[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.