally, NSF is an important member of the American
    Competitiveness Council. Created by Congress in the Deficit Reduction
    Act, this Council aims to look across the Federal Government at all the
    money spent in STEM education programs and align our efforts around
    shared, strategic goals. The various types of education programs housed
    at NSF will provide valuable insight into the process as we look to
    evaluate how well all federal math and science programs are working and
    work to improve coordination between them.
                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary, Department of Energy

    Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

    Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility

    Q1.  The Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07) budget request contains dedicated
    funding for a detailed systems analysis of the advanced nuclear fuel
    cycle. When will the systems analysis be completed? Will that be early
    enough to affect the decision on whether and how to move ahead with new
    facilities, including the Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility, the
    demonstration reprocessing facility, and the demonstration sodium-
    cooled fast reactor?

    A1. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) has been conducting
    systems analysis for several years and that work, which is an
    evolutionary process, has been key to the development of the new Global
    Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) initiative and the associated
    proposed demonstration facilities. While systems analysis will continue
    to refine the overall programmatic goals, it does not replace the need
    for the development of conceptual designs of facilities. We anticipate
    that the next steps that will determine whether and how to move ahead
    with new facilities include development of conceptual designs of the
    various facilities and their associated cost and schedule. We believe
    that this process, and additional systems analysis, will be completed
    by mid-2008.

    Q2.  The FY07 budget request proposes to undertake at least three new
    major demonstration facilities--the sodium-cooled fast reactor, the
    gas-cooled reactor, and the demonstration reprocessing facility--in
    addition to the research-oriented Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility. Each of
    these projects will involve substantial outyear financial commitments.
    What is the total cost of each of these items, and the projected
    spending profile? What other programs are you expecting to cut to fit
    these facilities into the budget, or will they require new money?

    A2. Early, pre-conceptual estimates of the cost to bring these three
    integrated recycle demonstration facilities to the point of initial
    operation range from $4 billion to $9 billion. The Department will
    develop a baseline cost and schedule for the proposed GNEP technology
    demonstration facilities over the next two years in conjunction with
    completion of conceptual design studies. The Department has requested
    $250 million in FY 2007 to accelerate the planning and research needed
    to proceed with the demonstration effort. While we anticipate making
    additional investments in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the efforts over
    the next two years are critical to refining these cost estimates. The
    Department has made no decisions about outyear funding for these
    projects. As noted in the Department's Five Year Plan for FY 2007-FY
    2011 (March 2006), the Administration determines the details of its
    appropriations request one year at a time. Each year, the
    Administration works to develop the detailed estimates for the budget
    year for individual programs. The FY 2008 and subsequent years'
    requests will be made in the future.

    University Reactor Infrastructure and Education Program

    Q3.  The explanation given in the FY07 budget submission for the
    cancellation of the University Reactor Infrastructure and Education
    program is that the program's goals have been met in terms of the
    numbers of students enrolled in nuclear science and engineering
    disciplines. What are the consequences of a $23 million dollar drop in
    Department of Energy (DOE) funding to current students and faculty in
    these disciplines? What specific plans does DOE have to help attract
    top students and faculty into nuclear disciplines?

    A3. Over the last decade, university nuclear engineering schools
    leveraged funding provided by DOE and industry partners to strengthen
    the nuclear engineering education infrastructure and attract students
    to careers in nuclear engineering. With enrollments at their highest
    levels in over a decade and four new university nuclear engineering
    programs launched over the last five years, the Department believes
    that the objectives of the government's support to nuclear engineering
    programs have been achieved and funding has not been requested in FY
    2007.
        That said, the Department will continue to fund university
    participation in the Department's nuclear energy research programs,
    through the Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative, the
    Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, and the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.
    Under the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, the Department awarded 24
    new research grants to universities in FY 2006, totaling $12 million
    over the next three years. With the funding requested for nuclear
    energy research in FY 2007, the Department would continue to fund
    ongoing research grants as well as award $4 million in new research.
    Additionally, as part of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, the
    Department will continue efforts to attract students to the field of
    transmutation and spent fuel recycling. The Department will continue to
    engage faculty and students in AFCI research and development through
    NERI, through the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, the University of
    Nevada-Reno, the Idaho State University Accelerator Center, and through
    the AFCI Fellowship Program. Over the last four years, the Department
    has sponsored AFCI fellowships for 25 students seeking post-graduate
    degrees in study related to advanced fuel cycles, including fuels,
    recycling and transmutation engineering. The Generation IV program is
    also planning to start a university fellowship program in FY 2006 for
    post-graduate study related to advanced reactor systems.

    Q4.  While the FY07 budget request purposes to increase funding
    significantly for solar, wind, biofuels, and hydrogen, it also proposes
    to decrease funding for energy efficiency technology development and
    deployment by more than eight percent. What is the rationale for these
    proposed cuts? What role do you see energy efficiency playing in
    meeting the President's goal of reducing the U.S. ``addiction'' to oil?
    What role do you see for DOE in advancing the role of energy
    efficiency?

    A4. Reducing America's growing dependence on foreign oil and changing
    how we power our homes and businesses are among the Department's
    highest priorities, as outlined in the President's Advanced Energy
    Initiative. The FY 2007 Budget directs resources to those programs with
    the greatest potential to contribute to that goal.
        The FY 2007 DOE budget requests $2.1 billion for program included
    in the Advanced Energy Initiative, an increase of $381 million over FY
    2006. Funding will help develop clean, affordable sources of energy
    that will help reduce the use of fossil fuels and lead to changes in
    the way we power our homes, businesses and cars. Efficiency
    improvements pursued by the Vehicle Technologies program can
    significantly reduce the Nation's growing demand for oil.
        The Advanced Energy Initiative includes a broad mix of oil
    displacement and clean energy R&D initiatives, including nuclear (up 56
    percent to $392M), solar (up 78 percent to $148M), and biomass (up 65
    percent to $150M). Specific goals include reducing the cost of
    cellulosic ethanol to $1.07/gallon by 2012, and reducing the cost of
    solar PV to less than 10 cents/kilowatt hour by 2015.

    Q5.  Your testimony notes that the Climate Change Technology Program
    was authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This program has been
    operating primarily with personnel temporarily assigned from other
    programs. Do you expect to have a full time staff for this effort or
    will the program continue to be staffed as it has been with temporary
    assignments?

    A5. The Department does have dedicated staff for CCTP within the Office
    of Policy and International Affairs (PI). Because of the nature of the
    CCTP work (interagency coordination, advice, strategic planning), we
    expect DOE program staff and staff from other agencies will continue to
    dedicate some time to CCTP as part of their regular responsibilities.
    The Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriation reduced
    funding for the Departmental Administration account, of which a portion
    (PI) supports CCTP. The FY 2007 Budget requests $1 million within PI to
    support CCTP.

    ITER

    Q6.  There is a perception in the fusion research community that
    funding for ITER will reduce funding for the domestic research program,
    yet there is a $19.5 million increase in enabling research and
    development (R&D) for ITER. According to DOE budget documents, these
    research ``activities are directly associated with the ongoing base
    program.'' It sounds like these activities involve the research and
    design, by the domestic fusion program, of the high tech components of
    ITER. Will these increased funds for enabling R&D for ITER be spent in
    the United States by scientists and technologists in our existing
    fusion laboratories and university programs?

    A6. The $19.5 million increase in enabling research and development for
    ITER is, in large measure, for activities to be carried out within the
    domestic fusion program by scientists and engineers in our existing
    fusion laboratories and universities. About $11.6 million of the
    increase will be for R&D by these scientists and engineers in support
    of the components to be provided by the U.S. to the ITER site. The
    remaining $7.9 million will be spent in industry for manufacturing R&D
    and process demonstration at a production scale in order to show that
    the components can be manufactured accurately and efficiently.

    Participation of the National Institute of Standards and Technology at
                        the National Synchrotron Light Source

    Q7.  The FY07 budget request includes plans to enhance the National
    Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) presence at the National
    Synchrotron Light Source (NSLS) at Brookhaven National Laboratory. DOE
    is planning to build NSLS-II, ultimately as a replacement for the
    current Brookhaven light source. How will DOE coordinate NIST's new
    investments at the existing NSLS with Brookhaven's plans for a newer
    facility? How will DOE coordinate its instrumentation plans for its
    entire suite of light sources with NIST's light source investments?

    A7. In the near-term, NIST's FY 2007 investment at NSLS will build on
    current capabilities there by providing an expanded set of scientific
    instruments and attracting additional top scientific talent. Because
    the NSLS-II project will not be operational until FY 2013 at the
    earliest, enhancing the NIST instrument suite will enable these
    instruments to remain at the forefront during the years of design and
    construction of NSLS-II. New instruments developed for NSLS will be
    designed with the possibility of transfer to NSLS-II when that new
    facility becomes operational.
        The method of development of the entire suite of instruments at the
    new NSLS-II facility will be similar to the model developed for the
    Spallation Neutron Source (SNS). That is, a majority of the beamlines
    will be built. and operated by the facility itself acting in
    collaboration with user groups that are strongly involved with all
    aspects of instrument scientific justification, development of
    technical specifications, and production of instrument conceptual
    designs. Other beamlines will be built and operated by external
    entities such as NIST. Advisory Committees for NSLS-II are now being
    established to provide advice and guidance on all aspects of the NSLS-
    II project, including the development of an optimized instrument suite
    and a standardized user access policy. Because NIST is a leading user
    of the NSLS, researchers from this institution will be actively
    involved with these Advisory Committees.

    Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

    New Domestic Fusion Facilities

    Q1.  Secretary Bodman, my understanding is that in addition to their
    participation in the ITER Project, China, Japan, South Korea and India
    are all constructing major new domestic facilities. When is the last
    time that the U.S. constructed a major new domestic facility? Do you
    envision a time in the foreseeable future that the U.S. might build a
    major new facility at home? If so, what would be the purpose of that
    facility?

    A1. We are currently building the National Compact Stellarator
    Experiment (NCSX) at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, with
    operations scheduled to begin in FY 2009. Similar to a tokamak, and
    therefore able to make use of the results from ITER, the compact
    stellarator concept offers the possibility of a fusion power plant that
    is more attractive than one based on the simple tokamak. In addition,
    the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National
    Laboratory, funded by the DOE's National Nuclear Security
    Administration (NNSA), is scheduled to begin fusion ignition
    experiments in 2010, with a primary mission of ensuring that the
    Nation's nuclear stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable.
        With regard to building another major new facility at home and its
    purpose, Dr. Orbach, the Director of the DOE Office of Science, has
    recently issued a charge to the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory
    Committee (FESAC) requesting a 10-year plan for how the Office of
    Fusion Energy Sciences program should evolve over the coming decade to
    take into account new and upgraded international experiments, and how
    the program should prepare to make the transition to ITER. FESAC will
    be examining the productive lifetime of existing facilities and whether
    reconfigurations, replacements with new facilities, or additional
    participation in foreign facilities would be more appropriate to fill
    important gaps in fusion research in the years to come. This report is
    due by the end of February, 2007.

    Effect of Domestic Fusion Cuts on Workforce

    Q2.  Secretary Bodman, I am pleased to see that your budget request for
    fusion energy sciences maintains the U.S. Commitment to the ITER
    project and provides some additional funding for the major fusion user
    facilities. However, I am concerned that several of the smaller
    elements of the fusion program suffer significant cuts, including
    fusion materials research, small innovative experiments, high energy
    density physics, and fusion theory. Given concerns that have been
    voiced about the aging fusion research community, and the need to
    maintain U.S. expertise in these fields to maximize our return from
    international partnerships, does it make sense to cut these programs?

    A2. With this budget, we strove to maintain a balanced domestic program
    while reorienting it to support ITER to the maximum extent possible.
    With regard to the programs that have been reduced or redirected, we
    believe some of the reductions will be alleviated by other programs.
    For example, some materials research will be conducted as part of our
    contribution to ITER, and the increased budget for the SciDAC
    (Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing) program will offset
    reductions in the fusion theory program. Active research in High Energy
    Density Physics (HEDP) is also being conducted by DOE's National
    Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), helping to limit the
    programmatic impact of the reductions within the Office of Science-
    funded piece of DOE's HEDP program.

    Q3.  The President signed EPACT 2005 just six months ago. This budget
    requests falls short of EPACT 2005 by 23 percent in Energy R&D, with
    many programs less than half of what is authorized. In light of the
    need for this R&D, why did the Department not seek funding for these
    programs despite widespread Congressional and Presidential support?

    A3. The Energy Policy Act contains authorizations for a variety of
    initiatives and programs. As the Administration noted in a July 15,
    2005, letter to the conference committee on H.R. 6, ``The House and
    Senate versions of H.R. 6 also include authorization levels that in
    many cases significantly exceed the President's Budget. These
    authorizations set unrealistic targets and expectations for future
    program-funding decisions.'' The President's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget
    proposal reflects the Administration's programmatic and fiscal
    priorities. Those priorities took into account the spending
    opportunities presented by the Energy Policy Act.

    Q4.  Last fall the President and you announced a major energy
    efficiency initiative, and just a month ago the White House signed an
    interagency MOU calling for energy efficiency measures throughout the
    Federal Government. Then we get a budget that slashes that the exact
    programs that will accomplish this. Please tell the Committee how we
    are supposed to take seriously the Administration's commitment to
    energy efficiency when you give us a request that makes a mockery of
    it?

    A4. Facing greater uncertainty over the price of petroleum, as well as
    tightening federal budgets, the Department made very difficult choices
    in developing its FY 2007 budget request. We concluded that reducing
    America's growing dependence on foreign oil is the highest priority for
    the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in FY 2007 and
    have directed our resources to those programs with the greatest
    potential to contribute to that goal.
        The Department's FY 2007 budget request maintains robust funding
    levels in a variety of energy efficiency programs. Funding for energy
    efficient vehicle technologies, exclusive of earmarks, is up $4.2
    million compared to the FY 2006 appropriation. Funding for the Building
    Technologies program is up $8.1 million, with significant increases for
    the Solid-State Lighting Initiative and appliance standards and
    equipment standards and analysis. While funding for FEMP is down
    slightly compared to FY 2006 appropriations, that decrease reflects the
    contribution of new efficiencies within the program that will allow the
    Department to achieve the same or even better results with less money.

    Q5.  Why do cuts to the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)
    continue when you and the President personally called for more
    efficiency in the government?

    A5. The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget request for the
    Federal Energy Management Program shows a decrease of $2.1 million in
    FY 2007 due to streamlining the Program's management, training and
    communications efforts. We expect to be able to achieve the same, or
    better, results.

    Q6.  The Industries of the Future program at DOE has a long history of
    supporting R&D that improves energy efficiency in some of our most
    valued core domestic industries, the same industries that are rapidly
    heading overseas. Yet, this administration continues to decrease
    support of this program at a time when it is most needed. Please
    explain how 30 percent decrease in funding will affect our core
    domestic industrial sections.

    A6. While industry remains a major energy end-use sector of the
    Nation's economy, significant gains in energy efficiency have already
    been achieved (output since the 1970s has more than doubled for
    essentially the same energy consumption). Since significant economic
    incentives exist for industry to continue on its own to invest in new,
    more efficient technologies, the Department is shifting some of its
    limited resources toward higher-priority R&D areas, such as reducing
    our national dependence on foreign oil. At the same time, we are
    refocusing our activities in the Industrial Program to promote more
    effectively energy savings in the industrial sector.

    Q7.  Please be prepared to discuss at the hearing the status and
    implementation of the following sections of the Energy Policy Act of
    2005 and submit a report detailing the status of implementation of all
    other sections of Title IX of the Act:

    Section 912--Next Generation Lighting Initiative

    Q7a.  Did DOE seek funding for this program in its request to OMB? If
    not, why not? What is the status of discussions with the National
    Academy of Sciences to conduct the periodic review of the program
    required under section 912(i)?

    A7a. DOE's 2007 budget requests increased funding for Solid-State
    Lighting.

        The amounts shown in the table above are the Solid-State Lighting
    (SSL) portion of the lighting R&D sub-program in FY 2005 and FY 2006.
    The non-SSL portion of the program was about $2 million for each FY. In
    the FY 2007 request, the total funding for lighting R&D is for SSL.
        We have not begun discussions with NAS for a period review since we
    have just completed an extensive peer review with strong industry
    participation.

    Section 914--Building Standards

    Q7b.  The need for sustainable buildings that are energy efficient has
    been made abundantly clear over the last year both by the damage from
    Hurricane Katrina and the record energy bills we are all experiencing
    even though this has been a very mild winter. Did DOE seek funding for
    this program in its request to OMB? If not, why not? Section 914(b)
    requires the DOE to enter into an agreement with the National Institute
    of Building Sciences to conduct certain assessments and other
    activities for the program within a 120 days after date of enactment.
    Has DOE entered into an agreement with National Institute of Building
    Sciences to begin this work? If not, why not?

    A7b. The Department has requested a significant level of funding to
    provide needed research, development, validation, and market
    introduction of energy-efficient building technologies. The request for
    commercial building integration, including research and development,
    analysis, modeling, and best practices development, is $4,699,000.
    However, no funding for Section 914 was included in the 2006 Energy and
    Water Development Appropriations Act, and the Department has not
    requested funding for Section 914 in FY 2007. DOE continues to work
    with the National Institute of Building Sciences and other stakeholder
    organizations to promote energy-efficient building technologies, but
    has not entered into a financial agreement with the Institute because
    the activities described in Section 914 will not contribute to the
    program goals of achieving 30-50 percent energy efficiency improvement
    in commercial buildings.

    Section 917--Advanced Energy Technology Centers

    Q7c.  Did DOE seek funding for this program in its request to OMB? If
    not, why not? What progress has DOE made in organizing the Committee
    required under section 917 to advise DOE on the establishment of the
    centers?

    A7c. The Department's 2007 budget does not include funding for this
    program. Section 917(a) instructs DOE to make grants available to State
    and local governments, or universities, to establish a geographically
    dispersed network of Advanced Energy Efficiency Technology Transfer
    Centers. The centers are to focus on needs for increased energy
    efficiency for manufactured and site-built housing, encourage
    demonstration and commercial application of advanced energy efficient
    technologies, including distributed generation technologies. Section
    917(f) instructs DOE to establish an advisory committee to advise the
    Secretary on the establishment of the centers. The section provides
    authorizations for ``such sums as may be appropriated.''
        The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
    provides grants support to States, communities, and other partners, to
    achieve the goals of Section 917. Specifically, the EERE Building
    Technologies Program provides grants to support the adoption of energy
    efficient technologies in new and existing homes, use of ENERGY STAR
    appliances, and expanded energy efficient efforts in schools and
    commercial buildings. Furthermore, the Office of Electricity Delivery
    and Energy Reliability operates eight (8) regional centers for the
    express purpose of encouraging the adoption of distributed generation
    technologies. These Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Regional Application
    Centers (RACs) have been established in selected parts of the country
    to facilitate deployment of CHP technologies. CHP is one of the most
    energy efficient distributed generation technologies with numerous
    commercial applications. The centers operate by educating regional
    players on benefits of CHP technologies, providing project-specific
    support; providing feedback to DOE and industry regarding future R&D
    program needs; and interacting with states to encourage a favorable
    policy environment for CHP.

    Section 983--Science Education and Pilot Program

    Q7d.  What progress has DOE made in awarding the grant required under
    the Act to a university consortium? If the grant has not been awarded,
    what is the current timetable for such an award? If there are no plans
    for such an award, what are the DOE's reasons for not making the grant?

    A7d. The Energy Policy Act authorizes appropriations for Section 983
    for FY 2007, 2008 and 2009 under the Energy Enhancement Fund. Office of
    Science staff have met with representatives of the university consortia
    regarding their initial proposals and have begun investigating how we
    would work towards ensuring a productive end. There is no funding in
    the 2007 budget for this pilot program. The DOE has not yet formulated
    a response to the 0.3 percent budget assessment called for under the
    Energy Enhancement Fund.
        This issue has been somewhat overtaken by events including the
    President's American Competitiveness Initiative, which could have a
    significant effect on the DOE education and workforce development
    plans. DOE staff has met with their counterparts in the Department of
    Education and plan to work together in their efforts in teacher
    professional development.

    Q8.  The President in his State of the Union address showed a change of
    direction from heavy reliance on oil and gas to broadening the energy
    supply base and he called for replacing 75 percent of Middle East
    energy imports by 2025. How difficult a goal is this to achieve?

    A8. Diversification of our energy supply has always been a priority of
    this Administration. Since 2001, the Administration has spent nearly
    $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy
    sources. This is not a change in policy, but the acceleration of a
    priority. In order to achieve this goal, we must fundamentally
    transform how we produce and consume energy.
        The President's Advanced Energy Initiative proposes aggressive
    research in technologies that hold the greatest potential in helping
    America achieve this goal, primarily by changing how we power our
    transportation sector. The achievement of this goal is dependent on the
    successful commercialization of these technologies. For example, the
    commercialization of cellulosic ethanol and improved batteries for
    hybrid and ``plug-in hybrid'' vehicles can fundamentally change the way
    we fuel our transportation sector. The development and market
    penetration of hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles will also
    contribute.

    Q9.  The Administration, through its first five years, has stated that
    we do not know if global warming is the threat that most of the other
    nations of the world believe it to be. We have been spending money over
    the past five years on global warming research. Has this research
    brought us any closer to deciding one way or other what our policy
    should be? Do we have adequate contingency plans if it turns out by
    2025 that we have to reduce our use of fossil fuels?

    A9. The President has regularly stated his view that global climate
    change is a serious problem that must be addressed with a global, long-
    term approach that is consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing
    greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
        The Bush Administration's policy on climate change is designed to
    harness the power of markets and innovation to enable rapid development
    and deployment of cleaner, more efficient energy technologies. We
    recognize that climate change is a long-term issue that cannot be
    addressed in isolation from other needs, such energy security and
    pollution abatement. Growing economies are in the best position to
    finance investment in advanced, clean energy technologies. Major
    elements of the Administration's approach include near-term policies
    and measures to slow the growth in greenhouse gas emissions, investing
    in climate change science and technology, and international
    collaboration.
        By 2025, many low- or zero-emissions technologies--such as carbon
    sequestration, hydrogen, advanced nuclear, and biofuels--could be
    available for widespread deployment, while others--such as fusion--may
    be still be further away. Through our technology research programs, the
    U.S. will be poised to capitalize on technical breakthroughs that can
    achieve real emission reductions at reasonable cost.

    Nuclear Energy Outlook

    Q10.  How do you believe nuclear energy will be a factor by 2025 in
    reducing dependence on imported oil? There has been a flurry of
    interest in recent months in licensing sites for new reactors. Do we
    have the licensing policies in place to have significant numbers of new
    reactors on line by that date? Will we have the workforce to run the
    reactors? Does the sale of Westinghouse and decline of U.S. nuclear
    plant component manufacturers affect this capability?

    A10. Nuclear energy is used to generate electricity and it is generally
    not considered a substitute for oil which is primarily used for
    transportation purposes. Nonetheless, there are two avenues through
    which nuclear energy could potentially help to reduce U.S. dependence
    on imported oil. To the extent that nuclear energy replaces natural gas
    in electricity production, more natural gas would be available which
    may be used to replace oil in some transportation, home heating and
    industrial processing applications. The other possible alternative for
    using nuclear energy to reduce oil imports is to generate large
    quantities of hydrogen using advanced nuclear reactor technologies. The
    Department recognizes the potential of this approach and has pursued
    such research and development (R&D) under our Nuclear Hydrogen
    Initiative and Generation IV program. While further R&D is required,
    our efforts in these areas are expected to help to offset oil imports.
        Licensing policies are currently in place to bring a significant
    number of new nuclear power plants on line by 2025. In the early
    1990's, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) put new rules in place
    to allow efficient licensing of new nuclear power plants. These rules
    were specifically designed to streamline the licensing process and
    permit resolution of all public health and safety issues associated
    with siting, construction, and operation of a new nuclear power plant
    before a power generation company makes a significant financial
    investment and begins construction of the plant. Under these rules,
    reactor designers are successfully working to obtain NRC certification
    of their advanced reactor designs, which will allow deployment of a
    large number of new nuclear plants through development of standardized
    power plant designs. The Department is working with industry through
    our Nuclear Power 2010 program to demonstrate the untested licensing
    processes and develop standardized advanced light water reactor plants.
    It is anticipated that the new licensing processes will be fully vetted
    and any associated policy issues fully resolved around 2015 when the
    first new nuclear power plant comes on line.
        The United States will have the workforce to run its reactors. Over
    the past few years, there has been a resurgence of enrollments in
    college nuclear programs, as well as an increase in the number of
    universities offering nuclear engineering and technology courses. The
    continuation of this trend is expected to result in a sufficient
    workforce needed to run future reactors. The nuclear industry will also
    continue to invest in nuclear programs, thus ensuring the adequacy of
    the future workforce.
        Nuclear energy is a global industry. The sale of Westinghouse to
    Toshiba should not affect the plans for deployment of new nuclear power
    plants in the U.S. U.S. manufacturers and fabricators are currently
    providing equipment and prefabricated modules for the nuclear plants
    under construction in Asia. Recent studies showed that the necessary
    manufacturing, fabrication, labor, and construction equipment
    infrastructure is available today or can be easily developed to support
    the construction and commissioning of new nuclear power plants expected
    in the coming years. The U.S. has substantial capabilities for
    producing mechanical equipment modules, piping modules, piping spools,
    structural and electrical modules. Although there is only one supplier
    for forgings used for reactor pressure vessels (Japan Steel Works,
    Ltd.), U.S. and international manufacturers have the capacity to
    produce steam turbine generators, condensers, pumps, valves and other
    components necessary to build nuclear power plants.

    Q11.  What do you expect to be the state of U.S. oil and gas reserves
    in 2025 in areas that are not environmentally sensitive?

    A11. As of 2004, proved reserves of crude oil and natural gas in the
    United States, all of which are located in areas where production is
    possible including some areas that are environmentally sensitive, are
    estimated at 21.4 billion barrels and 192.5 trillion cubic feet,
    respectively. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) and Minerals
    Management Service estimate that total recoverable resources for oil
    and gas, which include resources in areas currently under moratoria or
    otherwise restricted areas, are 174.8 billion barrels and 1430.6
    trillion cubic feet, respectively. There is no standard interpretation
    of the term ``environmentally sensitive'' nor are there any
    consistently developed estimates of the oil and gas resources that
    might be covered by it.
        As of January 1, 2003, the regional distribution of the technically
    recoverable resources under federal moratoria (including Presidential
    withdrawal) is:

        In most recent years, additions to proved reserves have been
    roughly equivalent to U.S. production of oil and gas, so the overall
    level of proved reserves has been relatively stable. The Energy
    Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2006 Reference Case
    projections for lower-48 end-of-year proved reserves in 2025 in non-
    moratoria areas is 226.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 18.7
    billion barrels of crude oil.

    Q12.  If we become highly dependent on Biomass, how do we avoid
    depleting the soil on which these fuels are being grown?

    A12. As with all agricultural crops, biomass crops will need to be
    produced sustainably; and USDA is helping to support these efforts
    through the promotion of practices such as no-till cultivation (which
    inherently protects the soil). In some cases biomass crops have
    advantages over row crops such as corn and soybeans, because they have
    perennial roots that further protect the soil. Switchgrass, mentioned
    by President Bush in the State of the Union, is a perennial grass with
    a deep root structure that has been planted on Conservation Reserve
    Program lands as a means to thwart soil erosion, thus avoiding the
    depletion of soils.

    FutureGen Project

    Q13.  Is the Administration completely committed to the FutureGen Coal
    program? When do you expect the first plant to be on line and, assuming
    these technologies can be developed and integrated into a working power
    plant in the time contemplated, what will be the state of readiness of
    these types of plants to contribute to electric energy supply in 2025?

    A13. FutureGen is a key component of the President's commitment to
    research and development of clean coal technologies. Our FY 2007 budget
    request funds FutureGen at $54 million, in accord with the planned
    funding profile in FutureGen report to Congress, and includes an
    advance appropriation of $203 million for FY 2008.
        We anticipate that the FutureGen plant will begin operations in FY
    2012 and continue operations for four years into FY 2016, followed by a
    monitoring period of two to three years. Assuming the plant achieves
    its performance goals of technical feasibility and economic viability,
    we expect the industry will have the technology and data to design and
    build the first commercial versions of near-zero atmospheric emission
    coal plants based on the FutureGen concept within 10 years of FutureGen
    start up. This would provide the engineering basis to enable FutureGen
    type plant deployment in the energy market place by 2025-2030 time
    frame.

    Q14.  Buildings consume an estimated 20 percent of domestic energy
    supply. Reducing energy consumption in existing buildings seems like a
    fertile area to find energy savings, particularly in existing buildings
    stock. Why aren't we hearing more about conservation and sustainability
    with these potential energy savings in sight?

    A14. The Department of Energy has several activities aimed at reducing
    energy consumption in the existing buildings stock, including:

              The appliance standards program, which is focused on
            increasing the efficiency of many residential energy-using
            products sold to existing homeowners;

              A variety of consumer tools and informational
            brochures, such as the Energy Savers Guide, fact sheets based
            on DOE building-science research, and the Home Energy Saver Web
            Tool;

              The Energy Star program (administered jointly with
            EPA), which identifies for consumers those products in the
            market place that are most energy efficient;

              Home Performance with Energy Star, a joint program
            with the EPA and HUD that offers a comprehensive, whole-house
            approach to making energy-efficiency improvements to the more
            than 80 million existing homes; and

              Numerous efforts to encourage incorporation of
            energy-efficiency technologies and practices in the Gulf Coast
            rebuilding effort.

        In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 offers consumers and
    businesses federal tax credits beginning in January 2006 for energy-
    efficient appliances and products. Most of these tax credits remain in
    effect through 2007.

    Q15.  In light of the President's increased interest in science
    education in the State of the Union Address, will the administration
    use the requirement to spend 0.3 percent of its energy research and
    development budget on science education to get a jump start on these
    programs in FY06, including the SEEPP project in Section 914?

    A15. The Office of Science has reviewed the DOE investments in the
    areas spelled out in the relevant section of the bill, but has not yet
    formalized a response. The recently introduced PACE-Energy Act has
    influenced the nature of our internal deliberations since, if it were
    enacted as currently written, it would have a significant impact on our
    workforce and education development plans. DOE staff has met with SEEPP
    representatives to explore how they might work towards the common goals
    of the SEEPP and the DOE.

    Q16a.  The President has spoken about the need for the U.S. to become
    more competitive in the world through innovation and research and
    development. He emphasized the particular importance of the physical
    sciences in his State of the Union message. Since our economic
    competitiveness is expressed ultimately through the efforts of industry
    (as opposed to national labs or universities), what is the Department
    doing to ensure that U.S. industry is included in and benefits from the
    research done at the labs and universities?

    A16a. The DOE's Office of Science (SC) has a number of direct and
    indirect ways of transferring the technology derived from DOE research
    or DOE-funded university research, to industry. The direct route is for
    industry to use, or to partner with universities and other research
    institution to use, DOE SC facilities at the national labs. Industry
    has used our light sources and high-end computation facilities, for
    example, to perform both proprietary and non-proprietary research. The
    indirect path is carried out either through technology transfer
    programs, which are largely run by the labs, or through the publication
    of non-proprietary research results in journals.
        DOE is always looking for ways to improve the transfer of
    technologies from the lab floor to the factory floor, and there is room
    for improvement. The timely dissemination of useful technologies is a
    cornerstone of the President's American Competitiveness Initiative.

    Nuclear Energy Outlook

    Q16b.  Please give us specific examples as to how the Offices of
    Nuclear Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and Fossil
    Energy and/or their labs are partnering with industry to ensure that
    their efforts have an economic impact? In dealing with industry, does
    the Department make any distinction between U.S.-owned companies and
    those with foreign ownership? Does DOE need additional authority to
    facilitate government-industry partnerships? If so, what are DOE's
    recommendations?

    A16b. Several companies are actively engaged in research and
    development efforts under the Generation IV Nuclear Initiative and the
    Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative. In addition to the short-term economic
    impact observed via research personnel salaries and equipment
    procurements, long-term economic impact will also be realized through
    continued industrial partnering to develop commercial products or
    processes which industry endorses as being needed. From a broader
    nuclear power industry perspective, through cost-shared demonstration
    projects under the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, the Department is
    working to reduce the regulatory and financial uncertainty and achieve
    the near-term deployment of new nuclear power plants. Also, the
    Department is developing a standby support program intended to protect
    sponsors of the first new nuclear power plants against the financial
    impact of certain delays during construction or in gaining approval for
    operation that are beyond the sponsors' control.
        Regarding the Department's Nuclear Power 2010 program, no
    distinction was made between U.S.-owned companies and those with
    foreign ownership in the awards made to Dominion and NuStart to develop
    and submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission combined construction
    and operating license applications for new nuclear power plants within
    the United States. However, through administrative reviews of the
    proposals, the Department determined that all of the U.S. Government
    cost share under the Cooperative Agreements would be spent within the
    United States.
        The Department has sufficient authority within the Code of Federal
    Regulations, Part 600, Financial Assistance Rules, to enter into
    government-industry partnerships. A cooperative agreement is the
    typical method used by the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
    Technology on joint, cost-shared projects with industry.

    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

        The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is
    conducting a number of activities in partnership with industry. One
    important example is EERE's hydrogen technology activities, which, in
    conjunction with private sector research and development, reduced the
    cost of automotive fuel cell high-volume systems from $200/kW in 2004
    to $125/kW in 2005, and is on target to achieving its $45/kW goal in
    2010. Similarly, EERE's Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies
    has partnered with the automotive and material industries to develop
    magnesium casting technology that provides a 30 percent weight savings
    relative to the aluminum components it replaces; the technology has
    been adopted by General Motors for its 2006 model year.
        EERE follows applicable laws and Departmental guidelines when
    establishing partnerships with industry.
        EERE does not need any additional authority to facilitate
    government-industry partnerships.

    Fossil Energy

        In 2001, President Bush challenged the Federal Government to make
    itself more results-oriented, and more accountable to the citizens who
    pay taxes and benefit from the programs and services government
    provides.
        The Office of Fossil Energy's ultimate success comes when the
    advanced technologies emerging from our research activities are
    commercialized by the private sector. Presented here is solid evidence
    that the taxpayers' investment has paid real and measurable dividends.
    These are just a few examples of the technological innovations
    introduced through the Office of Fossil Energy R&D Program that now
    provide consumers cost-effective, clean, fossil fuel-based energy.

    NETL Licenses Mercury Removal Method

        FE's National Energy Technology Laboratory has issued an exclusive
    license to Powerspan Corporation for a patented method to remove
    mercury from flue gas streams using irradiation with ultraviolet light.
    The potential market for the licensed invention is estimated to be
    between $3 billion and $7.5 billion. NETL is pursuing opportunities to
    license the patent for applications in fields other than fossil-fueled
    power generation.

    DOE Celebrates Success of Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships

        A report released by DOE's Office of Fossil Energy details the
    success of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships in laying the
    groundwork for field testing and verifying carbon sequestration
    technologies in the near-term.

    Development of Turbine Blade Monitor Makes Major Progress

        Researchers at Siemens Power Generation, with funding from the U.S.
    Department of Energy, have produced high-speed infrared images of the
    first row of blades in a Westinghouse 501FD gas turbine under full
    operation. Once perfected, online monitoring will detect the integrity
    of thermal barrier coatings as they operate within the gas turbine.
    This technological breakthrough could help keep electricity rates down
    by saving gas turbine utility operators an estimated $600 million per
    year.

    Direct FuelCell Technology Advances

        FuelCell Energy of Danbury, CT, developed its patented Direct
    FuelCell technology in a research partnership with DOE that began more
    than 25 years ago. By October 2004, more than 50 million kilowatt hours
    of electricity had been generated from power plants incorporating
    Direct FuelCell technology.

    Weyburn Project Demonstrates Safety and Permanence of Sequestration

        A multi-national project that includes DOE's Office of Fossil
    Energy has injected more than 100 billion cubic feet of 95 percent pure
    carbon dioxide into the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan, near the
    North Dakota border, demonstrating the safety and permanence of
    sequestration while producing more than six mullion barrels of oil.

    Clean Coal Project Continues to Pay Back Taxpayer Investment

        The Advanced Flue Gas Desulfurization Demonstration Project,
    selected as part of the DOE Clean Coal Technology Demonstration
    Program, is the first clean coal technology project to accumulate over
    $1 million in repayments, and represents more than half of all
    repayment funds collected under the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration
    Program. The project's advanced desulfurization unit continues to
    operate commercially, scrubbing approximately 70,000 tons of sulfur
    dioxide annually at the Northern Indiana Public Service Company's
    Bailly Generating Stations near Chesterton, IN.

    Florida Demo Tames High Sulfur Coal

        Recent tests with one of the Nation's mid- to high-sulfur coals
    have further verified that a new electric generation technology in its
    first large-scale utility demonstration at JEA's Northside Generating
    Station in Jacksonville, FL, is one of the world's cleanest coal-based
    power plants.

    Questions submitted by Representative Jerry F. Costello

    FutureGen

    Q1.  I am pleased to see the Administration's continued support for the
    FutureGen Initiative with a $54 million budget request for FY07. This
    funding request keeps the program on schedule as outlined in the
    FutureGen Report to Congress. My question pertains to the $203 million
    balance that has been set aside for FutureGen for FY08 and beyond. Is
    $203 million enough to fund FutureGen beyond FY08?

    A1. The $203 million will provide sufficient funding for the government
    cost-share for FY 2008 and most of FY 2009. As indicated in the funding
    profile (in unescalated 2003 dollars) outlined in the FutureGen Program
    Plan submitted to Congress on March 4, 2004, additional funding would
    be required to complete the planned FY 2009 expenditures and for
    subsequent years for the government cost-share. In addition, funding is
    also required from the private sector partners and from international
    partners.

    Advanced Energy Initiative

    Q2.  The President's Advanced Energy Initiative provides a 22 percent
    increase for research that can help reduce America's dependence on
    foreign oil and advance clean energy technologies. Can you please
    indicate what types of research and give the percentage they will
    receive to equal the 22 percent increase?

    A2. The attached table provides the types of research and details the
    percentages they will receive to equal 22 percent.

    Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

    Q1.  Last fall the President and you announced a major energy
    efficiency initiative, and two weeks ago the White House signed an
    interagency MOU calling for energy efficiency measure throughout the
    Federal Government. Then we get a budget that slashes the exact program
    that will accomplish this. Please tell the Committee how we are
    supposed to take seriously the Administration's commitment to energy
    efficiency when you give us a request that makes a mockery of it?

    A1. The Department's FY 2007 budget request maintains robust funding
    levels in a variety of energy efficiency programs. While funding for
    the Federal Energy Management Program is down $2 million compared to FY
    2006 appropriations; the decrease reflects the contribution of new
    efficiencies within the program that will allow the Department to
    achieve the same or even better results with less money. In addition,
    the Department requests a $2 million increase for an enhanced
    Technology Advancement and Outreach effort that will build upon FEMP
    outreach efforts. Finally, it is important to note that FEMP merely
    facilitates energy efficiency improvements. Agencies are responsible
    for improving energy management, making cost effective energy
    efficiency investments, and procuring energy efficient products (such
    as Energy Star products) that will help them achieve their energy
    efficiency goals.

    Q2.  The Industries of the Future program at DOE has a long history of
    supporting R&D that improves energy efficiency in some of our most
    valued core domestic industries, the same industries that are rapidly
    heading overseas. Yet, this administration continues to decrease
    support of this program at a time when it is most needed. Please
    explain how 30 percent decrease in funding will affect our core
    domestic industrial sections.

    A2. While industry remains a major energy end-use sector of the
    Nation's economy, significant gains in energy efficiency have already
    been achieved (output since the 1970s has more than doubled for
    essentially the same energy consumption). Since significant economic
    incentives exist for industry to continue on its own to invest in new,
    more efficient technologies, the Department is shifting some of its
    limited resources toward higher-priority R&D areas, such as reducing
    our growing national dependence on foreign oil. At the same time, the
    Industrial Technologies Program is refocusing its activities for
    maximum benefits from its appropriations.

    Question submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda

    Q1.  I was hoping you could help me to understand the rationale behind
    the planned termination of the Industrial Assessment Centers over the
    next two years. My understanding of the program is that it funds a
    network of universities which send graduate engineering students out to
    small and medium sized manufacturers, conducting energy audits that
    identify a range of low and modest cost efficiency improvements. It
    seems like this program is right in line with the Administration's goal
    of training more engineers and scientists in the energy field, and it
    provides real help to U.S. manufacturers struggling to cope with energy
    prices. Alumni are very much in demand by the top firms as energy
    managers who can come in with real-world knowledge and experience to
    work on projects immediately and improve the bottom line. Can you
    explain why DOE would want to eliminate this program, given the
    President's stated commitment to competitiveness, energy efficiency,
    and energy independence?

    A1. With rare exception, the Administration has not made budget
    decisions beyond FY 2007. The Department's five-year budget profiles
    represent scenarios or options that could be considered during budget
    development in future years.
        That said, while industry remains a major energy end-use sector of
    the Nation's economy, significant gains in energy efficiency have
    already been achieved (output since the 1970s has more than doubled for
    essentially the same energy consumption, in large part because of
    improved efficiency). Significant economic incentives exist for
    industry to continue on its own to invest in new, more efficient
    technologies. In the FY 2007 Budget, the Department focuses its
    resources toward higher-priority R&D areas outlined in the President's
    Advanced Energy Initiative.

    Questions submitted by Representative Brian Baird

    BPA Debt Prepayment Proposal

    Q1.  As stated in the President's Budget, the Bonneville Power
    Authority provides about 40 percent of the Pacific NW region's electric
    energy supply and three-fourths of the regions' electric power
    transmission capacity. Clearly, BPA plays a vital role in keeping the
    lights on in the Pacific NW region. Knowing of BPA's importance to the
    Pacific NW region, why is it that the Administration did not consult
    with any Members of the Pacific NW before moving forward with the BPA
    secondary revenue proposal? Knowing of the Pacific NW delegation's
    disapproval of the process, will you commit to meeting with the
    delegation to discuss the proposal?

    A1. The President's Budget is developed inside the Executive Branch.
    Following the release of the President's budget on February 6, 2006, I
    have remained committed to meet with members of the region's
    congressional delegation to address concerns and ensure that an undue
    burden is not placed on the Pacific Northwest rate payers. I respect
    and welcome your desire to discuss these issues further with the
    Administration.

    Q2.  According to a February 8, 2006, analysis by the non-partisan
    Northwest Power and Conservation Council, the OMB proposal will result
    in a rate increase of at least 6.6 percent, raising power rates by $145
    million a year, costing retail consumers an additional $26.13 a year
    (energy intensive industries, such as pulp and paper mills, will suffer
    even more), decreasing personal income in the Northwest by $109
    million, and resulting in the loss of 1,120 jobs. Did OMB conduct any
    sort of analysis of the macro-economic impact of this proposal prior to
    its release? Does the OMB have any data to refute the aforementioned
    study?

    A2. Although to our knowledge OMB did not conduct a detailed macro-
    economic analysis of the budget proposal we believe it is sound
    business practice to use higher-than-historical revenues to pay down
    debt, which will allow for additional flexibility and ability to make
    necessary future investments in energy infrastructure for the benefit
    of the Northwest economy. The Administration's intent is to capture the
    unique potential opportunities offered in the short-term by high
    natural gas prices to derive a long-term benefit for Pacific Northwest
    rate payers. This proposal will be more fully assessed in an expedited
    BPA rate case to implement the policy of advance payments on Treasury
    bonds with net secondary revenues that exceed $500 million annually.

    Q3.  The budget states that the reason for the secondary revenue
    initiative is so that BPA can ``pay down debt'' and ``invest back into
    energy infrastructure.'' However, BPA is not in jeopardy of missing a
    Treasury payment. In fact, they have made their Treasury payment on
    time and in full for more than 20 years running. In addition,
    Bonneville has voluntarily made more than $1.46 billion in early
    payments on its federal debt over the last couple of years. Contrary to
    OMB's current proposal, this was done without raising rates. If this
    secondary revenue proposal moves forward, how can you ensure that
    payments would, in fact, be used to pay down BPA's debt or invested in
    infrastructure, instead of redirected by the Administration to fulfill
    a different purpose?

    A3. BPA's payments to the Treasury are used to pay down BPA's federal
    debt consistent with the sound business practices required under the
    law including the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act of
    1974, and consistent with statutory priority of payment requirements.
    This Administration's proposal does not change that current law.
    Moreover, and just as with BPA's past early payments on its bonded
    debt, the proposal in the budget would free up available borrowing
    authority that BPA will be able to use. Recent debt optimization early
    prepayments have not resulted in higher rates because we structured the
    bonds to avoid upward rate pressure and we amortized debt with on-
    average higher interest rates.
        Additionally, from a technical perspective, BPA has a mandate to
    operate on a ``self-financing basis'' and all receipts and expenditures
    are processed through the BPA Fund, a public enterprise revolving fund
    account within Treasury. Therefore, through established Treasury
    collection mechanisms, all secondary revenue receipts would be directed
    to the BPA Fund and accordingly, BPA would, initiate intragovernmental
    repayment transactions with Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt to pay
    down BPA's debt. The Bureau of Public Debt maintains the detailed
    records of the debt securities transactions between the Department of
    the Treasury and other federal agencies such as BPA. (Prepared by:
    Roger Seifert)

    Q4.  How does the Administration justify demanding BPA pay the Treasury
    an arbitrary ``surplus'' above $500 million in revenue-producing years
    (when BPA is keeping rates level or possibly lowering rates), when the
    Administration has not been willing to offer any additional assistance
    in years with a loss of revenue, such as the energy crisis, when rates
    skyrocketed? Does the Administration have a plan in place under this
    proposal to assist BPA in times of revenue loss as they take away BPA's
    flexibility to level out energy rates?

    A4. The Administration's intent is to capture the potential unique
    opportunities offered in the short-term by high natural gas prices to
    derive long-term benefit for rate payers. I remain committed to meet
    with members of the region's Congressional delegation to address
    concerns and ensure that an undue burden is not placed on the Northwest
    rate payers.

    Q5.  If funding for Hanford nuclear reservation clean-up was held
    ``level'' with 2005 funding, it would be $2.221 Billion, which is $376
    million higher than the President's Budget Request for 2007, adjusted
    for inflation. Instead, the request is $1.845 billion, including using
    $78 million for security, rather than cleanup. The President's budget
    request for Hanford Clean-Up cuts funds for cleanup of contaminated
    soil and groundwater; and, reduces funding for the safe storage,
    monitoring and retrieval of High-Level Nuclear Wastes by $44 million in
    2007. How does the Administration plan on making up this shortfall now
    and in future years as Hanford, the largest nuclear waste dump in the
    Western Hemisphere, continues to be under-funded by the Administration
    and pose a public health and environmental risk to our nation?

    A5. The 2007 Budget requests $1.9 billion for the Hanford site, an
    increase of $135 million above the 2006 enacted level. We remain
    committed to completing the Environmental Management (EM) mission in a
    manner that is protective of the environment and public.

    Questions submitted by Representative Jim Matheson

    Q1.  DOE estimated that the cleanup costs for the Moab uranium mill
    tailings site is $420 million. The groundwater cleanup is an estimated
    $70 million in addition. The Administration's FY 2007 budget request
    provides $22.8 million. As we discussed during your recent appearance
    before the Committee, please provide a project schedule that identifies
    estimated annual expenditures and activities that will take place each
    year.

    A1. On August 25, 2005, the Deputy Secretary approved Critical Decision
    (CD) 0, which approves mission need for the Uranium Mill Tailings
    Remedial Action Project at Moab, Utah. The outyear funding profile and
    activities to be performed will be established as the Department moves
    through the CD-1, approval of preliminary baseline range, and CD-2,
    approval of performance baseline, decision processes. The approval
    memorandum on the CD-0 decision directed the Office of Environmental
    Management to develop an Acquisition Strategy in accordance with
    Department of Energy (DOE) Order 413.3, Project Management for the
    Acquisition of Capital Assets. The CD-1, Major System Project
    Acquisition Strategy, details the project schedule, major work
    activities, estimated annual expenditures for the life-cycle of the
    project, and the various acquisition alternatives. The CD-1 package has
    been developed and is being reviewed within DOE Headquarters, approval
    is expected next month. Once approved, the selected acquisition
    alternative will be executed to procure contractors who have the
    responsibility of developing a project baseline and cost estimate that
    can be validated and approved by the DOE, as part of the CD-2 decision
    process.

    Q2.  Does the budget for this year include funding to continue
    monitoring nine wells installed in 2003 as part of research conducted
    by the University of Utah which led to the Investigation of the
    Hydrologic Connection between the Moab Mill Tailings and the Matheson
    Wetlands Preserve (Gardener and Solomon, December 2003) report? It is
    my understanding that since 2003, there has been no systematic sampling
    of these wells on the part of the Department of Energy. Do any
    projections for future years include funding for monitoring? If not,
    why not?

    A2. Yes. The Department of Energy (DOE) understands your concern
    regarding potential migration beneath the Colorado River to the
    Matheson Wetlands Preserve located across the Colorado River from the
    Moab Remedial Action Project site. The DOE sampled the subject wells in
    2003 to establish a baseline in order to determine whether there was
    any contamination migrating to or on the Matheson Wetlands Preserve and
    found no evidence of contamination. The wells were sampled again in
    late 2005, confirming the statement contained in the 2005 Final
    Environmental Impact Statement that groundwater discharge and potential
    contaminates do not migrate from the Moab site, beneath the river, to
    the Matheson Wetlands Preserve. On November 16, 2005, DOE committed to
    continue to sample the subject wells, plus 25 additional existing
    monitoring wells, and three surface water locations in the Matheson
    Wetlands Preserve. In FY 2006, DOE plans to spend more than $1 million
    to sample all of these locations three times during the year,
    concurrent with the routine sampling DOE is performing at the Moab
    Remedial Action Project site, and to expand the interim ground water
    cleanup action, which has been expanded each year for the last four
    years. Expansion of the interim ground water actions continues to
    reduce the amount of contaminants that may migrate to the Colorado
    River. The results of this additional sampling should provide further
    support to DOE's environmental assessment, thus alleviating any
    concerns regarding potential contaminant migration to the Matheson
    Wetlands Preserve. The results of all of the sampling data and
    analysis, and environmental performance evaluations of our ground water
    cleanup to date can be obtained on the Moab Remedial Action Project web
    site (http://gj.em.doe.gov/moab). DOE's 2007 budget provides funding to
    continue monitoring, as appropriate.

    Q3.  Does the estimated cleanup cost for the project include what is
    commonly known as ``community impact funding'' (i.e., funding to assist
    local counties and municipalities inform residents and visitors of
    cleanup efforts which may affect them)? If not, why not? How will DOE
    ensure that locally affected residents and visitors are safeguarded
    throughout the remediation of the site and the relocation of the
    tailings? What are the responsibilities of the not-yet selected
    contractor in terms of working with the local community?

    A3. The estimated cleanup cost for Moab does not specifically include
    ``community impact funding.'' Currently, the federal project staff at
    the Moab site promotes community outreach through participation in
    Cooperative Agency (12 State and federal agencies) Meetings, led by the
    Executive Director of Environmental Quality for the State of Utah (no
    regulatory role), which happens roughly quarterly. Typically,
    concurrent with these meetings, the Moab Federal Project Director
    conducts public meetings at the cities of Moab and Thompson Spring to
    update the public on site activities, to present and discuss results of
    current monitoring data, to provide status relative to the ongoing
    interim ground water remediation activities, to provide an update on
    characterization results at Crescent Junction Site (the uranium mill
    tailings off-site disposal location) and vicinity properties, and as
    part of the project planning process to inform the public about overall
    project progress. The Department of Energy (DOE) has a detailed Moab
    Project Public Participation Plan that can be obtained on the Moab
    Remedial Action Project web site (http://gj.em.doe.gov/moab). In
    addition, the federal project staff has implemented emergency response
    plans in coordination with local and State officials and has presented
    the necessary information at the public meetings. The federal project
    staff is frequently in contact with the appropriate local officials on
    all matters pertaining to public safety, including coordinating future
    work activities that involve use of public roadways. The DOE would
    expect any future contractors to build upon the efforts made to date by
    DOE to work with the local community, State and federal agencies, and
    stakeholders.
                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by David A. Sampson, Deputy Secretary, Department of Commerce

    Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

    Q1.  The Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07) budget request includes plans to
    enhance the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
    presence at the National Synchrotron Light Source (NSLS) at Brookhaven
    National Laboratory, a Department of Energy research facility. The
    Department of Energy is planning to build NSLS-II, ultimately as a
    replacement for the current Brookhaven light source. How will NIST
    coordinate its proposed investments at the existing NSLS with
    Brookhaven's plans for a newer facility? How will NIST coordinate its
    proposed investments with DOE's instrumentation plans for their entire
    suite of light sources?

    A1. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has been
    a respected and valued on-site partner with the Department of Energy
    (DOE) for over twenty years in the joint operation of synchrotron
    beamlines at the National Synchrotron Light Source (NSLS). NIST
    management is coordinating with Dr. Steven Dierker, the Brookhaven
    National Laboratory Associate Director responsible for the NSLS-II
    Project, on the development of novel, advanced measurement capabilities
    for both the existing NSLS and the planned NSLS-II. The entire suite of
    NIST end-station measurement instrumentation will be migrated to the
    NSLS-II in a manner that assures that the NIST capabilities complement
    Brookhaven's proposed investments at the new facility. On a broader
    level, NIST will coordinate its planned investments through Dr. Dierker
    and the DOE Office of Science, and via its own representative, Dr.
    Patrick Gallagher, on the Office of Science and Technology Policy
    interagency working group established to report on the Nation's
    synchrotron facilities.

    Q2.  NIST sent teams to hurricane-affected areas last year to study
    some of the damage and learn about the impacts of the storms on
    buildings and other structures. NIST chose not to invoke the National
    Construction Safety Team Act (NCST), which would have given it subpoena
    power over documents and other evidence to contribute to its
    investigation. Another team assembled by the National Science
    Foundation encountered problems accessing sites and could have used
    subpoena authority during its investigation of levee failure in the
    area. Did NIST encounter problems accessing sites during its hurricane
    assessments? Does NIST plan to invoke the NCST more routinely during
    future investigations of building failures?

    A2. NIST assembled a team of 26 experts from federal agencies,
    academia, and private industry to conduct reconnaissance of damage to
    major buildings, physical infrastructure, and residential structures in
    areas affected by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. During its
    deployments to the field, NIST coordinated with local authorities,
    building and facility owners and operators, and federal agencies to
    obtain access to sites and, as a result, NIST encountered few problems
    accessing sites during its field reconnaissance. The one exception was
    petrochemical plants in Texas as these plants were in the process of
    restarting operations and there were legitimate safety concerns
    involved. However, damage to these facilities was limited and NIST
    determined through visual observation and discussions with company
    personnel that access was not essential to the reconnaissance.
        NIST has several authorities under which it can conduct an
    investigation. The NIST Director selects the most appropriate authority
    to get the job done. NIST will invoke the NCST whenever it is the
    appropriate authority to use, i.e., in the wake of any building failure
    that has resulted in a substantial loss of life or that posed
    significant potential of substantial loss of life. The building failure
    must also meet the additional requirements set out in the procedures
    for the establishment and deployment of teams that have been developed
    by NIST which were called for in the NCST Act.

    Q3.  NIST is the coordinating agency for the National Earthquake Hazard
    Reduction Program (NEHRP), but only has approximately $1 million in its
    FY06 budget for both program management and research activities. Please
    explain what NEHRP activities NIST will undertake in FY06, and how the
    approximately $700,000 in new funding requested in FY07 for NEHRP will
    be used.

    A3. For FY 2006, NIST has redirected $750,000 of its approximately
    $914,000 in NEHRP-related base research funding to support the NEHRP
    Lead Agency management function. This funding is being supplemented by
    $85,000 of support from each of the other NEHRP agencies (FEMA, NSF,
    and the U.S. Geological Survey), providing approximately $1 million of
    total support for the Lead Agency management function. The new ``NEHRP
    Secretariat'' became active in early February 2006, with NIST's hiring
    of the first formal program Director, who comes to his new assignment
    after almost 18 years of research in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
    including 15 years of seismic engineering research.
        Initial NEHRP Secretariat activities center on addressing high-
    priority requirements identified in the NEHRP Reauthorization Act of
    2004, including:

              Establishing the Interagency Coordinating Committee

              Establishing the Advisory Committee for Earthquake
            Hazards Reduction

              Developing an updated NEHRP Strategic Plan

              Developing a NEHRP Management Plan

              Developing a coordinated Interagency Budget for FY08
            and beyond.

        Beyond the $750,000 that was redirected to the NEHRP Secretariat
    function, approximately $160,000 of FY 2006 NEHRP research funding is
    being used to partially support a much larger multi-year project
    addressing the prevention of progressive collapse in buildings that are
    subject to catastrophic events, such as earthquakes, fires, or
    explosions.
        For FY 2007, the NEHRP base funding would be applied similarly as
    it is in FY 2006. In addition, approximately $800,000 of the new
    funding requested in the President's FY 2007 budget will be used to
    begin implementation of the R&D roadmap developed by industry through
    the Applied Technology Council to close the research-to-practice gap
    and accelerate the use of new earthquake risk mitigation technologies.
    This effort will initiate several projects that address critical topics
    supporting the development of Performance-Based Seismic Engineering
    (PBSE) and will assist industry in improving building codes and
    standards, advance seismic engineering practice, and facilitate
    technology transfer for efforts that have been undertaken by NEHRP. All
    of these research efforts will be undertaken in close cooperation with
    practitioners and with standards and codes development bodies.

    Q4.  Many of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
    (NOAA's) National Weather Service's automated surface observing
    stations and its NOAA Weather Radio antennas do not have backup
    electrical power and become inoperable during hurricanes and other
    sever weather events. To fix this problem, in the FY06 hurricane
    supplemental, NOAA received $5 million to provide backup power for
    those two systems in coastal areas. Will all the systems in hurricane-
    prone coastal areas be upgraded in time for the 2006 hurricane season?
    If not, what percentage of upgrades do you anticipate will be complete
    in time for the 2006 hurricane season, and what are the criteria for
    selecting which areas to upgrade first?

    A4. The Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to
    Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act of
    2006 (P.L. 109-148) included $4.9 million to provide backup emergency
    power for hurricane-prone coastal Automated Surface Observing Systems
    and coastal NOAA Weather Radio All-Hazards transmitters. NOAA will work
    as quickly as possible to upgrade the equipment. The National Weather
    Service has begun engineering development (including site surveys and
    assessment of existing site power infrastructure requirements) and
    equipment procurement (generators and ancillary cables) for this
    effort. We anticipate procurement of hardware for backup power to be
    completed by September 2006, with installations to commence in October/
    November. Initially, we will focus on installations in Florida and the
    Gulf Coast region; we will then shift our focus to the Atlantic Coast.

    Q5.  When asked last October, Max Mayfield (Director of the National
    Hurricane Center) indicated that the five highest priority areas for
    improving hurricane forecasts are improved computational capacity,
    research to improve hurricane models, an expanded buoy network,
    improved satellite sensors, and additional flight hours on hurricane
    hunters. Please explain where each of these priorities is funded in
    NOAA's FY07 budget request, and the amount of funding provided in the
    request. Please also describe what level of funding was provided for
    each of these priorities in FY06, including which line office at NOAA
    received the funding.

    A5. Please see the attached table for the response to Question 5.

    Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

    Q1.  For five years the Administration has either proposed eliminating
    or cutting MEP funding by 50 percent. However, MEP is a partnership
    between State and the Federal governments. What meetings have you had
    with State officials regarding your past or proposed budget cuts--and
    by this I don't mean MEP Center Directors, but with the State officials
    which are responsible for allocating the one-third matching funds? Why
    haven't you consulted with the States?

    A1. The FY 2007 budget request for the Hollings MEP is similar to
    previous years and as such NIST is able to rely on responses provided
    by our stakeholders from the three web cast and two regional meetings
    held during 2004. NIST will also actively engage our State partners in
    dialogue this year through a series of roundtables. The first
    roundtable was held on March 15th in Columbus, OH. In addition, these
    meetings are designed to look at the future of manufacturing and how
    the MEP partnership with the States can best address those needs.

    Q2.  What was the Department's analysis that shows that $47 million is
    enough funding to maintain an effective network of national centers?

    A2. The $47 million for the FY07 budget is consistent with the
    President's FY06 request. This year the Administration had to make
    tough budget decisions and set priorities in a tight budget year. MEP
    is one part of the Administration's broader plan to support small
    manufacturers. The President remains committed to strengthening the
    competitiveness of the Nation's manufacturing industry and is focusing
    efforts on the American Competitiveness Initiative to support
    innovation.

    Q3.  You have justified the MEP cut because the program has evolved to
    a stage where less funding is required--this is different from past
    year's justifications for funding cuts. What is the analysis and
    criteria that you used to make this determination? You have also
    justified the MEP cut because the program offers services that are also
    provided by the private sector. Could you provide us with the analysis
    that backs this assertion. The reason that I ask these questions, is
    that the Department commissioned the National Academy of Public
    Administration (NAPA) to do a study on the MEP. One of their findings
    was: ``The small manufacturing market is under-served in terms of
    assistance with productivity and performance measures.'' The NAPA study
    also found that MEP did not displace private companies offering
    services to small manufacturers.

    A3. Since taking office, the President has worked to improve the
    competitiveness of the manufacturing industry in numerous ways,
    including providing tax relief that benefits manufacturers of all
    sizes, and proposing an aggressive job training initiative.
        The small manufacturing base is critical to the U.S. economy and
    integral to U.S.-based supply chains. Accordingly, NIST supports the
    small manufacturing community not only through the Hollings MEP, but
    also through laboratory activity across the Institute. More than half
    of the NIST lab activities are either directly or indirectly geared to
    enhancing manufacturing. The President has demonstrated his strong
    commitment to the NIST laboratory programs by including them in the
    American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) for FY 2007. ACI increases
    funding for the NIST laboratory and construction programs above the
    base level by 24 percent to $535 million.

    Q4.  You justify eliminating the ATP because of the growth of venture
    capital funds and other financial services for high-risk technology.
    This Committee has heard repeatedly during the past four years that
    venture capital funds for high-risk technology development are scarce.
    Could you provide us with the documentation that supports your claims?
    Also, if venture capital funds are so plentiful for high-risk, high
    tech projects, why is the Administration requesting funds for Red
    Planet Fund at NASA which will be an ATP-like program at NASA?

    A4. Data shows that there have been significant private equity funding
    available and that the level of funding continues to be strong. A 2002
    study by Lewis Branscomb et al. at Harvard University that analyzed
    data from 1998 estimates that between $5.4 billion (conservative
    estimate) and $35.5 billion (inclusive estimate) was invested in early
    stage technology development (Branscomb and Auerswald, Between
    Invention and Innovation). These estimates include $1.4 billion to $7.3
    billion in investments from the Federal Government.
        In 2005, venture capitalists invested $21.7 billion in 2,939 deals,
    which matched the level invested in 2004. Funding for start-up and
    early stage companies slipped slightly for the year to $4.1 billion in
    922 deals compared to $4.4 billion in 2004. Anecdotal evidence shows
    that 2006 will see an increase in early stage investing both in number
    of companies funded and amount of money invested, negating the need for
    governmental support. (Source: National Venture Capital Association)
        The Department of Commerce's knowledge of the Red Planet Capital is
    limited; therefore it would be inappropriate to comment on NASA's
    reasoning for requesting its establishment.

    Q5.  You justify abolishing ATP because it only benefits a single
    company and not industry at large and that American Competitiveness
    Initiative will not impact individual company but be broadly based. The
    ATP's mandate is that it can fund projects that will only have broad
    industry impacts far beyond private profit. I'll cite just a few
    examples such as the two milli-meter project, the Affymetrix DNA
    diagnostics project and the Integrated Circuit project; these were
    successful APT projects which had broad industry impacts. Why doesn't
    the ATP fit within the scope of the Administration's Initiative?

    A5. The FY 2007 budget reflects the Administration's policy and funding
    priorities to address the Nation's most pressing needs. In contrast to
    ATP, the President's American Competitiveness Initiative invests in
    broad basic research that will benefit entire industries. The request
    continues the orderly ATP phase-out that was initiated with recent
    appropriations and will meet all existing grant obligations.

    Q6a.  An article appeared in the February 11 issue of the St.
    Petersburg Times about NOAA's proposal to offer early retirement to
    1,000 employees of the weather service. The article indicates a number
    of these positions may be permanently cut and others will be filled
    through promotion of junior staff.

          We are very concerned about the implications of this type of buy-
    out from the perspective of public safety and continuity of service at
    the weather service.

          What implications does this plan have for the future of 24/7
    coverage that is now provided through all of the weather forecasting
    offices (WFO)?

    A6a. The Voluntary Early Retirement Authority is no longer under
    consideration as it is too late in the fiscal year to achieve
    significant savings.

    Q6b.  Is the Administration planning to reduce the routine hours of
    service delivery from some or all of the WFOs?

    A6b. There are currently no plans to reduce the routine hours of
    service delivery at any Weather Forecast Offices.

    Q7.  Mr. Sampson, your testimony highlights the requested increases for
    the new satellite systems--GOES-R and NPOESS. Well, as you know we
    cannot really evaluate the request for the NPOESS program because there
    have been so many schedule delays and cost overruns that it is now
    under complete review within the Department of Defense's Nunn-McCurdy
    process.

         At this point, NPOESS--its cost and schedule--are both very
    uncertain and the risk of a data gap is very high. What commitment is
    the Administration prepared to make--in dollars and actions--to ensure
    this new system is delivered in time to ensure the continuity of
    weather forecasting data? Is the Administration prepared to amend the
    FY07 request and ask for additional funds to ensure the continuity of
    our weather forecasting enterprise? If additional funds are required
    should we expect cuts to other NOAA programs to offset the NPOESS
    increases?

    A7. The Administration remains committed to polar satellite data
    continuity. These data are the foundation for our global weather
    models, which are critical to our mid- to long-range forecasts. The
    Administration is aggressively addressing the issues related to the
    NPOESS Program. Pursuant to Title 10 USC  2433, the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD (AT&L) ) has
    directed a full Nunn-McCurdy review that requires a written
    certification to be presented to Congress with supporting explanation
    that:

            1.  the acquisition program is essential to national security;

            2.  there are no alternatives to such acquisition program which
            will provide equal or greater military capability at less cost;

            3.  the new estimates of the program acquisition unit cost or
            procurement unit cost are reasonable; and

            4.  the management structure for the acquisition program is
            adequate to manage and control program acquisition unit cost or
            procurement unit cost.

        Under the leadership of USD (AT&L), the Department of Defense has
    convened four working groups to address these criteria and has invited
    NOAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to
    participate as full partners in all four working groups. A decision is
    expected no earlier than June 5, 2006. Until that decision has been
    made, it would be premature for the Administration to amend the FY 2007
    President's budget to request additional funds. There are currently no
    plans to cut other NOAA programs to offset any possible NPOESS
    increases. The Administration will conduct a full briefing for the
    House Science Committee soon after the final Nunn-McCurdy decision is
    reached in June 2006.

    Q8a.  Your written testimony indicates that NOAA's FY 2007 request
    includes an increase for the tsunami warning system of $12 million
    bringing the total funding for the tsunami warning system to about $20
    million per year. We are all pleased to have the system expanded to
    cover both of our coasts and the budget request appears to contain
    sufficient funds to operate and maintain the system.

          However, the request for the Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program
    receives no increase for FY 2007 and the TsunamiReady Program is
    reduced by $1 million--an 80 percent reduction from the FY 2006 enacted
    levels. The budget request for these two programs confirms concerns
    raised by Members of this committee when the expansion of the system
    was proposed--that we would have the technology in place, but would not
    have the funds to enable State and local governments to prepare
    themselves to heed the warnings the system delivers. The utility of the
    warning network is dependent upon the work done to prepare coastal
    communities through the Mitigation Program and TsunamiReady program.

          Why were these funds not increased to accommodate the increased
    number of State and local communities that will now be served by the
    network?

    A8a. Prior to the Administration's commitment to accelerate its U.S.
    Tsunami Warning System (FY 2005-2006), the National Tsunami Hazard
    Mitigation Program (NTHMP) was NOAA's primarily vehicle to test many of
    the improvements made to the existing U.S. Tsunami Warning Program.
    NOAA's development, deployment and initial maintenance and operation of
    its Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami stations were funded
    by the NTHMP. Similarly, NOAA tsunami inundation mapping and modeling
    efforts were also tested and funded by the NTHMP. Finally, the NTHMP
    funded many of the improvements made by the USGS in upgrading and
    expanding its network of real-time reporting seismometers along the
    West Coast and Alaska.
        During the past ten years of the NTHMP, over 60 percent of the
    NTHMP funding supported these hazard detection efforts. Under the
    Administration's plan to strengthen the U.S. Tsunami Warning Program
    (which began with the FY 2005 supplemental request), these key programs
    initially developed and funded by the NTHMP are fully funded by the new
    program. Consequently, in FY 2007, NTHMP funding will be used only to
    fund State and local tsunami awareness and tsunami mitigation efforts--
    and not tsunami detection efforts. This shift in funding requirements
    allows NOAA to more than double NTHMP funding support for State and
    local tsunami awareness and tsunami mitigation efforts.

    Q8b.  Will the west coast states involved in the Mitigation Program
    have their funds reduced or will there be no funds for the east coast
    states and Caribbean territories? How does NOAA intend to allocate the
    limited funds available to the states and territories?

    A8b. As stated above, in FY 2007 NOAA expects to use 100 percent of
    available NTHMP funding to support State and local tsunami awareness
    and tsunami mitigation efforts. The NTHMP steering committee, comprised
    of representatives from NOAA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
    the U.S. Geological Survey and the States of Hawaii, Alaska,
    Washington, Oregon, and California endorsed the concept of forming
    regions, which would receive and distribute funds. All coastal states
    and U.S. Territories at-risk from a tsunami are invited to participate
    in this process. In FY 2006, NOAA plans to schedule a series of NTHMP
    meetings involving (1) the original five states (HI, AK, WA, OR, and
    CA), (2) southern U.S. coastal states and territories with tsunami
    vulnerabilities, and (3) east coast states with tsunami
    vulnerabilities. At these meetings, discussions will be held regarding
    the future of the NTHMP.

    Q9.  Mr. Sampson, the President requested and the Congress agreed to
    provide a pay raise for federal employees. However, over the past few
    years the extra funds for the pay raise have not been fully budgeted
    for in either the appropriations bills or the President's request for
    NOAA. As you know, when this happens the funds to meet the pay raise
    are acquired by other means including drawing from the programs and
    imposing hiring freezes.

    Q9a.  How much funding will be diverted from program activities in FY
    2006 to cover the cost of the pay raise?

    A9a. The FY 2006 President's Budget included funding for a 2.3 percent
    pay raise. Congress enacted a 3.1 percent pay raise in legislation, but
    did not provide the funding to cover the full raise. NOAA absorbed $6.2
    million in FY 2006.

    Q9b.  The FY 2007 request includes a request for funds to cover the pay
    raise. How much of the total cost of the pay raise is covered by the
    request?

    A9b. In the FY 2007 President's Budget, the Administration proposes a
    2.2 percent standard pay raise for most federal employees. This raise
    is covered completely within the request, totaling $17.423 million.

    Q9c.  Does the FY 2007 request for these funds recover the deficit from
    previous years or are these funds only to cover the pay raise for FY
    2007?

    A9c. The FY 2007 President's Budget funds only the 2.2 percent pay
    raise associated with the FY 2007 request. There is no provision in the
    request to recover the pay raise differential from previous years;
    however, $4.662 million is included to annualize the January 2006 pay
    raise.

    Q10.  The Administration is requesting $3.5 million in additional funds
    above the FY 2006 enacted level to ensure the wind profiler information
    remains available to weather forecasters. We realize the transmission
    frequency for the profilers must be converted to avoid a conflict with
    new search and rescue satellites. How many profilers will be converted
    to the new frequency with the proposed FY 2007 funds? What is the
    estimate for the total cost to complete the conversion of all
    profilers?

    A10. The FY 2007 request includes a $3.5 million increase to begin the
    required development and re-engineering to convert the existing Wind
    Profilers in order to avoid frequency conflicts with the planned
    European Space Administration's (ESA) 30-satellite Galileo Global
    Positioning System network. No wind profilers will be converted to the
    new frequency with FY 2007 funds. FY 2007 funds are for re-engineering
    design and production of the prototype unit. Contingent upon the
    availability of funding, NOAA projects to complete the conversion of
    the 32 existing Wind Profilers that operate on conflicting frequencies
    (404 MHZ) by the end of FY 2010. The projected total cost to convert
    these 32 wind profilers is estimated at $13.2 million. There are five
    additional profilers in the network which already operate on a non-
    interfering frequency.

    Q11.  The Administration is requesting a restoration of funding for the
    Space Environment Center (SEC) of $3.2 million above the FY 2006
    enacted levels. Our understanding from the hearing we held in this
    committee during the last Congress is that even the $7 million range of
    funding is not going to permit much, if any, upgrade to space weather
    forecasting services. Is that the case? The SEC relies upon data
    collected from instruments on several satellite systems, including a
    NASA research satellite (ACE). What is the anticipated life-span of the
    current ACE satellite? What plans does NOAA have to replace the data
    stream from the ACE sensors once the current ACE satellite mission has
    ended?

    A11. The FY 2007 requests restoration of $3.2 million to the Space
    Environment Center's (SEC) operating budget. This $3.2 million will
    allow the SEC to be funded at the $7.347 million level. At this $7.347
    million level, the SEC will have sufficient funding to continue its
    improved suite of space weather forecasts and products. The funds
    requested are necessary to operate and perform critical research at the
    SEC. SEC warnings and forecasts are relied upon by NASA, the DOD, power
    industries, private satellite operators, and the airlines and
    communications industries for real-time forecasts and warnings of high-
    frequency radio blackouts caused by solar flares, solar radiation
    storms, and geomagnetic storms.
        The NASA ACE satellite is a research satellite that the SEC has
    used for observing solar activity. The SEC also uses capabilities from
    NOAA GEOS, NOAA POES, and DOD's DMSP for space weather forecasting.
    While the ACE satellite has outlived its scheduled research life-span,
    its unique orbit (one million miles) requires minimal fuel to maintain.
    NASA projects sufficient ACE fuel reserves to maintain its orbit for
    many years. In anticipation of potential future ACE data loss, the SEC
    is planning to hold a stakeholder meeting to assure understanding of
    the situation and ensure users know the impact and any loss of certain
    products and efforts.

    Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

    Q1.  In October 2005, the Science Committee held a hearing on the final
    report of the NIST investigation into the collapse of World Trade
    Centers 1, 2, and 7. At this hearing, the Committee learned that, based
    on the recommendations contained in this report, NIST would be working
    with codes and standards groups to submit proposed changes to the
    International Building Code, the deadline for which is March 24th,
    2006. Where is NIST in this process? What specific changes will be
    proposed, and does NIST have supporters who will champion these
    proposals in the ICC?

    A1. After issuing the final report, NIST assigned top priority to work
    vigorously with the building and fire safety communities to assure that
    there is a complete understanding of the recommendations and to provide
    needed technical assistance in getting them implemented. NIST has
    implemented a web-based system (http://wtc.nist.gov/recommendations/
    recommendations.htm) so that the public can track the progress on
    implementing the recommendations. The web site lists each of the
    recommendations, the specific organizations (e.g., standards and code
    developers, professional groups, State and local authorities)
    responsible for its implementation, the status of the implementation by
    organization, and the plans or work in progress to implement the
    recommendations. The status of the implementation of the
    recommendations is current as of January 31, 2006. The status will be
    updated periodically to report progress.
        NIST has been working vigorously with the building code experts who
    were convened pursuant to a contract to the National Institute of
    Building Sciences (NIBS) to translate the NIST WTC recommendations into
    code change proposals. Key representatives of the International Code
    Council (ICC) (as well as other standards and code organizations) are
    actively engaged in this effort and submitted code change proposals for
    the International Building Code. The NIBS building code experts and the
    ICC representatives are expected to champion these proposals in the
    ICC.

    Q2.  The President's fiscal year 2007 budget request includes $2
    million for a project to increase the resilience of structures and
    communities to hurricanes, fires, and earthquakes. Some of this funding
    would be used to conduct research on multi-hazard failure analysis and
    the role of fire in the progressive collapse of structures. That kind
    of research was recommended in NIST's Report on the Collapse of the
    World Trade Center Towers. This report recommended several other areas
    where further research was needed (such as testing protocols for wind
    loads on tall building or improving test methods for fireproofing
    materials) but those areas are not funded in the FY07 budget request.
    What was the rationale behind selecting multi-hazard and fire failures
    for funding?

    A2. The decision-making rationale for selecting the program elements of
    the ``Structural Safety in Hurricanes, Fires, and Earthquakes'' was
    based on consideration of several factors. First, this request will
    permit NIST to carry out critical R&D to reduce the vulnerability of
    citizens and the built environment to these natural disasters. Each
    year the United States suffers an estimated $52 billion in property
    damage, disruption of commerce, and lost lives due to natural
    disasters.
        Another factor is that this proposed program is focused directly on
    providing some of the solutions demanded by four of the six Grand
    Challenges outlined by the President's National Science and Technology
    Council's Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction.
        Finally, the initiative complements existing efforts from previous
    appropriations. In addition to redirected internal base funds, the
    Congress has appropriated $3 million in FY 2003 and $2 million in FY
    2005 for research related to our World Trade Center research effort.

    Q3.  And finally, how many Neutron facilities in the world would be
    considered world class, and where are they?

        In terms of impact, the NCNR consistently ranks in the top three
    facilities worldwide. The preceding graph shows the results of an
    analysis from Christian Vettier from the Institute Laue-Langevin (ILL)
    which is widely regarded as the leading neutron facility in the world.
    It shows the number of papers published in high-impact journals over a
    five-year period.
        In terms of capability (intensity plus number of instruments) the
    leading world wide facilities include the following facilities (taken
    from Table 3 of the OSTP report on the Status and Needs of Major
    Neutron Scattering Facilities and Instruments in the United States).
    Top three indicated above line:

    Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

    Q1.  You justify eliminating the Advanced Technology Program because of
    the growth of venture capital funds and other financial services for
    high-risk technology. This committee has heard repeatedly during the
    past four years that venture capital funds for high-risk technology
    development are scarce. Could you provide us with the documentation
    that supports your claims?

    A1. Data shows that there have been significant private equity funding
    available and that the level of funding continues to be strong. A 2002
    study by Lewis Branscomb et al. at Harvard University that analyzed
    data from 1998 estimates that between $5.4 billion (conservative
    estimate) and $35.5 billion (inclusive estimate) was invested in early
    stage technology development (Branscomb and Auerswald, Between
    Invention and Innovation). These estimates include $1.4 billion to $7.3
    billion in investments from the Federal Government.
        In 2005, venture capitalists invested $21.7 billion in 2,939 deals,
    which matched the level invested in 2004. Funding for start-up and
    early stage companies slipped slightly for the year to $4.1 billion in
    922 deals compared to $4.4 billion in 2004. Anecdotal evidence shows
    that 2006 will see an increase in early stage investing both in number
    of companies funded and amount of money invested, negating the need for
    governmental support. (Source: National Venture Capital Association)

    Q2.  Since 2001, we have lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs; last year
    alone we lost another 55,000 manufacturing jobs. These jobs are high-
    skill, high-wage jobs that on average pay 23 percent more than the
    national average.

         I would like for you to explain to our constituents why the
    Administration proposes to gut the Manufacturing Extension Program that
    has a proven track record in creating and retaining good jobs.

    A2. The budget constraints have forced the Administration to make some
    difficult budget decisions--in this case reducing the Hollings MEP. MEP
    is just one method by which NIST supports small manufacturers. More
    than half of the NIST lab activities are either directly or indirectly
    geared to enhancing manufacturing.
        The President has demonstrated his strong commitment to the NIST
    laboratory programs by including them in the American Competitiveness
    Initiative (ACI) for FY 2007. ACI increases funding for the NIST
    laboratory and construction programs above the base level by 24 percent
    to $535 million.
                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science
            Foundation

    Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

    Q1.  The Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07) budget request includes an eight
    percent increase in funding for nanotechnology R&D at the National
    Science Foundation (NSF). What level of funding will NSF be devoting to
    studying potential environmental and safety implications associated
    with nanotechnology? How does this compare to FY06, in terms of funding
    and subject matter? How is NSF's nanotechnology environmental and
    safety research coordinated with R&D supported by other agencies on
    potential new nanotechnology products? How is it coordinated with the
    needs of regulatory agencies?

    A1. The FY 2007 Budget Request includes $59 million in funding for the
    societal implications of nanotechnology research and development--this
    is a 7.6 percent ($7.55 million) increase over FY 2006.
        A portion of this investment--$25.65 million--will be directed
    toward studying the potential environmental and safety implications
    associated with nanotechnology. This is a 16 percent ($3.55 million)
    increase from FY 2006. This research will be directed at the impact of
    nanoparticles and nanostructured materials in the environment,
    including air, water, soil, biosystems, and the work environment. It
    also will study the non-clinical biological implications of
    nanoparticles. In 2007, however, research will expand beyond passive
    nanostructures to include the implications of active nanostructures and
    nanosystems.
        NSF collaborates with other agencies on environmental and safety
    research through the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). One
    example of this collaboration is the joint program solicitation on
    ``Nanotechnology Research Grants Investigating Environmental and Human
    Health Effects of Manufactured Nanomaterials.'' This collaboration is
    with the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute for
    Occupational Safety and Health, and NIH's National Institute of
    Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). The Nanomaterials Environmental
    and Health Implications (NEHI) working group facilitates the
    coordination with other research and regulatory agencies.

    Q2.  How will the new Research and Evaluation on Education in Science
    and Engineering (REESE) program on what works, why, and for whom in
    math and science education coordinate with the Science of Learning
    Centers already underway at NSF? How have results from REESE's
    predecessor program--Research, Evaluation and Communication--affected
    NSF's K-12 programs and how are results from REESE expected to affect
    them in the future?

    A2. The new Research and Evaluation on Education in Science and
    Engineering (REESE) program coordinates with the Science of Learning
    Centers (SLC) on several levels. At the NSF management level, one of
    the REESE program officers is the EHR representative to the SLC
    coordinating committee. At the scientific level, three of the four
    Principal Investigators for SLC centers are grantees of the Research on
    Learning and Education (ROLE) program, a predecessor to REESE. In
    addition, many of the co-Principal Investigators are also grantees of
    the ROLE program. At the discipline level, the SLCs are participating
    in the major meetings for education researchers (including the American
    Education Research Association meeting and the International Conference
    on the Learning Sciences meeting).
        Results from REESE's predecessor programs (primarily ROLE) in the
    Research, Evaluation and Communication (REC) division have influenced
    NSF's K-12 programs in a variety of ways, thereby ensuring that
    practice is informed by research. Here are two examples:

            1.  An Interagency Education Research Initiative (IERI) project
            developed and distributed modeling and simulation software for
            biology, chemistry, and physics to over 250 high schools in a
            project called Modeling across the Curriculum. The use of this
            software has been shown to improve the performance of students
            taking science courses. Early research for the IERI project was
            supported by ROLE.

            2.  ROLE supported research that led to the development of
            cognitive tutors that provide individualized guidance to
            learners. Now these tutor systems help more than 325,000 middle
            school and high school students in 750 school districts learn
            complex problem-solving skills in areas such as algebra,
            geometry, and computer science. In carefully controlled
            studies, classes using the algebra tutor system have shown
            dramatic achievement gains over control classes--as much as 25
            percent better on standardized tests of basic skills, and 100
            percent better on assessments of problem solving. The effective
            use of the tutors is being studied in an IERI project and in
            the Pittsburgh SLC.

        Looking to the future, REESE will continue to support basic and
    applied research on teaching and learning that will subsequently
    influence the development of innovative instructional materials,
    curricula, pedagogical practices, and teacher training in math and
    science education. REESE program officers have served, and will
    continue to serve, on committees that manage several NSF programs that
    support K-12 science and math education in addition to the SLCs. These
    include, for example, Human and Social Dynamics, Information Technology
    Research, and Advanced Learning Technologies.

    Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

    Q1.  As was the case last year, the budget request includes $57 million
    to reimburse the Coast Guard for icebreaker services in support of
    Polar research. In addition, for FY 2006, NSF contracted for additional
    icebreaker services at a cost of $9 million.

         Has a decision been made on the way NSF will obtain icebreaker
    support beyond FY 2007? Should we expect to see NSF retain the
    responsibility for maintaining and operating the aging Coast Guard
    icebreakers, or will NSF have the freedom to pursue other options for
    polar research support?

    A1. NSF plans to continue to task the USCG to operate the HEALY in the
    Arctic, either singly or in concert with other nations' icebreakers
    such as the joint cruise with the ODEN that was funded in FY 2005.
        For Antarctic resupply, NSF plans to continue to secure icebreaking
    services from a reliable provider at the most economical cost. USCG has
    stated that the NSF-funded maintenance being performed on the POLAR SEA
    in FY 2006 will enable her to conduct the Antarctic break-in for at
    least FY 2007 and FY 2008. Whether a back-up vessel will be needed in
    those years will be the subject of discussions with the USCG in the
    next few months. The decision will be based on many factors, such as
    progress on the POLAR SEA's maintenance work, casualties (if any)
    sustained to the POLAR SEA during the FY 2007 break-in and escort
    duties, and predictions of ice thickness and extent.
        In securing polar icebreaking services to support NSF-funded
    research, NSF is guided by the FY 2006 President's Budget Request,
    which noted that funding for the polar icebreakers was transferred to
    NSF in order to ``permit NSF to define the options for reimbursement or
    replacement of two of the ships. . .'', and by Congressional action on
    the budget request noting that NSF is expected to ``immediately begin a
    concurrent pursuit of alternative, more economical icebreaking
    solutions. . ..''
        NSF is in the process of reviewing comments from a Request For
    Information seeking information on the availability and cost of
    icebreaking services from any capable providers. The response to this
    RFI will assist NSF in formulating a strategy for meeting its Antarctic
    icebreaking needs over both the intermediate and the long-term. In
    addition, NSF is seeking funding to initiate projects that will enable
    it to deal with a possible one-year failure of the ship-borne resupply
    mission. For example, increasing fuel storage at McMurdo Station;
    implementing the surface traverse to South Pole Station; and
    investigating the feasibility of supplying South Pole Station largely
    by air from off-continent locations.
        NSF does not operate or maintain the polar icebreakers. Rather, it
    is responsible for tasking the USCG to operate them and for providing
    the associated operations and maintenance funding in accordance with an
    MOA between the two agencies that outlines the process for budget
    submission, review and approval, and reimbursement. However, without
    significant refurbishment, the USCG polar class icebreakers are very
    close to the end of their useful lives, and NSF will not be able to
    rely on them beyond the next two to four years. Our longer-term
    solution to the Antarctic resupply problem will be informed by the
    National Research Council's study on Polar Icebreaker Roles and U.S.
    Future Needs. The Committee addressing the Nation's need for polar
    icebreakers has been very active and its meeting agendas demonstrate a
    commitment to ensuring that it appropriately and thoroughly considers
    all aspects of the question. In parallel with the NRC Committee's work,
    NSF will commission design and operating concept studies to determine
    the most reliable, efficient, and cost-effective resupply system.

    Q2.  The education directorate has been headed by an acting assistant
    director for the past year, and three of the five division director
    positions are vacant. What steps are being taken to fill these
    positions and when may we expect to see permanent staff in place?

    A2. Efforts to fill Executive positions within the Education and Human
    Resource Directorate (EHR) are underway. Since October 2005 a total of
    five Division Director positions have been advertised, and each is now
    at varying stages of being filled.
        Each vacancy was announced with Senior Executive Service (SES)
    career and limited term appointment options, as well as
    Intergovernmental Personnel Act assignment options. Each announcement
    was open to all qualified applicants and posted on the NSF web site and
    OPM's USAJobs. In addition, the positions were advertised both in print
    and electronically in publications of The Chronicle for Higher
    Education and Science.
        Details regarding the status of each vacancy follow:

             Director, Division of Graduate Education: The vacancy
            announcement was posted from October 12, 2005 through January
            16, 2006. As a result of the recruitment and merit staffing
            process a list of four highly recommended and five recommended
            candidates were referred to EHR for further consideration. EHR
            is in the process of interviewing the four highly recommended
            candidates.

             Director, Division of Human Resource Development: The vacancy
            announcement was posted from December 23, 2005 through February
            7, 2006. As a result of the recruitment and merit staffing
            process a list of five candidates were referred to EHR for
            further consideration. EHR is in the process of interviewing
            these candidates.

             Director, Division of Elementary, Secondary and Informal
            Education and Director, Division of Research, Evaluation and
            Communication: The announcements for these two positions were
            posted from January 6, 2006 through February 17, 2006. The
            merit staffing process is underway and the most qualified
            applicants will be referred to EHR for consideration.

             Director, Division of Undergraduate Education: The vacancy
            announcement that opened on February 10, 2006 closes on March
            24, 2006. Once closed, the merit staffing process will
            commence, and the most highly qualified will be referred to EHR
            for consideration.

        In addition to these five positions, the Office of the Director is
    conducting a nation-wide search to fill the Assistant Director position
    for the EHR Directorate.

    Q3.  The budget request includes $50 million, the first payment of a
    $200 million investment, to develop a leadership-class high-performance
    computing system for support of scientific and engineering research.
    The Department of Energy is also acquiring very high-performance
    computing systems. What is the nature and extent of coordination and
    collaboration between the two agencies in providing high-performance
    computing capability so that the needs of U.S. scientists and engineers
    in different fields are met?

    A3. While DOE has specific energy-related mission requirements that
    they must address, NSF provides high performance computing resources
    specifically targeted to fundamental research in the broad, open
    science and engineering communities. Nonetheless, there are many ways
    in which the two agencies collaborate and coordinate activities in high
    performance computing.
        For quite some time now, NSF has been coordinating and
    collaborating its high performance computing systems activities with
    the Department of Energy (Office of Science and National Nuclear
    Security Administration), the Department of Defense's DARPA High
    Productivity Computing Systems (HPCS) initiative as a mission partner
    in that activity during its Phases I and II, and with NASA.
        There are instances where Department of Energy (DOE) and NSF
    jointly fund activities that are of common interest. An example of such
    a collaboration is the High-End Computing University Research Activity
    (HEC-URA) which began in 2004 and is co-funded by NSF, DOE and DARPA.
    HEC-URA is an outgrowth of the interagency High-End Computing
    Revitalization Task Force (2003), in which NSF, DOD and DOE played
    leadership roles. There are also several ongoing activities coordinated
    through the High-End Computing Interagency Working Group, a subgroup of
    the Administration's Networking and Information Technology Research &
    Development (NITRD) National Coordinating Office (NCO). An example of
    such an activity is the identification of a common set of benchmarks
    that are being used to guide the acquisition of high performance
    computing systems; NSF and DOE play significant roles in this activity
    too.
        Finally, NSF and DOE share high performance computing expertise
    through participation in review panels and committees, with DOE experts
    serving on NSF review panels and committees and NSF experts serving on
    DOE review panels and committees. We expect to continue to have
    frequent discussions with our colleagues in DOE and other federal
    agencies, as we move forward with the proposed FY 2007 acquisition.
        The interactions described herein allow both NSF and DOE to
    leverage expertise and promising practices and to minimize duplication
    of effort. Most importantly however, it allows us, together, to better
    serve the American public, stimulating innovation and economic growth
    through scientific breakthroughs created with a portfolio of
    leadership-class systems.

    Q4.  A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences called for
    federal R&D agencies to institute programs to allow institutions of
    higher education to acquire research instrumentation that costs in the
    $1 to $10 million range. The report specifically recommends that NSF
    expand its Major Research Instrumentation program to allow awards over
    the current $2 million limit.

    Q4a.  What is your view of this recommendation, and what priority would
    you give to such an instrumentation program?

    A4a. In the 2003 report of the National Science Board entitled Science
    and Engineering Infrastructure for the 21st Century: the Role of the
    National Science Foundation (NSB02-190), the Board recommended that NSF
    develop a funding mechanism to support mid-sized instrumentation
    projects. This report was published shortly after enactment of the NSF
    reauthorization law that included language doubling NSF's budget over
    five years. Since that time, budgetary restrictions have limited the
    agency's ability to initiate such a program.
        As currently designed, NSF's Major Research Instrumentation Program
    (MRI) supports instrumentation acquisition and development for research
    and research training purposes for awards between $100,000 and $2
    million. Increasing the scale of the MRI program to include mid-size
    instrumentation (between $2 million and $20 million) would require a
    higher degree of management oversight than is required for typical MRI
    awards. Many awards, even at the low end of this scale, require long-
    term commitments on the part of the host institution, the federal
    supporting agencies, and often the scientific community. The NSF
    currently supports a small number of such research instrumentation
    efforts through other NSF programs. Rather than being supported by the
    MRI Program, proposals can be submitted to and awards can be made by
    divisions that support instrumentation. Before an award is made, there
    are in-depth discussions with the cognizant research communities, the
    research institutions that are involved, and the federal agencies that
    are partners. It is now clear that available opportunities and
    mechanisms are not always transparent to the scientific community.
    Therefore, NSF senior management will make changes this year to ensure
    more transparency of the processes it uses to support mid-size
    instruments. Moreover, raising the cap on the MRI program is currently
    under discussion. There will be some closure on this issue by July
    2006.
        The 2005 report of the National Academy of Sciences, Academic
    Research Instrumentation and Facilities was presented to the Director
    of NSF on January 5, 2006. Since that presentation, NSF senior
    management has been studying the report along with NSF's current set of
    (17) instrumentation programs, with a focus on how we might best
    implement the numerous recommendations.

    Q4b.  What has been the effect of NSF's abandonment of cost sharing on
    the number of awards provided under its existing Major Research
    Instrumentation program?

    A4b. FY 2005 was the first year that the no cost sharing policy set by
    the National Science Board was implemented. Based on one year's data,
    it does not appear that the number of awards provided under the
    existing MRI program was significantly affected by the change in cost
    sharing. To guarantee the productive use of the equipment, the 2005
    program solicitation required institutions to submit management plans
    describing how they planned to address those costs that had previously
    been considered as `cost sharing' throughout the life of the project.
    In addition, the management plan became an explicit review criterion.
    The drop in the number of proposals from the FY 2004 level to the FY
    2005 level can be attributed to proposals that were withdrawn (n=13)
    and returned without review (n=58) because they did not respond to the
    changes in the MRI program. While the number of awards and the success
    rate decreased between FY 2004 and FY 2005, the decline can be
    attributed to the decrease of approximately $20 million in program
    funds between those years. Approximately 36 awards could have been made
    had there not been a decrease in the MRI program budget.
        The following table has been provided for your reference.

    Q4c.  Why doesn't cost sharing make sense for this kind of program as a
    way to leverage a greater national investment in cutting-edge research
    instrumentation?

    A4c. Cost sharing may make sense for this kind of program as a way to
    leverage greater national investment in cutting-edge research
    instrumentation. As noted above, the emphasis has shifted from capital,
    one time, cost sharing requirements to cost sharing by way of long-term
    institutional commitment to operations and maintenance. Requiring
    awardees to document these costs leverages the investment and ensures
    that the equipment is functioning, put to good use, and not idle due to
    lack of resources to support ongoing cost for operations and
    maintenance. This approach is consistent with the National Science
    Board's cost sharing policy while still recognizing the partnership
    between the federal sponsors of research and the grantee.

    Q5.  Last May, the NSF's Advisory Committee for Business and Operations
    reviewed NSF's management of large facilities construction projects. It
    criticized what it characterized as ``under-investment'' in
    engineering, cost-estimating and project management support during the
    development stage when baseline project definitions are being
    formulated. Please comment on this finding. Do you believe the NSF
    scientific directorates are budgeting adequately for the costs
    associated with the development stage of large facilities projects
    which they must bear prior to a project's approval for construction
    (after which costs are covered by funds from the Major Research
    Equipment and Facilities Construction account)?

    A5. Projects proposed for future construction funding must be well
    defined, well budgeted, and there must be appropriate emphasis and
    resources provided to those involved in planning so that there is a
    capable project management infrastructure in place and prepared to
    execute construction. NSF has taken steps to make it clear to our
    research communities, and to NSF staff, that NSF has these expectations
    and that they will be held accountable for satisfying them. In
    November, NSF released a new document, endorsed by the National Science
    Board, entitled ``Guidelines for Planning and Managing the Major
    Research Equipment and Facilities Construction Account'' which lays out
    NSF's expectations for a structured, incremental process of planning,
    development, and assessment by NSF of proposed projects; proceeding
    through a Conceptual Design, a Preliminary Design, and a Final Design
    Review prior to commencement of construction. NSF recognizes this will
    cost money (increasing the investment in engineering, cost-estimating,
    and project management leading to baseline definition) but the greater
    investment in pre-construction planning will result in net savings in
    terms of improved definition of a project's scope, better assessment of
    a project's risks, the formulation of a plan that minimizes risk
    exposure, a more robust budget estimate, and a better forecast of a
    facility's likely operating costs, so that NSF knows beforehand that
    these costs are supportable.
        Under the new Guidelines, the NSF's MREFC Panel, with the
    independent assessment of the Deputy Director for Large Facility
    Projects, will make a recommendation, which the NSF Director must
    approve, in order to advance any candidate new project to a more
    advanced stage of pre-construction planning (for example, from
    Conceptual Design to Preliminary Design related activities). NSF
    recognizes that adequate investment in the pre-construction planning
    process is essential to project advancement and eventual construction.
    Each Directorate/Office has the responsibility to make that judgment
    regarding how much of their budget to devote to project planning versus
    investment in other base program activities, in order to maintain and
    promote the vitality of the research in that area.

    Q6.  The past few independent auditor's reports for NSF have pointed to
    shortcomings in the agency's post award management. NSF has developed
    procedures for identifying high-risk awards, but the IG finds that NSF
    does not ensure that all high-risk institutions are adequately
    monitored. The IG's last report indicates that, out of 167 high-risk
    institutions, only 25 were visited during the past year. How does NSF
    plan to monitor high-risk institutions that are not visited? Does NSF
    have the sufficient staff and travel funds to carry out substantially
    more site visits?

    A6. The strategic plan to monitor all institutions identified by the
    model as managing high risk awards is detailed in the Office of Budget,
    Finance and Award Management (BFA) Post-award Monitoring Standing
    Operating Guidance (SOG) 2005-2. It is a comprehensive, integrated plan
    for post-award monitoring of all institutions including those that
    manage high risk awards. Post award monitoring is not limited to site
    visits and includes evaluation of final adjustments, FCTR transaction
    testing, and monitoring by grants and agreements officers in the
    Division of Grants and Agreements (DGA) and the Division of Acquisition
    and Cooperative Support (DACS) as well as program officer monitoring,
    and evaluations performed by special request. As part of its ongoing
    effort to strengthen its award monitoring program, NSF management
    anticipates making a contract award in Spring 2006 that will provide
    additional resources to conduct desk reviews of high risk awards that
    are not selected for award monitoring site visits during development of
    our annual monitoring plan. Once the contract is awarded, the task
    order for this particular deliverable will address the need to develop
    the specific procedures that will comprise the desk reviews, including
    any needed follow up to results.
        NSF management will continue to update the above noted SOG and
    linked policy or procedural documents as appropriate based on changes
    in its operations including items such as the above noted desk reviews.
    In addition, NSF management will ensure that the guidance clearly
    states how site visit selections are determined including the basis for
    excluding institutions managing high-risk awards from a site visit
    review.
        It is important to note that NSF management identifies awards as
    high risk; accordingly, NSF does not identify an institution itself as
    being high risk. This nuance is important in that an institution is
    identified as managing a high risk award rather than being considered a
    high risk institution. In addition, it is important to understand that
    of the 167 institutions identified in the IG's last audit report as
    managing high risk awards, that not only were 25 visited in FY 2005 but
    also 48 had been visited or audited during the previous four years and
    49 had awards that were due to expire. The remainder of institutions
    that were not visited results in only 45 institutions.
        NSF management believes that the augmentation of our current
    resources with contract resources will strengthen our Post Award
    Monitoring and Business Assistance Program. While the augmentation of
    existing staff and travel funds would certainly bring additional
    resources to our program, NSF strongly believes that the selection of
    institutions for site visits is based on a sound methodology that is
    one part of its larger NSF ``Gold Standard'' Post Award Monitoring and
    Business Assistance Program.

    Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

    Q1.  Improvement of math and science education is a major longstanding
    responsibility of NSF. The President's proposed competitiveness
    initiative provides a funding increase for NSF of nearly eight percent.
    Unfortunately, this same budget proposal actually cuts NSF's K-12
    education programs by seven percent.

         Dr. Bement, within the healthy budget increase proposed for NSF
    for FY 2007, why does K-12 education fare so poorly?

         If one looks at educational materials development, teacher
    development, and the Math and Science Partnership program, which has
    been heavily focused on improving teacher performance, the FY 2007
    budget proposal is 38 percent below the FY 2004 level. You have even
    reorganized the education directorate in a way that drops ``elementary
    and secondary education'' from the title of the division that contains
    the remaining K-12 programs. This certainly sends the signal that NSF
    is de-emphasizing K-12 education activities. Is this the case, and if
    not, what do you consider NSF's role to be, and what is your long-term
    plan for supporting K-12 science and math education?

    A1. The ongoing consolidation of the Math and Science Partnership at
    the Department of Education accounts for a significant portion of the
    drop in NSF's K-12 budget (down $17.18 million from the FY 2006 Current
    Plan). Also, the K-8 pilot program was funded in FY 2006 and not in FY
    2007 ($6.94 million). The total planned reduction of these two programs
    combined is $24.12 million. With this planned reduction taken into
    account, and when the entire NSF budget for K-12 programs is counted,
    K-12 investments throughout the Foundation actually increase by over 10
    percent. This is because the Foundation's education portfolio includes
    a number of investments throughout the Research and Related Activities
    account. This includes programs, such as the Graduate Teaching
    Fellowships in K-12 Education (GK-12) program (managed by EHR and
    funded by both EHR and R&RA), which contributes significantly to K-12
    education but whose funding is counted as graduate research dollars.''
        The NSF portfolio for FY 2007 emphasizes four priorities that will
    strengthen the science and engineering enterprise through investments
    in frontier research, the workforce, education, and cutting-edge
    research tools. Bolstering K-12 Education is one of the four
    priorities, signaling its importance to the Foundation. NSF has a long
    history of building strong research foundations and fostering
    innovation in K-12 science and mathematics education. Skills in
    science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are increasingly
    necessary for success in the workforce and for full participation in
    the life of the Nation. The Foundation's education portfolio, including
    its K-12 portfolio, resides in both the Education and Human Resources
    account and the Research and Related Activities account. A new program
    to improve geoscience education at the middle and high school levels,
    for example, is funded in the Research and Related Activities account.
                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Charles E. McQueary, Under Secretary, Science and
            Technology, Department of Homeland Security

    Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

    Q1.  The Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07) Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
    budget request for the DHS Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate is
    organized by ``portfolios'' (biological countermeasures, cyber
    security, critical infrastructure protection, etc.).

    Q1a.  How is the money in each portfolio area being spent, by
    performer? Please provide for each area a breakdown of the amount of
    funding that was directed to the private sector, Department of Energy
    laboratories, federal laboratories, other government agencies, and
    universities in FY05. Please provide an estimate of the same
    information for FY06.

    A1a. The following are obligations against the FY 2005 S&T Directorate
    appropriation by Program, Project, Activity (PPA); the obligations
    include those made through March 30, 2006.

    Q1b.  How much funding did the Homeland Security Advanced Research
    Projects Agency distribute in FY05? How much do you estimate it will
    distribute in FY06 and FY07? Please specify this distribution by
    portfolio and performers as above.

    A1b. The following are obligations against the FY 2005 S&T Directorate
    appropriation by Program, Project, Activity (PPA) made through HSARPA;
    the obligations include those made through March 30, 2006.

        The S&T Directorate is working to determine the appropriate FY 2006
    funding levels to be directed through HSARPA to private sector,
    national laboratories, federal laboratories, other government agencies,
    and universities while considering how best to meet the Directorate's
    and Department's mission. Based on the FY 2005 figures, the S&T
    Directorate anticipates a similar funding breakdown by PPA, through
    HSARPA, for FY 2006 and likewise for FY 2007.

    Q2.  In his testimony, Dr. McQueary mentioned a ``Research,
    Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) process'' that has been
    developed to assist with the determination of priorities. Please
    explain how you assess the threats and vulnerabilities across a broad
    range of possible terrorist actions and develop a strategy to reduce
    the risks through investments in science and technology? Do you take
    into account the DHS mission to respond to natural disasters in your
    prioritization of projects?

    A2. The S&T Directorate's RDT&E process consists of four main sub-
    processes: 1) needs and risk assessment, 2) strategic planning, 3)
    program definition, and 4) program execution. The first two sub-
    processes ensure that the S&T Directorate considers user needs,
    available intelligence, big-picture risks, national goals and inputs
    from other external agencies and advisory bodies to establish its
    annual RDT&E program. The second two sub-processes provide a framework
    for program execution using the best available systems engineering and
    program management techniques. Threat assessments and material threat
    determinations developed by DHS are critical factors in the
    determination of requirements and the identification of critical
    capability gaps.
        Risks and gaps are identified using multiple sources and techniques
    including the Homeland Security Council's 15 Planning scenarios which
    include two catastrophic natural disasters. In developing solutions,
    the process also engages end-users throughout the requirements
    definition, development, testing, and transition phases. One of the
    primary areas where end-users are directly involved in requirements
    generation is the Emergency Responder community. Firefighters, law
    enforcement officers, and other federal, State, and local agencies have
    been key partners and participants in various workshops to identify and
    define the technology needs of those entities that have the
    responsibility to respond to all-hazards events including natural
    disasters.

    Q3.  DHS received $23 million in FY06 to conduct a planning and
    feasibility study for a National Bio- and Agro-defense Facility, which
    would serve as a replacement for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.
    No additional request was submitted for the new facility for FY07.

    Q3a.  Please describe the timeline and process for how DHS will decide
    whether to build a new facility and how it will choose a site. What are
    DHS's long-term plans for funding this large capital project?

    A3a. The S&T Directorate initiated an Expression of Interest (EOI) to
    explore potential sites for the National Bio- and Agro-defense Facility
    (NBAF). The EOI was published Jan. 17, 2006 in the Federal Business
    Opportunities and Jan. 19, 2006 in the Federal Register. Site criteria
    and requirements were developed by an interagency technical working
    group [including DHS, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and
    the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)] to evaluate sites
    that would best support research in high-consequence animal and
    zoonotic diseases in support of Homeland Security Presidential
    Directives, HSPD-9 and HSPD-10.
        The results of the EOI will be evaluated in an environmental impact
    statement (EIS) in the fall of 2006, at which time the public will have
    the opportunity to comment on the scope of the analysis. In addition,
    the S&T Directorate issued a solicitation in April 2006 to procure
    architect-engineer services to conduct conceptual design studies and
    initial cost estimates for the NBAF. The conceptual design will be
    completed in 2007. Under the present schedule construction for NBAF
    will begin in 2009 and be operational by the end of 2012.

    Q3b.  In Dr. McQueary's testimony, he mentioned that we have an
    insufficient supply of laboratory space for foreign animal diseases.
    What evaluations have been conducted to assess the Nation's future
    needs for capacity in this area? Have these evaluations been
    coordinated with the National Institutes of Health, which is currently
    providing funding to build a number of bio-containment laboratories
    across the country?

    A3b. The departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Health and Human
    Services (HHS) and Agriculture (USDA) have together determined that
    their interrelated bio-defense missions with respect to agriculture
    security all require new research and development infrastructure that
    can accommodate extensive testing with a variety of animal models.
        This conclusion was reinforced in two independent reports: a Report
    of the joint U.S. Animal Health Association/American Association of
    Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians Committee on Diagnostic Laboratory
    and Veterinary Workforce Development\1\ and the GAO Report to
    Congressional Committees, GAO-06-132 Plum Island Animal Disease
    Center,\2\ December 2005. These reports recognize the importance of
    having adequate facilities to counter today's agroterrorism threats.
    They state respectively that: over 75 percent of all emerging
    infectious diseases and over 80 percent of biothreat agents of concern
    are zoonotic; and that over 40 contagious foreign animal diseases
    threaten the United States' agriculture economy, the largest and most
    integrated in the world.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Report of the USAHA/AAVLD Committee on Diagnostic Laboratory
    and Veterinary Workforce Development, http://www.usaha.org/committees/
    reports/2005/report-lvwi-2005.pdf
        \2\ GAO Report to Congressional Committees, GAO-06-132 Plum Island
    Animal Disease Center, December 2005.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Currently, the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC) provides
    the only U.S. research and confirmatory diagnostic capability for high-
    consequence foreign animal diseases. It is also the only laboratory in
    the United States equipped with research facilities that permit study
    of these diseases in livestock, such as cattle, sheep and swine. The
    proposed National Bio- and Agro-defense Facility (NBAF) would replace
    the existing PIADC facility and enhance capabilities to meet the
    mandated national bio- and agro-defense mission requirements of DHS,
    HHS and USDA.
        NBAF is envisioned to provide the Nation with the first integrated
    agricultural, zoonotic disease and public health research, development,
    testing and evaluation facility with the capability to address threats
    from human pathogens, high-consequence zoonotic disease agents, and
    foreign animal disease.
        Site criteria and requirements for NBAF were developed by an
    interagency technical working group, including DHS, USDA, and HHS to
    evaluate sites that would best support research in high-consequence
    animal and zoonotic diseases in support of Homeland Security
    Presidential Directives, HSPD-9 and HSPD-10.

    Q4.  Funding for research on decontamination technologies and protocols
    appears to be receiving less attention than in prior budget requests.
    The FY06 budget request for DHS called for a reduction in funding for
    building decontamination research and development (R&D) programs, and
    the FY07 DHS budget request contained little reference to
    decontamination programs. What will be DHS's role in addressing the
    remaining challenges to decontamination of chemical agents in FY07? How
    will this be coordinated with the Environmental Protection Agency?

    A4. In the chemical countermeasures program, the emphasis on
    decontamination has not decreased. Rather, it increases from FY 2005
    through FY 2007. In FY 2005, our budget for decontamination was
    $800,000. Our FY 2006 decontamination budget is $8.8 million and our FY
    2007 request is $9 million.
        The decontamination program consists of two major components. The
    first is a Facility Restoration Demonstration Program, which concludes
    in FY 2008. It will provide guidance on the use of decontamination
    technologies for restoration after a chemical attack. The guidance will
    be developed in concert with transit facility Los Angeles International
    Airport (LAX) management and transition to other similar operational
    situations. EPA participates on the advisory board for this
    demonstration program.
        The second program is a research and development (R&D) program to
    develop approaches to fill gaps in our ability to decontaminate
    persistent chemicals. This R&D program increases substantially from FY
    2006 to FY 2007. In FY 2006, our budget for decontamination R&D is $2.9
    million, and the budget request for FY 2007 is $4 million.
        The program addresses emerging threat materials (such as non-
    traditional agents) and specific operational gaps. EPA is a key partner
    in this effort. The Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate and the
    EPA's Homeland Security Research Center hold annual joint workshops to
    coordinate programs such as this.
        Additionally the S&T Directorate works closely with the EPA on
    related projects that provide the capability to conduct analysis of
    environmental samples in the wake of a chemical attack, which is an
    important adjunct to decontamination in the restoration process.
    Specifically, the Department and the EPA are working together to ensure
    that the DHS-developed mobile laboratory will be consistent with EPA
    practice when it transitions to EPA.
        DHS is also establishing, in FY 2006 and FY 2007, prototype fixed
    laboratories that can analyze environmental samples that contain
    chemical warfare agents. These laboratories will be established in the
    Washington, D.C. and New York City regions for eventual transition to
    EPA stewardship. Multiple agencies, including EPA and the Department of
    Defense (DOD), have joined with the S&T Directorate to develop this
    capability.

    Q5.  When DHS develops a useful new technology, like BioWatch, that
    gets deployed into an essential national system, the DHS S&T
    Directorate then has to allocate an increasing proportion of its R&D
    budget to maintaining and operating this new system. Can the S&T
    Directorate hand these new technologies off to somewhere else within
    DHS? How will this be managed in the future as new technologies are
    purchased, installed, and maintained by cities and other local
    communities?

    A5. To the extent that the S&T Directorate is responsible for
    maintaining and operating the systems that arise out of the technology
    it develops, the directorate has to allocate an increasing portion of
    its research and development (R&D) budget for these activities.
    Ideally, this would be addressed by transitioning the systems'
    operation to a DHS operational directorate or to end users. The S&T
    Directorate has looked closely at this transition issue for the
    BioWatch system, since its maintenance and operation requires about 25
    percent of the Biological Countermeasures Portfolio budget. A `BioWatch
    Transition Study' concluded that in its current form, BioWatch requires
    considerable technical support for its operations and in evolving its
    concept-of-operations. Hence, it is not yet ready for transition. We
    believe that once we develop and field the fully autonomous Gen-3
    BioWatch system, that it would be appropriate to transition BioWatch to
    a DHS operational directorate such as the Preparedness Directorate, and
    to fund that activity either directly through that directorate or the
    Office of Grants and Training program.
        Similar considerations will apply to other systems developed by the
    S&T Directorate. In general, systems that are reasonably self-
    contained, commercial systems, can be transferred to operational
    directorates. Systems that are still evolving and require considerable
    scientific reach-back for their routine operations, are best retained
    within the S&T Directorate.

    Q6.  The Homeland Security Act of 2002 requires DHS to establish a
    Homeland Security Institute (HSI) to provide analytical services,
    including risk assessment and vulnerability modeling. What tasks has it
    accomplished to date? Please provide examples. What projects are
    planned for FY06 and FY07? Have other units of DHS utilized HSI's
    capabilities? How are those projects funded?

    A6. To date, the Homeland Security Institute (HSI) has developed and
    continues to refine core capabilities in the areas outlined in the
    Homeland Security Act of 2002; including systems analysis, risk-
    consequence-vulnerability analyses, operational and capability
    assessments, multi-faceted threat evaluations, economic and policy
    analysis, alternative investment comparisons, and simulations. As
    envisioned by Congress, the HSI is developing rigorous independent
    concepts, like an overarching risk management methodology and decision-
    support tool to help prioritize programs which are currently being
    incorporated in the Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate and are
    planned for roll-out in the DHS planning process.
        At the request of a variety of DHS sponsors, the HSI studies and
    analyzes germane topics like Wide Area Biological Restoration, Sector
    Specific Infrastructure R&D Needs, Illegal Immigration Modeling,
    Improvised Explosive Devices Scenario Modeling, and other similarly
    focused issues. HSI has also been working with various standards
    committees to help foster development and promote community-wide
    acceptance of homeland security related standards. HSI was also funded
    to assess Urban Bio-Monitoring Architecture, Vulnerability of the
    Global Positioning System Network, Advances in Red Teaming Methods, in
    addition to evaluating the readiness of federal assets like the
    National Science and Technology Threat Assessment and Reachback Support
    Center and the federal laboratory network.
        HSI continues to reach out and build its understanding of the
    homeland security complex through interactions and funded tasks with
    the various DHS operating elements like the Office of Policy, the
    Office of Intelligence and Analysis, Customs and Border Protection, the
    Office of Grants and Training, the Coast Guard, and the DHS
    Preparedness Directorate. Through these diverse interactions, HSI
    develops knowledge to describe strategic processes and interactions.
    This knowledge, in turn, helps HSI to build overarching frameworks for
    DHS processes that can emphasize the particular requirements within the
    various operating elements and identify synergies throughout the
    Department.
        Each year, the S&T Directorate and the Institute, in coordination
    with the Assistant Secretary for Policy, the Under Secretary for
    Preparedness, and the Chief Intelligence Office, work together to
    develop an annual research plan. This plan supports projects that serve
    the entire Department by performing research and analysis needed to
    address the Department's most critical and strategic initiatives, such
    as those outlined in the Department's Integrated Planning Guidance
    (IPG). The $10 million annual core funding investments reflect the
    Secretary's five priorities: improving preparedness; strengthening the
    borders and reforming immigration; increasing information sharing with
    its partners; enhancing transportation security through more efficient
    and secure system control; and strengthening the Department's
    organization to maximize its performance.
        The S&T Directorate funds HSI core tasks, while analytic tasks may
    be funded by various sponsors throughout DHS including the S&T
    Directorate. Core tasks are intended to be cross-cutting in nature and
    scoped to address broader and longer-term research needs and strategic
    issues of the Department. Analytic tasks support more immediate
    research that is focused on specific issues. In FY 2005, the S&T
    Directorate funding was more than double that of the FY 2004 funding
    level; and the S&T core funding represented 67 percent of the total
    funding. The FY 2006 funding for HSI includes the same amount of core
    funding as FY 2005; but the FY 2006 funding ratios are about 45 percent
    S&T core, 25 percent S&T analytic, and 30 percent non-S&T analytic. The
    planned FY 2007 funding for HSI is expected to increase by 25 percent
    due to increased analytic task funding--predominantly from non-S&T
    elements within DHS.

    Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

    Q1.  The R&D summary from the President's FY 2007 budget shows that
    basic research funding at DHS drops by 48 percent, which is only three
    percent of the total R&D funding level. Also, applied research falls by
    14 percent. Are you satisfied that the balance between near-term
    technology development and deployment and more long-term R&D is
    addressed satisfactorily by this budget allocation? How will DHS meet
    future threats unless it supports a more long range vision?

    A1. The emphasis toward the development-and-deployment end of the R&D
    spectrum is to provide DHS agents, officers, screeners, and enforcement
    personnel the best counter-terror tools available in the shortest
    amount of time. Most of their expressed needs--such as improved
    detection of fraudulent documents, faster scheduling of duty
    assignments, more secure cargo containers, easy access to multiple
    databases, robust communications, information sharing protocols, user-
    friendly command and control techniques, simpler ways to tell if a
    white powder is dangerous, better identification of watercraft in
    harbors, even relatively simple (but meaningful) upgrades in their
    uniforms, protective gear, and equipment--do not require basic research
    or, in some cases, only require a little applied research.
        However, this focus does not mean that critical, long-term issues
    are being abandoned. Substantial (and necessary) basic and applied
    research is underway in many critical areas--such as improved biometric
    identification techniques; reliable ways to determine hostile intent;
    automated video scene understanding; and detection of chemical,
    biological, and explosive substances in the most stressing and
    difficult environments. For the most critical DHS long-term needs,
    diligent, careful research is underway.
        Because basic research programs typically have a longer timeline
    than applied and developmental programs, it is essential that the S&T
    Directorate always has a stable basic research program in areas
    relevant to the Department's and the S&T Directorate's strategic
    objectives. The S&T Directorate budget is currently focused on areas of
    highest risk and greatest benefit, aligned with the Department's and
    the S&T Directorate's strategic plans. The following shows the
    breakdown.
        In FY 2005 approximately two percent of S&T Directorate funding
    went to basic research, 79 percent to applied research, and 19 percent
    to developmental research--very similar to our FY 2004 budget
    allocations. The budget allocation in FY 2006 and FY 2007 is expected
    to be similar. An improved method for tracking these types of
    allocations was established in FY 2006 and will improve the accuracy of
    estimates in the future. The table below shows budget allocations by
    PPA with actuals for FY 2005 and estimates for FY 2006 and FY 2007.
    Dollars shown are in thousands.

    Q2.  The Science Committee has advocated that DHS allot greater
    resources to cyber security research, and this budget request does
    provide a 47 percent funding increase. Unfortunately this is from a
    very small base, so that the funding for cyber security, $23 million,
    is only about two percent of the Science and Technology Directorate's
    budget. Will we see efforts in the next few years toward substantial
    increases in cyber security research, or are you satisfied that the
    priority reflected by this request is consistent with addressing the
    potential threat to the Nation from cyber attack?

    A2. We believe that our investment balance among the various technical
    portfolios, including cyber security, is appropriate for the resources
    that the S&T Directorate currently has available. The allocation of
    funding resources to portfolios in the S&T Directorate is based on a
    formal planning process that takes into consideration risks, threats,
    vulnerabilities, and other strategic objectives, to perform
    prioritization within and across technical portfolios. The Department
    is highly supportive of the planning approach taken by the S&T
    Directorate, and believes that this process results in technically
    sound and supportable decision-making with regards to funding
    allocations.

    Q3.  Explosives Countermeasures is one of the major components of the
    S&T budget. How are activities supported at DHS related to DOD efforts
    in this area? Also, NSF proposes a new initiative on sensors relevant
    to the detection of explosives. What is the nature and extent of
    coordination on explosives programs between NSF and DHS?

    A3. Although Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Homeland
    Security (DHS) explosives threats and their associated scenarios are
    different, common technologies employed as explosives countermeasures
    can be appropriate. When appropriate, DOD and DHS have leveraged their
    resources and collaborated on research, development, testing and
    evaluation (RDT&E) efforts. For example, the Night Vision Laboratory's
    evaluation of Millimeter-wave and Infrared cameras to screen people for
    suicide bombs.
        The S&T Directorate also works to coordinate explosives
    countermeasures programs with the National Science Foundation (NSF).
    The S&T Directorate plans to work with the NSF on explosives
    countermeasures projects relevant to the domestic improvised explosive
    device threat. In addition, the S&T Directorate plans to collaborate
    with the NSF to develop a strategic roadmap of the most promising
    enabling sciences.

    Q4.  The budget request merges the Rapid Prototyping Program with the
    Emerging Threats Program into the Emergent and Prototypical Technology
    Program. The funding for the new program, which looks at emerging
    threats and seeks rapid solutions, as well as provides a clearinghouse
    relevant to public safety technologies, is 40 percent below the
    previous combined funding level. What are the reasons for this funding
    decrease in an area that would seem to have a high priority?

    A4. The Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate places high priority
    on identifying and assessing emerging threats and developing rapid
    solutions to those threats for which countermeasures do not exist. We
    believe that our investment balance among the various technical
    portfolios, including Emergent and Prototypical Technology, is
    appropriate for the resources that the S&T Directorate currently has
    available.
        Congressional appropriations for the separate portfolios in FY 2006
    (Conference Report H.R. 2360, Department of Homeland Security
    Appropriations Act, 2006) were $8 million for Emerging Threats and $35
    million for Rapid Prototyping, for a total of $43 million. Included in
    the Rapid Prototyping funding for FY 2006 was $10 million to evaluate
    civil aviation defense technologies and $4 million to encourage further
    implementation of Section 313 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and
    to increase the speed innovative products are being reviewed,
    certified, and released to market; these one-time funding actions total
    about 33 percent of the combined FY 2006 appropriated funding and 40
    percent of the FY 2006 appropriations for Rapid Prototyping.

    Q5.  After a large funding decrease for FY 2006, the University
    Programs receives an additional four percent cut in the request. Why
    does this program continue on a downward path?

    A5. The President's FY 2007 budget request for University Programs is
    $52 million. This funding will allow us to sustain six DHS Research and
    Education Centers of Excellence. Collectively, these centers are
    working on more than 150 projects, with higher education institutions
    that include Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other
    Minority Serving Institutions, State and local agencies, and industry
    in numerous states. Hundreds of researchers associated with these
    centers are conducting multidisciplinary research in risk and economic
    analysis of terrorism events, agricultural security, social and
    behavioral aspects of terrorism, and high consequence event
    preparedness and response. The Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate
    has teamed with other entities to work on topics of mutual interest.
    The first cooperative center is with the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency and focused on microbial risk assessment. The other is with
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in discrete sciences.
    Additionally, University Programs will continue to sustain a cadre of
    public service-oriented scientists and engineers from undergraduates to
    postdoctoral scholars.