[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 _______________________________________________________________________ HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ________ SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia, Chairman PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky ADAM SCHIFF, California TOM LATHAM, Iowa MICHAEL HONDA, California ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. John Blazey, Marjorie Duske, Adrienne Simonson, Tracey LaTurner, and Diana Simpson Subcommittee Staff ________ PART 7 Page National Aeronautics and Space Administration....................1, 43 Office of Science and Technology Policy.......................... 311 National Science Board / National Science Foundation............. 455 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.......................... 635 Legal Services Corporation....................................... 727 International Trade Commission................................... 781 Office of United States Trade Representative..................... 829 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] ________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 42-708 WASHINGTON : 2008 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania JERRY LEWIS, California NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia RALPH REGULA, Ohio MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia NITA M. LOWEY, New York JAMES T. WALSH, New York JOSE E. SERRANO, New York DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey ED PASTOR, Arizona TODD TIAHRT, Kansas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina ZACH WAMP, Tennessee CHET EDWARDS, Texas TOM LATHAM, Iowa ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr., Alabama ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York KAY GRANGER, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania SAM FARR, California VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois RAY LaHOOD, Illinois CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan DAVE WELDON, Florida ALLEN BOYD, Florida MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida MARION BERRY, Arkansas DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana BARBARA LEE, California JOHN R. CARTER, Texas TOM UDALL, New Mexico RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana ADAM SCHIFF, California KEN CALVERT, California MICHAEL HONDA, California JO BONNER, Alabama BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota STEVE ISRAEL, New York TIM RYAN, Ohio C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas Rob Nabors, Clerk and Staff Director (ii) COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 ---------- Wednesday, March 5, 2008. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WITNESS MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, NASA ADMINISTRATOR Chairman's Opening Remarks Mr. Mollohan. Good afternoon, Dr. Griffin, and welcome before the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee this afternoon to discuss the budget request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2009. As you know, there is a great deal of congressional interest in the portfolio of programs and activities that you oversee. So while I welcome you here this afternoon, the Committee looks forward to having you back again for a full day tomorrow. In less than a year, this nation will have a new President and whether he or she is Republican or Democrat, that new President and we, the Congress, must develop a consensus on what NASA should be doing and identify the level of resources that we are prepared to commit to NASA. Regrettably, since the enactment of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, which established such a consensus and identified that resources need to meet that vision, funding recommended by this Administration has been too lean to meet that vision. When coupled with other costs that NASA has had to absorb since 2005, such as the space shuttle's return to flight and the Hubble servicing mission, today's mismatch between NASA's tasks and responsibilities and its resources continue to grow. The budget and its five-year rollout contain annual increases, barely, if at all, that keep pace with inflation. And even the budget from which these inflationary increases are calculated is thin in many areas. For example, the budget contains no money for shuttle retirement and transition costs past 2010 despite assurances that these costs would be included in each of the last two budgets, leading one to conclude that other NASA programs will have to continue to absorb these costs. The budget contains no funding for replacing the aging deep space network for which development costs are in excess of $8 billion over the next 20 years and is vital to support the very space missions that we fund today and will be in orbit just over the budgetary horizon. The budget recognizes the gap in U.S. human access to space once the shuttle is retired in 2010, but does little to address it. The budget continues the perennial dance with Congress by cutting aeronautics research and development again this year by 25 percent. While the budget initiates new Earth science missions consistent with direction by this Committee and recommended by the National Academies in their recent survey, it fails to provide new resources for them. It simply shifts money within the overall science program. Science eats its own. The budget shorts the international Space Station's utilization and operations needs and erodes the very research used to justify the Space Station itself. The budget reduces funds for education programs by over 20 percent, undermining the National Academies report that proposed broad recommendations to enhance K through 12 science and mathematics education and investment in STEM activities. While these shortfalls are not insignificant, and I am particularly concerned that the funds necessary to address the budget's inadequacies may not materialize in this continuing protracted budget stalemate with this President, I am concerned that it is becoming nearly impossible to maintain an overall balanced portfolio in NASA in this budgetary climate. And I know that perhaps you agree with me in this regard. And though your budget request for this year is $17.6 billion, which is a lot of money in any earthly world, you are cash strapped. The budget has been characterized as staying the course. It does not seem adequate anymore. I know, too, that we do not have to convince you that investments in NASA's programs are critical to our nation's competitiveness, efficiency, and safety of our transportation system, our nation's preeminence in the aviation industry, and ultimately affect the quality of our life and of our planet. The stakes are high as is the challenge. Welcome again, Mr. Administrator, and all those who you have with you. And at this time, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Ranking Member's Opening Remarks Mr. Frelinghuysen. I thank the Chairman, and I join the Chairman in welcoming you today before the Subcommittee to discuss your 2009 budget request. As the Chairman stated, you are requesting 17.6 billion in new budget authority which represents an increase of 1.8 percent above the fiscal year 2008 level. The requested increase is modest and you are attempting to balance a number of important missions. It is a significant challenge to maintain healthy funding for science and aeronautics while trying to adhere to the schedules that have been established with the retirement of the shuttle, the completion of the international Space Station, and the development of the Orion and Ares capabilities. The budget for space and Earth science is flat. But within that level, you have prioritized funding for the top-ranked missions of the recent Earth science decadal survey. The aeronautics research budget is again a significant reduction. The Committee heard testimony last week from GAO, extensive testimony on NASA's role in the next agenda initiative to modernize the nation's air traffic system. And I will have some questions about that NASA contribution to that effort in my time. In exploration, you face perhaps your greatest management challenge in developing the new Orion, Ares vehicles on schedule and on budget. We hope you can bring us up to date with the status of these important efforts. Last but not least, you have an enormous challenge in carrying out the remaining flight manifest for the shuttle through 2010 and to complete the assembly of the international Space Station. We appreciate your dedication and the dedication of your team supporting you here today, both the public team and the private sector, in carrying out these important NASA missions. I also appreciate the attention, and I am sure the Chairman does, to your dedicating so much time to the management of NASA and to fiscal accountability. And I look forward to hearing your testimony today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Griffin, we invite you to share your opening comments with us. Your written statement will be made a part of the record. Before you begin with your comments, would you please either introduce or have those who are sitting at the table introduce themselves. And then when they speak, if they would identify themselves for the record. Administrator Griffin's Opening Remarks Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. Thank you for inviting us today. To my far left is Dr. Jaiwon Shin who runs Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate for NASA. Jai is formerly of the Glenn Research Center, but we have now captured him here at headquarters. To my immediate left is Mr. Bill Gerstenmaier who runs the Space Operations Mission Directorate. Broadly speaking, that includes the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station, and our Expendable Launch Vehicle fleet. Immediately to my right is Dr. Alan Stern who runs our Science Mission Directorate. Alan is a very well-known and very well- established principal investigator in the field of space and planetary science. We were fortunate to attract him to NASA. And to my far right is Doug Cooke, Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Mission Directorate at NASA. The Associate Administrator, Rick Gilbrech, could not be here. He is ill. Doug, however, has been with NASA since the early Shuttle years, has worked Shuttle, Station and then beyond Earth orbit exploration programs since we have had them. So I think you have the best that I can provide here at NASA today. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Dr. Griffin, and welcome everyone at the table. And if you would proceed. Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member Frelinghuysen, thank you for having me here today to talk about the NASA program and to grant me the privilege of bringing my team. It is a good team. You mentioned, sir, that we are coming up on a Presidential transition and we are. Of course, every two years, we have a Congressional transition. So transition is nothing new to NASA, but this one will be particularly significant. I would like to spend a few moments and review the bidding on why. Give or take a few weeks and what I am about to say, five years ago, those who were sitting here and others of us who were asked to testify as private citizens to various hearings in Congress were reeling in the aftermath of the loss of Space Shuttle Columbia, trying to find out what went wrong, how it could have gone wrong, and what we would have to do to fix it. Four years ago this spring, we were dealing with the output, the outcome of that accident and the output of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board led by Admiral Gehman which resulted in sweeping changes to how the Shuttle program is managed and what we do with the Shuttle. It also resulted in the development of a new civil space policy by this President and this Administration which was put before this Congress four years ago. Three years ago, I had been nominated as Administrator to come back to the Agency and head up this new effort and to continue our existing efforts. Two years ago, this Congress had just approved by a very strong bipartisan vote the new civil space policy that the President put forth. The basic terms of that policy were that we would finish the construction of the International Space Station, keeping our commitments to our partners. We would use the Space Shuttle to do so, after which we would retire the Shuttle in 2010, recognizing the words of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board that space flight is difficult, dangerous, expensive, but for the United States, it is strategic and it should be continued. But if it were to be continued, it needed to have goals worthy of the costs and the risks and the difficulty. So we set about with that new space policy a plan to return to the Moon and eventually go on to Mars and other destinations. A year ago, barely a year into that new program as authorized by the Congress, we were dealing with the effects of a year-long Continuing Resolution to our program which immediately caused us to stretch out dates that we had prior commitments to. Today, I come to you in a year in which we have a Presidential transition, the first one now in eight years, and the need that we have at NASA, the greatest need that we have at NASA is for stability. We do not change space policy very often. Prior to the loss of Shuttle Columbia and the resultant changes proposed by the President, the United States had not changed the basic direction of the civil space program for 35 years. Following Apollo, the direction of the civil space program had been to build the Shuttle, fly the Shuttle, and develop, deploy and utilize the Space Station. We had nothing beyond that for 35 years. Now we have a plan that takes us out again beyond low Earth orbit for human exploration and robotic exploration. That is the best plan that has been provided to NASA by a United States Congress in over 40 years. What we need now in the wake of the very wrenching transitions we have had over the past several years and in view of the transition yet to come, what we need is stability and a sense of purpose. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) commented that the United States space program had moved forward for more than 30 years without a guiding vision. Now we have it and it is the right vision. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board commented that if we were to replace the aging Shuttle, and they recommended that we do, that the approach could only be successful if our purpose was sustained and the funds were committed throughout the lifetime of the program. That, too, is covered in our budget and I ask you for that stability. So I will close by commenting that in my opinion what we at NASA need and what the nation needs from NASA now and from our Oversight Committees and Appropriations Committees who support us, what we need is the constancy of purpose recommended by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. That will be a legacy that the crew of Shuttle Columbia could honor. Thank you. [Written statement of Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] U.S. LEADERSHIP IN CIVIL SPACE EXPLORATION Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Dr. Griffin. Speaking in the broadest terms, how does the vision and its funding address the competition we are now experiencing from other countries that are getting into and becoming increasingly sophisticated in civil space? Dr. Griffin. It provides us an opportunity to partner with our peers and I think it provides a threat to our leadership. The United States for decades has been the leader in all aspects of civil space exploration. It is a position that in part for the generations alive today defines what it is to be an American. It has gone without question that the United States reached the Moon and other nations had not, that the United States leads the coalition to build the Internatonal Space Station, others cannot, that the United States built the Hubble Space Telescope, others did not, and so on for many other missions. Today we are in a position where we must retire the Space Shuttle and because there will be a gap in human space flight capability between the retirement of the Shuttle and the deployment of Ares and Orion, its successors, we will face a four-and-a-half year gap at this point where in order to access the Space Station that we have built, we must depend upon Russian transportation systems for crew resupply and we must depend upon European and Japanese cargo transport, which is part of our existing barter agreements with them, so that is not a new relationship, and we must depend upon commercial resupply capability which has not yet been developed. Now, I am among the most forward leaning that you will talk to in my optimism that such commercial transport will develop, but it is still a bet. It is not a position that I would willingly see the United States occupy vis-a-vis our strategic competitors in the world and, yet, it is a position in which we find ourselves. Mr. Mollohan. Well, given the current schedules and current funding levels, do we risk having our preeminence in space overtaken by other countries and, if so, does it matter? Dr. Griffin. I will answer the second question first. I do not intend to be in any way parochial or jingoistic, but I am an American and I will always be. I think that our country should strive to be preeminent in all things upon which the eyes of the world rest and space is one of those things. Space and space exploration is an activity that virtually every nation in the advanced world begins to undertake as soon as it is able. Most of them want to partner with us. They will not want to partner with us if we are not the leader. So I think it does matter. Clearly we have been a leader. Clearly when we are in a position where we are buying transportation from others to and from the Space Station that we took a leadership role in building, others will ask whether the United States is still a leader. I do not know what answers they will come up with. But during the period of time when we are not flying in space, Russia and China will be able to. And that bothers me. I have to add, for the second part of it, that I am glad that Russia is there as a Space Station partner to provide such transport because if they were not, we would not have a means of supplying crew or rotating crew to and from the Space Station and we would not be able to capitalize on the investment that we have made. So while I dislike the situation in which we find ourselves, it is preferable to some others I can envision. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Frelinghuysen, I think I am going to go vote and I will be back in time for you to go vote and while you proceed with questions. Is that all right? Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, sir. RUSSIAN AND CHINESE RELATIONSHIP WITH NASA Mr. Frelinghuysen [presiding]. Well, thank you for your testimony. Sort of keeping in line with the Chairman's questions and your response, the whole notion that we would be beholden to the Russians to get where we need to get, could you expand on that? Obviously, we have a good working relationship with the Russians. It seems to me, and we have discussed this, that if the American people knew how beholden we would be to the Russians, you would get a far greater public demand for greater investments in NASA than what we have. The Chinese are to this lay person leap-frogging ahead. How would you characterize the Chinese program and does that represent a threat? Dr. Griffin. Let me answer again the second question first. I am very impressed with what China is accomplishing in human space flight. They are only the third nation to develop their own internal capabilities for conducting human spaceflight. I believe that they see it as I do, as a strategic matter for a great nation. I do not see it as a threat other than to our image of ourselves in the world. For other nations to be able to do profoundly difficult and daring things that we cannot do, in a period of time when we cannot do them, is not a position that the United States would wish to be in. I have been fairly clear about that. I think it has ramifications in the world of economics, in the world of soft power and I think we---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. And military power. Dr. Griffin. It has implications for military power, and I think we ignore that at our peril. Now, with regard to Russia, I personally like the Russians that we work with on the Space Station program. I admire their capabilities and they have been good partners. We pay for that partnership and that is money which does not come back to American aerospace industry. But they have met their obligations. Mr. Frelinghuysen. But at some point in time, we are going to be inherently dependent on them. Dr. Griffin. We are and let me---- Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. For access? Dr. Griffin. Let me not embellish it. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Dr. Griffin. Let me not be rhetorical. Let me state specifically what our position is. After we retire the Shuttle in 2010, and until and unless we deploy the U.S. Orion crew exploration vehicle or until an as yet unknown commercial capability becomes available for a period that we estimate currently to be four-and-a-half years, if we wish to have U.S. crew onboard the Space Station, we will be purchasing those seats from Russia. If we wish to meet our existing obligations to our European, Canadian, and Japanese partners to provide crew transportation for their astronauts, which is an obligation we assumed, if we wish to meet that obligation, we will be purchasing those seats from Russia between 2010 and 2015. Even into 2015, quite likely into 2016, we will be flying a new vehicle, whether it is commercial or whether it is government- built. Such a new vehicle cannot be initially counted on for crew rescue services and, yet, we must have crew rescue capability onboard the Space Station. Today the proven crew rescue capability is the Russian Soyuz vehicle. So until we have sufficiently flight tested our own vehicle to know that it can loiter at the Space Station for six months at a time and be capable of safely returning crew to the Earth in the event of an emergency, we will continue to be dependent upon the Soyuz system. Those are the facts. ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR NASA Mr. Frelinghuysen. It has become common, and I do believe it personally, to hear that NASA is not adequately funded to carry out its various missions or at least not carry them out well. As you know, there was an effort last year to provide a billion dollars in emergency funding as belated compensation for the costs necessary to return the space shuttle to flight after the Columbia disaster. You have clearly defined a set of tasks in front of you that you have described in detail in your testimony. Can you carry them out with the budget you have laid before us? Dr. Griffin. I believe that we can carry out the tasks which we have said we will do with the budget that the President has requested for NASA. The questions you have been asking so far are more in the vein of are we carrying out the right tasks, were we carrying out those tasks rapid enough. And on those matters, opinion may, of course, differ. But subject to some of the constraints we have discussed, the four-and-a-half year gap and the purchase of Soyuz services and those things, I believe that we can carry out the program that the President has requested NASA to accomplish with the funding that he has allocated. TRANSITION COST Mr. Frelinghuysen. One of the biggest uncertainties has to do with the transition cost as the shuttle program ends. I know we sort of indirectly commented on Presidential transition. Surely there are some good people that are, I assume, working overtime to prepare the next President with his or her portfolio, which certainly should include human space travel as a top priority. Do you have an estimate of the total transition cost and are those costs included in the budget? When we had quite a go around the other day, as you are aware, with the Government Accountability Office, the view was that those costs were not adequately reflected in your projections. Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. I understand. I will be direct. We disagree with the GAO on this matter. We do not wish to budget explicit values for transition costs at the present time because by so doing, we essentially lock in an expectation or an entitlement that those costs will be at least at that level. We have been assessing transition costs very carefully for the last two years and, every time we look at them and we continue to dig into the tail, they come down. We will, as part of our planning and budgeting process this coming year, budget for transition costs, but we are aggressively keeping those costs as low as we can, precisely because of the point you just mentioned, that transitions costs, which are not funded by the Space Shuttle program become a lien on the rest of NASA. Do you need to go vote, sir? Mr. Frelinghuysen. I sure do. Dr. Griffin. Let me withhold the rest of my answer---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Dr. Griffin [continuing]. Until you return. Mr. Frelinghuysen. No. But to some extent, you are dealing with those transition costs? Dr. Griffin. We absolutely are and they represent---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. But they must be reflected somewhere. I understand that if you---- Dr. Griffin [continuing]. They are a---- Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. Put a marker there, then you sort of raise certain expectations. Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. They are a lien on the Constellation Program if it should be needed. For that reason, it is in our interest to keep them as low as possible. Now, I understand that you need to go vote. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I do. Dr. Griffin. I would be happy to resume when you return, sir. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So on the Chairman's behalf, we are going to have a brief recess. I apologize. Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. [Recess.] Mr. Mollohan [presiding]. Well, we are back. Mr. Schiff. Congressman Schiff's Opening Remarks Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator, thank you for being here. I appreciate your spending a couple days with us. I had the wonderful experience last year for the first time to see a shuttle launch which was quite a phenomenal experience. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be sitting on top of that when that goes off and goes up, that is just amazing. I wanted to at the outset just reiterate my strong support for NASA, for both the human space flight as well as the robotic exploration. I realize that we will have a potential gap in terms of our schedule on the manned space flight. We need to make that window obviously as short as possible. But as I mentioned at these hearings last year, I view the NASA request as a floor and have supported and will continue to support additional funding for NASA. You have a very aggressive ambition at NASA which I applaud and I think we need to make sure the resources are there to follow through on that ambition. I do not think we can afford to concede our leadership in either human or robotic space exploration. And I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share that view. SPACE INTERFEROMETRY MISSION (SIM) There are two issues I wanted to raise that I have some concern over and I know they will not come as any great surprise. One involves SIM. The other involves the Mars program. The big concern with SIM is we want to make sure that the program has enough money next year to allow for real progress before the new mission starts in 2010. We worked to get funding for that, as you know, in the omnibus last year. I am concerned that there is not a request, at least a direct request for SIM in the budget this year. Although I know there is some money in the other missions and data analysis for SIM. But the Congress has strong support for this effort and I appreciate the work that your staff has done to work with us and try to find a model of SIM that is within our capacity to afford and to do and move forward with. If you could in particular talk about the new money for SIM, JPL, I think, is going to need more than the $6.6 million to continue to have that ready to go, and I would like to work with you and our Chairman, our Committee members to try to augment that funding consistent with the agreement that we worked out on a new model for SIM. And I would love to have you share your thoughts and expectations on that. Dr. Griffin. Well, I will give you some top-level comments. I have Dr. Stern here who runs the Science Mission Directorate, and can provide some additional detail. We are, as you point out, this year looking at competing approaches for accomplishing the SIM mission, the task of finding planets around other stars. As we talked with you about it, when we feel that we have an appropriate approach to recommend that will accomplish the task and can be afforded, we will come back to the Congress and discus that with you. There is not a request in this year's budget for SIM. The Administration did not request funding for SIM. The Congress has appropriated funding for it and we will, of course, spend that money as the Congress has directed. Whether there will be an Administration request for SIM in a later year depends in part upon the outcome of the analysis that we perform this year. Alan, would you care to explain in a little more detail about the mission? Dr. Stern. Sure. Absolutely. Good afternoon. I would just like to tell you that within our---- Mr. Mollohan. Identify yourself. Dr. Stern. Sure. I am Alan Stern. I am the Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Doctor. Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. I wanted to assure you, Mr. Schiff, that within our Astrophysics Division, in fact, within the Science Mission Directorate, the search for Extra-solar Planets, exoplanets as they are called, is one of our highest priorities. It has been ranked very highly by the National Academy in the Astrophysics decadal survey and we plan to continue to execute on that goal, including the next mission following Kepler, for which SIM is a candidate. We have put a great deal of resources into the development of that mission technology. It has gone very well. The challenge now for SIM, is for SIM to fit in the available budget wedge while all the other portions of the Astrophysics budget that are already underway are built. So, with the budget that has been provided by the Congress, we expect to be able to do that and make that determination this year or next year. Mr. Schiff. You know, I would just say we have had this sort of tug of war over the last several years on SIM. SIM has been in your glide path. Many of us want it in a quicker glide path. On a bipartisan basis, we expressed that sentiment for the budget last year. We have been working with you to accommodate and envision a more modest sized SIM that can be accommodated within the budget with all the other priorities that we have, and I want to continue to work with you all on that. I do not know what your time line is in terms of developing your broader policy of priorities in this area, but just looking at the course of this budget cycle, we would rather work with you in terms of shaping our appropriation in that area than work on it unilaterally. So I would invite you to give us your thoughts as quickly as you can on the kind of resources you think you need to keep this sort of new SIM concept on track so that we do not have big gaps in this. I look forward to working with you on that. MARS PROGRAM FUNDING The second issue, because I know I do not have much time, at least in this round, and I will be following up on this in future rounds, is the Mars glide path has changed pretty dramatically from where it was last year in terms of the funding for Mars. I would like to ask you, because I think this has been really a cornerstone of our exploration program and has generated so much public support for it, I support the goal of a sample return from Mars by 2020, but the drastic cut in the Mars budget does not seem consistent with congressional direction, the broad support of the scientific community, and public excitement about the Mars missions. This is a drastic reduction from last year's five-year plan for no apparent reason. I would like to work with you both to restore the funding for this program and ensure that this good science is also funded. If you could share your thoughts on what changed from last year to this year and how we can work together to try to restore that support for the Mars program. Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. Administrator Griffin has asked me to take this question. So let me start by saying that the Mars program has been very successful and we are very proud of the results that we have obtained from it. We are looking forward to the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission launching next year and a series of missions that we have planned and what you see in the budget request. However, the Mars mission does reside within the Planetary Science Division. As you know, there is a decadal survey for planetary sciences that speak to the needs in planetary science for the inner planet, the outer planets, for Mars, for primitive bodies, and other aspects of the field. So there are a variety of competing needs. At mid decade, which was just last year, the National Academy provided us with this report. This report was put together by a Committee chaired by one of my predecessors, Dr. Wesley Huntress. That report gives us grades, A's, B's, C's, and D's, for the different activities within the Planetary Science Division, grading them against the goals of the decadal survey. Our Mars program received an A. Our outer planets program received a D. Our Research and Analysis program received a C. So what you see in the President's request consistent with this report card is an attempt to repair the major deficiencies of the program within the budget resources that are available. Dr. Griffin. I would add a comment that the Mars program, of course, has its own interest and own excitement, and it is funded today at a very high level because it is executing a flagship mission, the Mars Science Laboratory. There then becomes an expectation, almost an entitlement, that funding will continue at the level necessary to support flagship and that cannot happen because within the overall Planetary Sciences Division, there are other communities who want flagships. Indeed, the National Research Council of the National Academy has recommended an outer planet flagship. We cannot conduct Mars at a flagship level and also do an outer planet flagship mission. So the budgets for the individual communities within Planetary Sciences have to go up and down and have to phase properly in order to stay within overall guidelines while accomplishing a varied set of goals. What we are really doing is returning the Mars program to its average funding level. Mr. Schiff. If I could just interject because I know I am probably out of time already, but I understand all that is true. All that was true last year as well. But, nonetheless, the path that Mars was on in terms of its funding and support last year is drastically different than what is being proposed this year. So my question, is, what changed in all that calculus from last year to this year that accounts for such a dramatic decrease in the Mars funding? Dr. Griffin. We have reformulated the strategy that we wish to use in exploring Mars as compared to our other obligations within science. Mr. Schiff. What are those other obligations? Dr. Griffin. Some money has gone to Earth science. Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to exploring this further during the hearing. Thank you. NASA'S BUDGET REQUEST Mr. Mollohan. Doctor, you have got a lot of things on your plate. You have got the shuttle and the Space Station operations, development of new human space transportation system. Your budget has to support aeronautics, space science and technology applications and these important activities and ambitious human lunar program will necessitate investment. Your budget request, I think, had an increase of about 1.8 percent which does not even keep up with inflation. And it just does not seem to fit. How do you sustain all that with that small an increase and would you not agree that that is inadequate? Dr. Griffin. I can only say that the President's budget is adequate for the goals that the President has asked us to accomplish. Over the years of the Bush Administration, the NASA budget has kept pace with inflation. In this one year, it takes a bit of a dip. But broadly speaking, we do keep pace with inflation. A free variable, of course, in your question is the time frame in which the accomplishments are completed. I think we have a very good portfolio of activity within NASA and I have been very pleased that whenever we have a discussion as with the one we just had with Mr. Schiff, it is not about the question of whether an activity is worth pursuing. Everyone that I work with here on Capitol Hill seems to think that what we are doing are good things and the questions are always about the relative priorities among good things and the pace at which good things can be accomplished. Clearly if more money were allocated, more things can be done or things can be done faster. But the budget submitted by the President is adequate to accomplish what he has asked us to accomplish in the time frame that we claim we can do it. Mr. Mollohan. Well, obviously it is not even a current services budget. Would you agree with that? Dr. Griffin. I am not sure what you mean by current---- Mr. Mollohan. Well, it is not enough money to fund the activities that you are funding in 2008. It is not enough money to keep up with inflation. Dr. Griffin. It goes slightly below the inflationary level this year, yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. Well, my point is, what adjustments are you making at NASA to accommodate that reality, that fact? What programs are being, I guess, not funded or stretched out? Dr. Griffin. Well, no program is not being funded or stretched out that was otherwise planned to be done because we have seen this small dip coming for a while and our programs have been planned accordingly. The biggest recent dip in our program was the Continuing Resolution that we got a year ago this time and we have managed to adjust our programs to fit that. In fact, the primary way that we adjusted our programmatic flow to meet the demands of the Continuing Resolution was that we slipped the delivery date for Ares and Orion, the Shuttle replacements, by six months. In general, with ongoing programs, that is what we have to do when for any reason there is a decrement in funding. Mr. Mollohan. And I guess the Mars program that you and Mr. Schiff were talking about is down $170 or so million. That is an adjustment you have made that was not---- Dr. Griffin. That is true. That is a strategy adjustment we made since last year within Planetary Sciences. We have targeted money for an outer planet flagship. We have shifted other money to Earth science and the Mars program has a little bit less than it was once planned, but they would have---- Mr. Mollohan. So that is an example of an adjustment you have made this year which you did not anticipate making last year? Dr. Griffin. That is true. We have a new Science Mission Director this year, Dr. Stern, and he has a slightly different strategic view of what we should do than his predecessor. And I chose to accommodate that. Mr. Mollohan. Yeah. That was the kind of example I was looking for. Are there other such examples? Dr. Griffin. There are, but that was not in response to a budget cut. That was just in response to, as Dr. Stern indicated, we do get assessments of our efforts by the National Academy. This one is a new one. This assessment was not in evidence at this time last year. I am a little torn. It is sometimes asserted that we are not sufficiently responsive to the wishes of the National Academy, though I try to be. And, yet, when we are responsive to the wishes of the National Academy, it causes change. And change has always two sides. Those who are on the receiving end of the result of the change are always happy. Those who are on the giving end of a change are always unhappy. It is very hard to know what to do. We believe that our Science Program is not only responsive but very responsive to the priorities that the National Academy sets forth and---- Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Dr. Griffin [continuing]. Sometimes that does result in changes. Mr. Mollohan. I was after an example as to how your program has changed not because of any academy's recommendations but because of the budget realities that you were facing from OMB or Administration or otherwise. That is really what I was fishing for. Dr. Griffin. Our program has not changed as a result of any budget surprises from the Administration because there have not been surprises. The President's requests have been very consistent. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Culberson. SHUTTLE RETURN TO FLIGHT COST COMPENSATION Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Forgive me for running a little late. We had a vote and our hearing is going on at the same time. Dr. Griffin, thank you, all of you, for the work you are doing. You know how passionately devoted I am to you and the mission at NASA as everybody on the Subcommittee is. There are no party distinctions or labels here. We are all equally committed to help NASA achieve its goals. And I know that you are constrained by your position to defend the White House funding request, but I have noticed that while the White House laid out the vision, they have never in my opinion adequately funded it or given you the resources you need to do everything on your table. And I know that perhaps this has been asked before about the billion dollars that the Congress tried to give you last year, to give compensation to NASA, for example, for the loss of the shuttle. And in a very real sense the Agency, NASA, our space program is self-insured, the vehicle loss. We can never replace those astronauts who lost their lives, but the vehicle itself was never replaced as with Challenger, correct? We have never compensated NASA as we did for Challenger? Dr. Griffin. We are not replacing the Shuttle because the determination has been made to retire the fleet. Mr. Culberson. Right. Dr. Griffin. So that individual Shuttle was not replaced, and NASA was not compensated for the $2.7 billion in return to flight costs. That is correct. Mr. Culberson. That was my point. It is a $2.7 billion cost is what I was driving at. Dr. Griffin. We assessed that cost a year or so ago in response to a question for the record. The Shuttle Return to Flight costs were about $2.7 billion and those came out of extant programs at NASA. HURRICANE KATRINA Mr. Culberson. And on top of that, you had Hurricane Katrina damage, where you had the potential of flooding damage at one of your facilities---- Dr. Griffin. That was Hurricane Katrina, sir. Mr. Culberson. That was Katrina. And a couple of NASA, I understand, employees stayed behind and ran the pumps and saved the facility. Is that fundamentally the story? There would have been even more damage but for the initiative and bravery of a couple of NASA employees. And who were they and what---- Dr. Griffin. They were actually Lockheed Martin employees. Mr. Culberson. What did they do specifically to save the facility? Dr. Griffin. Well, when others evacuated, there was a ride- out crew that was formed to stay behind and there were several folks who were on that crew. They drove out and walked out in hurricane weather conditions to a pumping station which needed manual intervention to keep the pump running. The Michoud Facility where we build Shuttle external tanks and where we will be building tanks for our new rocket fleet, the Michoud Facility is in a very low-lying area next to the water because we ship these tanks by barge. Mr. Culberson. Right. Dr. Griffin. It is surrounded by levies which keep the water out. The water surge from Hurricane Katrina topped the levies by a little bit and so the internal area would have flooded had the pumping station not been able to keep up with the influx of water. Through the bravery of these employees, the area was saved. When I flew over it by helicopter a couple of days after Katrina, Michoud was an island of green in a sea of brown mud stretching 150 miles long along the coast by about three or four miles inland. It was quite startling to see. NASA awarded to all of the employees who stayed behind, a ``NASA Exceptional Bravery Metal'' for their service. We would not be flying a Space Shuttle today, we would not have completed the international Space Station if those people had not taken that risk. Mr. Culberson. Driven out there that night and turned on the pumps manually. It is a great story. And I wanted to reemphasize it here because those employees not only saved the shuttle program, allowed it to continue, but also saved--you suffered how much damage and then how much more would have been suffered, do you think? Dr. Griffin. I have misplaced in my memory the dollar figure for the Katrina damage that we assessed. I can get that for you for the record. It was many tens of millions of dollars, had we lost the entire facility, its replacement value, I do not know. [The information follows:] As of January 2008, the total cost of NASA's response to Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast, including operations, programmatic recovery, facility repairs, and risk mitigation efforts, was estimated at $385.1M. Mr. Culberson. Right. Dr. Griffin. But it is enormous. ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR NASA Mr. Culberson. Just to conclude, and you know how passionate I am, all of us are, we want to help. But I hope you can help us help you. And I see in the February 18th issue of Aviation Week a report. There was a meeting that took place at Stanford University to look at the current vision for space exploration, what NASA has got on its plate, how much money there is available. You know, it was a top-flight group of scientists and engineers hosted by the Planetary Society and Stanford University Aeronautics and Astronautics Department brought together about 50 top U.S. space officials quoting from Aviation Week February 18th, including NASA industry and university personnel. But they point out in the article, and I want to, you know, point this out for the record because this is an indisputable fact, ``The failure of the White House to secure the funding needed to initiate the vision has led us to a point where the nation's space program is in peril,'' says Scott Hubbard, Co- Chair of the event and a consulting professor at Stanford and former Director of NASA in its Research Center. NASA's annual budgets are running $3 billion short of what is needed each year to fulfill even the Bush vision. You know, based on what you have told us of the $2.7 billion cost to return to flight that was not compensated, obviously the damage from the hurricane. I just hope you will help us help you find a way to get you the funding you need because the science programs have suffered. The Mars program has been whacked which is unacceptable. I have to say the operating plan that I have heard was submitted, I know that Mr. Schiff and I are arm and arm on this, with the cuts that have been instituted at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and some of the other science programs, I just do not accept and we are going to need to work together. Mr. Chairman, I know Adam and I are arm and arm with making sure. We do not want the operating plan to go forward until these concerns at JPL and the other science labs, the other centers are addressed. I just see what you do, what NASA does, what we do in investing in scientific research in general in the United States is a national insurance policy. And I know you do not have enough money to do what you need to do, but I do hope you will help us help you by. Even if it is outside of the Committee hearing process, tell us what you need so we can help you get there. Dr. Griffin. Sir, JPL is fully funded. There are no layoffs coming at JPL. Mr. Culberson. I am concerned about cuts in the SIM program, for example. I am concerned about the outer planets program, the highest priority of the decadal survey of planetary scientists. Until recently, the last couple of years, it is an undisputed fact that NASA has always flown the missions designated by the decadal survey of planetary scientists. NASA has always flown those number one missions, whether it be the, you know, the inner planets, the Earth missions, or the outer planets. You have always flown them. Cassini was the last one we did and you know that the mission to your robot that we have talked about before is the highest priority of the decadal survey and you keep stringing that one along and whacking it and whittling on it. And it is just tragic. I just do not think it is--it is not acceptable. I am going to work with Mr. Schiff and the Committee to find ways to fix that. And that is money you are taking out of hide of these other science programs to fund inadequate recommendations from OMB. And I admire the job you are doing and support you. This is all said in a friendly way. I want to help. I just want to find a way to help and we just need you to help us help you. Thank you very much for the job that all of you are doing. Dr. Griffin. Thank you. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Ruppersberger. PROGRAM MANUFACTURING FAILURES Mr. Ruppersberger. Again, we all have different hearings. Sorry I was not here in the beginning. I want to talk about the satellite program generally, and specifically the manufacturing. Adam Schiff and I are both on the House Intelligence Committee and I am Chair of the Technical Tactical Committee. And we are focusing on some of the satellite failures that we have had recently. We have been having tabletop discussions for about maybe six months with the general contractors that work in conjunction with DoD and we are trying to find out where our successes are, our failures are, where we are in our space program presently and where we will be in the future. We have gotten a lot of good information. And I want to tell you what we have learned and how it compares to where you are. We have had numerous failures within our satellite program. We have had manufacturing failures. We have had timing problems. We have had cost overruns. And it is to the point where we really have to look at where we are with respect to our satellite program generally. I think one of the main themes that has occurred here is that we have found that research and development is occurring once the contract is out instead of before a contract is in place. And what I mean by that is that we go out and, you know, the big hitters that do most of this manufacturing are in a position where they get the contract and then as they move forward with the contract, they are really doing the research and development. And, therefore, we have been having failures and cost overruns. What I think we are going to recommend is that we really need to refocus on our research and development before it even gets to manufacturing. There really should not be the failures that have existed in our program in the last ten years if the research and development is done properly. The mistakes are made in research and development. The other thing we are seeing, too, is that when you get a satellite built, everyone tries to pile on instruments. You know, a three-star General will come and say I have to put my program on it, I have to put my program on it. And because of that, we have not stayed focused on what our mission is. Now, these are some of the results that we are getting out of what we are doing on the Intel Defense side. How does that compare to where you think you are with respect to your satellite programs? Dr. Griffin. We think in recent years, our record of success has been extraordinarily high. I do not know what to say other than that. Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, let me ask you this. I will ask you this. Has every program been on time? Dr. Griffin. Well, certainly not. We have had some delays. We have had some cost overruns. Right now we are experiencing a cost overrun on the Glory Mission because of the APS sensor, the Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor Instrument. So our record is certainly not perfect. But we have not had significant mission failures or crippling cost overruns or schedule delays in recent years. Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, even though it might not be as severe as where it is on the other side that we are talking about, you have had problems with cost overruns. So what are the reasons for the cost overruns and for the delays specifically? Where I am heading, so I can tell you what I want to talk about, is that it is my understanding there is again more cuts in research and development in the Administration's budget. And I think that is very dangerous in the area that we are dealing in. And I know that you have to stand by the President's budget, but it is something that we as an Oversight Committee need to talk about. Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. I do understand. Our budget this year almost, but not quite, keeps pace with inflation. So I cannot say that the budget has been cut. We have been given funds adequate to support the missions---- RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET Mr. Ruppersberger. You cannot say that the research and development budget has been cut? Dr. Griffin. It has not been cut. Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Dr. Griffin. NASA's research and development budget has not been cut. We have funds adequate to support doing the missions that the President has asked us to do. Again, we are in the business of developing one of a kind, first of a kind things. We do things for a living that no one has ever done before using the best contractors in the industrial base that the nation has. Things do not always go perfectly, but I have to say that for the last few years, our record of execution has been unmatched. Mr. Ruppersberger. Do you feel that you need more resources in research and development? Dr. Griffin. I have the resources I need in the President's budget to accomplish the program that has been set forth. Mr. Ruppersberger. You are a good soldier. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. I mean, if that is what it is, and I think we are going to get--our staff is going to have to look more into this, because I am really surprised at the comment. And that doesn't mean that I don't agree with it. I just don't have enough data to understand that you don't need more research and development. That we have cost overruns and there needs to be a reason for it. And there needs to be a reason for time delays. ICE, CLOUDS, AND LAND ELEVATION SATELLITE (ICESAT) Let me give you an example of a time delay. Let us discuss a program that the Goddard Space Flight Center is work on, the ICESat-II mission. You know the Congress has urged NASA to move more quickly in developing the next generation of needed Earth science missions and satellites due to the fact that many existing missions are near the end of our usable life in the coming years. Do you agree with that statement? Dr. Griffin. Yes. The decadal survey has urged us to put up more satellites. Mr. Ruppersberger. But our concern is--it is our understanding that this mission, the ICE---- Dr. Griffin. ICESat-II. Mr. Ruppersberger [continuing]. Is going from 2010 to 2013. And the date now is 2015. This is an example of what I am talking about. Now let me tell you why I am concerned about this. First thing, we have an area of climate change. We are concerned that there could be an area where we won't be able to get the information to really determine what is going on with respect to the issue of global warming. Congress I think specifically provided $33 million in fiscal year 2008 to jump start several of the missions that were recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. And here we have a program that we thought was going online in 2010 to 2013. And now we are seeing 2015. There is an example of a program that I am concerned about where we are--we are going to be at 2015. When, in fact, what we thought would be 2010 or 2013. Dr. Griffin. Well, sir, the program is not experiencing an overrun or a delay. Alan, would you care to comment? Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah. I would like to hear what Mr. Stern has to say. Dr. Griffin. This is Dr. Alan Stern who runs our Science Mission Directorate. Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. In fact, you probably know that this year we have actually put more emphasis in the Science Mission Directorate on Earth science programs, just like the one that you described. And because of that initiative, which infused about 600 million additional dollars into our Earth science program, we are actually able to start four decadal survey missions that were only recommended last year, including ICESat-II. We currently have on orbit ICESat-I with an operational capability expected to last several more years. So from our perspective, we have finally put ICESat-II on firm footing, along with other measurement needs like the soil moisture mission, which will be launching before it and other decadal survey missions that will launch concurrently after it as a result of the President's budget. Mr. Ruppersberger. So you are basically saying that ICESat- I is in place. That we won't go dark until ICESat-II is in place. Dr. Stern. Well, ICESat-I is in place. It is functioning nominally. I can't promise you that it won't go dark in the interim. But it currently has no anomalies. It has some life- limited items. But it is expected to last several more years. Mr. Ruppersberger. With the initial procurement or contract, what was the initial date that the ICESat-II was supposed to be completed? Dr. Stern. I would have to take that question for the record and get back to you on it. Mr. Ruppersberger. But was it before the 2013 date projected earlier? The date now that you are projecting is 2015. [The information follows:] ICESat-II (Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite) Mission The President's FY 2009 budget request, which was released on February 4, 2008, included the first assignment of funding for the Decadal Survey-recommended missions. The President's FY 2009 budget request provided sufficient funds--as one component of the line of ``Decadal Survey Missions''--to begin formulation of ICESat-II, with a target launch date in FY 2015. NASA has not pushed back the launch date of ICESat-II. NASA has established an executable implementation plan that accomplishes the necessary ICESat-II mission and implementation development within the allocated resources. The Decadal Survey, released in January 2007, recommended an ICESat-II mission at a cost of about $300.0M. Throughout 2007, NASA conducted concept studies of all proposed Decadal Survey missions, including ICESat-II. These studies were intended to demonstrate the feasibility of, and challenges associated with, the mission concepts, and did not define baseline missions. One of the findings of the ICESat-II concept study was that a simple re-flight of the ICESat-I mission design would cost as much as 90 percent more than the amount estimated by the Decadal Survey. A launch date of 2015 was determined by NASA based on many considerations, including but not limited to: (1) technical issues uncovered during the current on-orbit ICESat-I mission, e.g., laser limitations and the need to define and develop a reliable laser system; (2) necessity to define a clear and comprehensive trajectory of requirements from the mission science objectives to the measurement and mission requirements, including such issues as lifetime and reliability; (3) a detailed mission implementation budget profile leading to high confidence in the cost and schedule; (4) developmynt of appropriate risk reduction activities with appropriate redundancies; and, (5) the current maturity level of the mission definition and required measurement technologies. NASA has embarked on an expedited activity to select a Science Definition Team (SDT) through competitive proposals solicited through an Amendment to the 2008 NASA Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES). NASA, working with the SDT and others during the current pre-Phase A formulation stage, will define the optimal mission configuration compatible with allocated resources. This extended team will investigate partnerships with non- NASA organizations, study instrument and mission designs, and examine science requirements to identify significant cost and performance parameters. Dr. Stern. I will have to get that answer for you. The decadal survey that recommended ICESat-II, and I will admit to being new to the NASA program, was just released last year. Our response to it came the same year. Mr. Ruppersberger. You know, it is not about defending your program. It is about really doing--finding out the right way. Finding out the system. We need a good system in place. If we need more research and development--let us say that we do, especially in NASA. I mean, the reason we are doing so well in the world, that we control the world, we control basically the skies, is because of what NASA did in their research. And we have to continue to focus on that. But, you know, there have been some failures. And we have to admit some of our failures to make sure that we don't do them again. And we do better, because we have a lot of competition out there with China, Russia. So I will stop there. But I would like more information on that. Thank you. Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. GLORY MISSION Mr. Mollohan. If I could follow up, Dr. Griffin, with---- Dr. Griffin. Sure. Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Dr. Stern, a little bit on Mr. Ruppersberger's questions about the satellites. It has been a huge issue with the Committee in dealing with the Senate. They have expressed great concerns about that about the satellite productions, the development, and the cost overruns. So in the spirit of you helping us look at this, us help you with regard to these issues, what should we be sensitive to? Take Glory, for example. What is happening there that resulted in the cost overruns and the delays that we should be looking at? What should we be concerned with? And what would you recommend the kind of oversight we have in order to help you get it done? Is there not a performance issue or something here that we should be very sensitive to? Dr. Stern. Well, that is an interesting example that you raise. And I will try to answer. We think we should be sensitive to it too. And we are. The Glory mission exists for the primary purpose of making these aerosol polarimetry measurements, because aerosols are a key component. The contribution of aerosols is a key component to climate research models in global warming. Aerosols have a cooling effect. Yet their exact influence is not well known. So we are making a measurement to try to refine the models for climate change research that NASA is responsible for. The particular sensor in question is being built by a contractor who moved and consolidated some of that contractor's workforce from one location to another. It may well be that in the long run, that move and that consolidation of contractor workforce in this particular case could be helpful. I don't know. I can't foresee that future. But they obviously did it as a business, because they thought it was a good move. But in the period of time where they are building our sensor, work progress has slowed quite a bit. In fact, it slowed to about 60 percent of the rate that we had expected and that was matched with the funding that was provided. Mr. Mollohan. You mean developing the sensor? Mr. Stern. Developing the sensor. Now it is a research and development sensor. I mean, that is what you passed to do. So it is a first of a kind type thing. It is going well. Technically the sensor is meeting its goals. But it is slow. Mr. Mollohan. You mean now it is? Dr. Stern. Well, the sensors development progress is good. But it is slower than expected. I mean, so it is not encountering technical difficulties. It is just slow. Because it is slow, it costs more money. The total amount of money in question is a total of maybe $80 million of which about $70 million of it is due for that sensor directly and its effects on the rest of the spacecraft, because it is showing up late. That is a development problem, which we are certainly not proud. The contractor is not proud of it. These things do happen from time to time. We are, I want to say in the vernacular, we are all over it. We are working with the contractor. The CEO of the contractor was in my office two weeks ago to discuss specific steps that they are taking to mitigate the damage. But the fact is that when the government undertakes development contracts like this, they are usually on a cost-plus basis. So while we monitor and direct their performance, we do have to pay the overrun. I believe we will eventually have a good satellite, and that we will make an important scientific measurement, which will contribute in a very significant way to our climate change research. But this particular example is an example of an overrun. And that is the reason why. VISIBLE-INFRARED IMAGERY RADIOMETER SUITE (VIIRS) Mr. Mollohan. We are also having problems with VIIRS. Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. I mean is there something about the sensor development? And how can we do it better? And then I want to yield to Mr. Ruppersberger. Dr. Stern. NASA is not directing the VIIRS contract. I want to make it clear. That is a DOD contract. Although we are dependent upon VIIRS, because we are flying VIIRS on the in- post preparatory program. It is the predecessor to NPOESS. It is not a good news story. It is late, and it is having technical difficulties. We will eventually get it. I am sure there are a lot of lessons learned there for all of us. Now, you are right. You raised a very good point when you say that there are sensor problems. I do think that there is a need in the country, on the government side, for us to look at the industrial base for advanced sensor development and to take steps. We need to do something different, because we can't keep having these problems. I was discussing this issue just last week with Admiral Lautenbacher of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I think we are in agreement that we need to take steps to restore capability that once existed in our industrial base and that has managed to dissipate. That is not going to help us this year or next. We will just have to struggle through, but in the longer term, I think there is work we can do here. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Latham, if you don't mind, Mr. Ruppersberger had a follow up. Mr. Ruppersberger. Mr. Ruppersberger. Mr. Stern, get me more information if you could. And I am not sure of the time frame. But we have to, again, evaluate where we are, our successes, and our failures. It is my understanding, and I can't give you the time frame, that we--NASA has had I think eight Nunn-McCurdy breaches, seven at 15 percent and one at 30 percent. If you could get me the information on those and get back the reason why. Again, I am focusing on the issue of research and development to see why we are where we are. To make sure that we can see where you are and also from our intelligence and defense side too. Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. We will provide you with just that information. [The information follows:] ICESat-II (Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite) Mission The President's FY 2009 budget request, which was released on February 4, 2008, included the first assignment of funding for the Decadal Survey-recommended missions. The President's FY 2009 budget request provided sufficient funds--as one component of the line of ``Decadal Survey Missions''--to begin formulation of ICESat-II, with a target launch date in FY 2015. NASA has not pushed back the launch date of ICESat-II. NASA has established an executable implementation plan that accomplishes the necessary ICESat-II mission and implementation development within the allocated resources. The Decadal Survey, released in January 2007, recommended an ICESat-II mission at a cost of about $300.0M. Throughout 2007, NASA conducted concept studies of all proposed Decadal Survey missions, including ICESat-II. These studies were intended to demonstrate the feasibility of, and challenges associated with, the mission concepts, and did not define baseline missions. One of the findings of the ICESat-II concept study was that a simple re-flight of the ICESat-I mission design would cost as much as 90 percent more than the amount estimated by the Decadal Survey. A launch date of 2015 was determined by NASA based on many considerations, including but not limited to: (1) technical issues uncovered during the current on-orbit ICESat-I mission, e.g., laser limitations and the need to define and develop a reliable laser system; (2) necessity to define a clear and comprehensive trajectory of requirements from the mission science objectives to the measurement and mission requirements, including such issues as lifetime and reliability; (3) a detailed mission implementation budget profile leading to high confidence in the cost and schedule; (4) development of appropriate risk reduction activities with appropriate redundancies; and, (5) the current maturity level of the mission definition and required measurement technologies. NASA has embarked on an expedited activity to select a Science Definition Team (SDT) through competitive proposals solicited through an Amendment to the 2008 NASA Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES). NASA, working with the SDT and others during the current pre-Phase A formulation stage, will define the optimal mission configuration compatible with allocated resources. This extended team will investigate partnerships with non- NASA organizations, study instrument and mission designs, and examine science requirements to identify significant cost and performance parameters. Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Mr. Latham. CIVIL SERVICE WORKFORCE RETIREMENT Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome. I serve on three Subcommittees. Government-wide we seem to have a problem with a whole generation of people near retirement, ones with institutional knowledge. Do you have this problem at NASA? Are you doing anything to address that problem? You know, basically the whole program geared up what 35-40 years ago. And you probably have a bunch of people who are on the edge of retirement. Is that a problem for you? Dr. Griffin. Well it is a problem, and it is an opportunity, sir. The average age of NASA employees is right around 50. Demographically our statistics are such that within the next five years, about 25 percent of our civil service workforce is eligible for retirement. That doesn't mean that they will necessarily take it. But they are. There is---- Mr. Latham. I used to think that was old by the way, 50. Dr. Griffin. I must say that I would---- Mr. Latham. So much has changed. Dr. Griffin [continuing]. Kill to be 50 again. But leaving that aside---- Mr. Latham. Okay. Dr. Griffin [continuing]. It is a concern, because in our business there is much that is not written in textbooks. And I have---- Mr. Latham. Right. Dr. Griffin [continuing]. Written a textbook. There is an awful lot that is not in there. So we rely in this business on developing one-of-a-kind things, we rely on in many ways a master and apprentice relationship if I could use those words. Where folks who are older and more experienced pass on what they have learned and what they know to younger folks coming up. Of course, if we get a wave of retirements of more experienced folks, then we do chance losing some knowledge. Now we are very fortunate. Everybody who works for NASA is in one way or another a volunteer, because they could all make more money working somewhere else. We have very good access to our network of retirees and former NASA and industry employees. They do serve an awful lot of mentoring for our younger folks. But there is a concern there. We pay attention to it. It is also an opportunity, because the newer, younger folks who are 30 and 35 years younger than me coming out of school, know things I don't know and that Bill Gerstenmaier and others here at the table here don't know. So when we have an opportunity to bring new young folks in and put them to work on our programs. We love that, because our overall civil service workforce is capped at 17,900. We really only can hire new people through attrition of older people. So it really is, sir, in the spirit of your question, it really is both a problem and an opportunity. It is a problem to manage it right, so that the more experienced folks pass on their knowledge before they leave the agency. But it is also an opportunity to get the best and the brightest out of universities that teach stuff that sure wasn't known when I was going to school. Mr. Latham. Well you kind of lead me to my next question. I have two universities in the state of Iowa that are members of the University Space Research Association. And they believe you should spend more on the programs that provide funding for hands-on training and research at the undergrad and graduate levels. And that would be about one percent of your budget. I just wonder whether you agree with that level or not and why? Dr. Griffin. I wish I could spend more on everything we do. I really do. One of the best things that we can do for young scientists and engineers is to provide small instrument design, construction, deployment, and operations experiences so that they can learn the business. We do have a robust Suborbital Program, where payloads are typically smaller, lighter, less expensive, and less consequential if lost, which is an important thing when you are dealing with young folks. Mr. Latham. Mm-hmm. Dr. Griffin. Also Alan Stern, to introduce Alan again, our Science Mission Directorate, just released within the last couple of weeks a request for information about the possibility of using commercial space transportation, which is coming along as rides of opportunity. That NASA could be an anchor customer for such commercial space transportation capabilities, so that the instrument and the principal investigator could ride on a suborbital space flight and conduct research that we now do on unmanned sounding rockets and suborbital projectories. So we are paying attention to that. I don't think that I would want to allocate more money right now to that program, because anything I allocate to one program is money that must come away from another. It too has its proponents and adherents. Mr. Latham. Do you know about what level it is today? They talk about one percent. [The information follows:] Research Training Opportunities at the University Level the university research community is essential for advancing NASA's strategic objectives in science and for realizing the nation's return on investment from NASA's Earth and space science programs. Discoveries and concepts developed by the university research community are the genesis of scientific priorities, missions, instrumentation, and investigations. Although not always tied to specific missions, the tasks funded in the university research community add value to missions in the form of post-mission data analysis, observations required for mission design, mission observation support, and joint scientific campaigns. More than two-thirds of NASA sponsored Earth and space science research is conducted by the university community. Without this research, NASA's expensive science missions would only yield a stream of ones and zeros from space. The university research community converts the data from NASA's science missions into discoveries, knowledge, understanding, and more questions. Those new questions are what drive the research and development leading to the next generation of space missions. The university research community is also an essential partner in workforce development for NASA and the Nation. The university-based research and technology projects sponsored by Science Mission Directorate allow students and post-doctoral researchers to gain invaluable NASA science program work experience as part of their education and professional training. The suborbital programs (airplanes, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), rockets, and balloons) and principle investigator-led missions enable students to participate in the entire lifecycle of a science mission from design and construction to flight and data analysis. These hands-on opportunities lead to experiences in problem solving and increased understanding of the systems engineering that is the underpinning of successful science missions. Dr. Griffin. I would have to--I would have to take that for the record. Mr. Latham. Okay. How are we doing on--Mr. Chairman? Dr. Griffin. I don't know what our suborbital program is. Mr. Latham. Fine. Dr. Griffin. Our student program. But I will get it for you for the record. FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC SUPPLIERS Mr. Latham. Okay. I think I am just going to do one more question. And then I have another hearing. The GAO has noted in the past, questions about the percentage of the resources spent on acquisition, supplies, and services from foreign suppliers. You had a problem tracking--the things that you were purchasing. Where they were coming from, etc. Have you made any effort in that regard so we get a better handle on foreign or domestic suppliers for NASA? It comes from the GAO. [The information follows:] Foreign Contracts In FY 2007, procurement obligations represented approximately 81 percent of NASA's budget. NASA obligated $14.363B on the acquisition of supplies and services in FY 2007, of which $209.4M, or 1.5 percent, was related to foreign suppliers. NASA relies on information contained in the Federal Procurement Data System--Next Generation (FPDS-NG) to obtain information on Federal contracts. FPDS-NG provides data on place of performance and vendor addresses, allowing NASA to collect reliable information on prime contracts with foreign suppliers. Further, NASA continues to partner with the Office of Management and Budget and other Federal agencies in the development and implementation of a Government-wide subcontract reporting system. Dr. Griffin. I understand, sir. I understand your question. I will take it for the record, and answer it as closely and carefully as I can. I am not aware of a problem that we have in tracking whether or not we have Mr. Latham. The GAO said there is a problem. Dr. Griffin. They may say that. We have failed for several years in a row to get an unqualified opinion of our audit from our independent auditor, because of property tracking difficulties with regard to mostly the Space Shuttle programs, older property. A lot of that equipment was bought and is still in service. It was bought in years in which property was not tracked as carefully as we do now. It is possible that some of that equipment was purchased from foreign suppliers. It may be that to which the GAO refers. We are working with our independent auditors to establish a means by which we will write down and allocate these properties as they are retired from the shuttle program in the next couple of years. Then going forward, we should have a very accurate property accounting method in place, because all of our new property is under our new system. Mr. Latham. Yeah. Dr. Griffin. And we should be in good shape. Mr. Latham. All right. Thank you very much for the work you do. And very much appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Griffin. Well thank you for the opportunity to do it. I love this stuff. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Honda. Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good afternoon, Dr. Griffin. Dr. Griffin. Good afternoon, Mr. Honda. Good to see you again, sir. STRATOSPHERIC OBSERVATORY FOR INFRARED ASTRONOMY (SOFIA) Mr. Honda. And you. Let me get back to the subject that we left on last year in 2007. We had some discussion last time around the SOFIA Project. And particularly about the project management, structure, and the home for the aircraft. And I was wondering whether you had an update on that project, its disposition right now? Dr. Griffin. Well, NASA has a fleet of research aircraft, of which SOFIA is one. We think the proper basing strategy for our aircraft to get economies across the fleet is to base the aircraft at Dryden. And I have not had a reason to change that view. The program management of the SOFIA aircraft is being accomplished at Dryden, because it is a major modification of a Boeing 747 Aircraft. We are doing that at Dryden. Now, that particular aircraft will be hangered in a rental hanger at Palmdale. Mr. Honda. Right. Dr. Griffin. Which from an overall cost perspective made sense to do. I think we are running the program properly and efficiently. Science operations will continue to be orchestrated and managed out of Ames. But with SOFIA, we are not in the stage of doing science operations. We are in the stage of trying to build, if you will, an experimental aircraft. The place at NASA where we build experimental aircraft is at Dryden. So I think things are being done in the right order and in the right place. Mr. Honda. Again, we had that discussion about---- Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir, we did a year ago. I am sorry, things haven't changed. Mr. Honda. But the efficiency of location of science and aircraft. The concern I had was that I had a communication that said that the facility was going to be not available in a couple of years. And I understand that plans are already being made to do--what to do with the space that they have right now. They are making other plans right now. Dr. Griffin. Well that is why we rented a hangar in Palmdale, because the Edwards Air Force Base hangar facility would not be available in a couple of years. So we need to keep the aircraft close to the workforce, which is doing the modifications. So, Palmdale and Mojave Airport is in that general suite of airports that occupy that region of the Mojave Desert where we do advanced aircraft development and flight testing. So, it seemed the logical alternative for us to go there. Mr. Honda. So the modification of the aircraft, that is the only place you can do that then there and---- Dr. Griffin. Nothing is so absolute, sir. We---- Mr. Honda. I was just trying to understand that. Our discussion last year was about the facility being appropriate and modified for the aircraft. And I didn't remember that that was the case. And I guess I understand from what you are telling me is that the facility is modified. And it is appropriate. And it being placed there for the benefit of the aircraft, is something that cannot be done at Ames along with the science of the program for SOFIA program. And---- Dr. Griffin. Well, I want to be careful. I mean, with enough time and money anything can be done. I could detail a bunch of folks from Dryden Flight Research Center where they are doing the aircraft modifications. They could be detailed up to Ames. But that wouldn't be the most cost effective solution for NASA. The most cost effective solution for NASA to manage its money and accomplish the SOFIA program is to base the aircraft out of Dryden and to modify it there, work on it there, and maintain it there. Mr. Honda. So are we coming along with that project? Dr. Griffin. Well, Alan--I am sorry, Mr. Honda, this is Dr. Alan Stern. I would like him to report. You have had several successful SOFIA flights this year, right? Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. I run the Science Mission Directorate for NASA. And SOFIA began its in-flight testing just last year. It had a very successful flight test series, which we have now wrapped up that phase one series. The aircraft is now in modification for door open testing. As you know, this is a Hubble Space Telescope Class---- Mr. Honda. Right. Dr. Stern. We have to open a door. It is two and a half meters across on the side of the 747. That has never been done before. But those modifications, as well as upgrades to the telescope pointing system and the infrastructure that it needs, are now in process for the open door flight testing that will begin later this year. That is on track. We expect by the latter part of next year, 2009, to begin science operations with the two first flight instruments. I would like to point out that we are very proud of that. That previously, just a year ago, had someone been here telling me that story, the first flight science operations would have been starting a couple of years later. We were going to wait for the entire suite of instruments to be ready before we began any science. We made a change to increase our productivity to begin when we had the first two instruments ready, so that we can start to become productive and learn how to use this phenomenal observatory. I would invite you to come out to California, Dryden, and take a look at the bird and see it. It is very impressive to see a telescope of that size in a mobile platform, the scale of a 747. No other country possesses anything like this kind of capability. We are really looking forward to turning it on. Mr. Honda. So some of the concerns that were mentioned last year, I thought it was about its functionality and the aerodynamics of the aircraft, because you are going to be opening---- Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. Mr. Honda. So that is all taken care of then or---- Dr. Griffin. Well we are in the middle of that. We have not flown it opening the door in flight. I mean, that is what Alan was just getting to talk to you---- Mr. Honda. How well do you perfect that to be---- Dr. Griffin. Pardon? Mr. Honda. Nothing. I am just---- Dr. Griffin. Okay. Well, right. I don't want to fly in it either until we perfect that. SOFIA is years late. It was not well managed earlier on. Starting a couple of years ago we began to make changes in how we were managing the project, where it was being managed, who was doing it, and getting it on a more realistic schedule. That involved relocating the project from Ames to Dryden to get the engineering work in the right way and changing contractors. We made a lot of changes to the program. We have been severely criticized, because any time we move a piece of work from one area to another area, it creates a lot of angst in the area that it is being removed from. But I think the results that we have gotten out of the SOFIA aircraft progress in the last year justify the moves and the changes that we have made. It is going well. We think it is going to continue to go well. We are on top of it. We look forward to creating a world-class observatory here. This too was a decadal survey priority. We are years late in accomplishing it. We are proud of what we have done over the last year. Mr. Honda. Yeah. I understand the problems. Just for the record, I am just trying to make sure that we keep mentioning it so that we can track it and meet the benchmarks. Mr. Chairman, do I have---- Dr. Griffin. We are paying attention to SOFIA. NEAR-EARTH OBJECT (NEO) Mr. Honda. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, the other question, Dr. Griffin, at a hearing on the near-earth objects held by the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics in the fall of 2007, expert witnesses testified on the need for the planetary radar capabilities of the Arecibo Observatory, to characterize potentially hazardous near-earth objects in a timely fashion. I have been told that NASA officials have said that NASA does not need the Arecibo Observatory. And that optical telescopes can provide that necessary data. The language that accompanied the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations states that, ``NASA is directed to provide additional funding for the Arecibo Observatory.'' Could you elaborate on NASA's position on Arecibo? And has NASA met with the NSF on the future of Arecibo? And I think that--is it Cornell University that is part of that program also? Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir, it is. It is Cornell. Mr. Honda. Okay. Dr. Griffin. Obviously, let me start my answer by saying NASA will comply with the law. Now that said, the Arecibo Observatory is not a NASA facility, was never a NASA facility. Mr. Honda. Right. Dr. Griffin. It is a National Science Foundation facility. They have concluded they no longer want to maintain it. It is more than somewhat frustrating to have someone decide that simply because the National Science Foundation has decided they no longer need it that NASA should now take care of it. We are not the Salvation Army. If we are directed to maintain Arecibo in law, then we will do so. But it is not our facility. Mr. Honda. Is there other groups that NASA cooperates with to move along with projects, or is this one of them? Dr. Stern. I am sorry. I didn't quite understand the question, sir. Mr. Honda. Does NASA have contracts with other organizations on projects such as observation of near-earth objects and things like that? Is this a situation where we have a relationship with the university? Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. I am still not quite sure I understand. But let me try to answer. You correct me if I am on the wrong track. Mr. Honda. Okay. Dr. Stern. We do quite a bit of research with Near-Earth Objects. As you know, we have a goal set by Congress for 2008 to find 90 percent of the kilometer scale or larger Near-Earth Objects that could overtime eventually impact the Earth and become hazardous. Mr. Honda. Mm-hmm. Dr. Stern. We are on track for that goal. In fact, we are putting a little extra resources into that this year. The detection techniques by which we accomplish that goal are optical, not through radar. Radar's primary use with regard to Near-Earth Objects is to refine their orbits when they just happen to come very close to the Earth where the radar can detect them. We have a radar at NASA that we use at Goldstone. It is a part of our deep space tracking network for that purpose. Arecibo is a National Science Foundation facility that can accomplish the same goals. Then Arecibo has a larger antenna, so it has some advantage. But for the purposes of our program to detect these Near-Earth Objects as mandated by the Congress, we need optical instruments, not radar instruments. That is why you heard that NASA is not requiring Arecibo as a part of its Near-Earth Object portfolio. Now in our science programs, we also have some researchers at various universities primarily, but also within the Agency itself, that are working on the characterization of near-Earth asteroids. They use a whole variety of different techniques, spacecraft missions. They do use radar from time to time. It is useful, spectroscopy, orbit determination, determining their spins, their masses. Many of their attributes so that we do better understand the objects once we have detected them. Again, radar is only one part of that equation and, frankly, a very narrow part of that equation in terms of the characterization. Mr. Honda. Is there someone that I can sit down with and go over that, the whole program and the history of the project? Dr. Stern. Yes, sir, absolutely. We would be happy to put that together for you at your convenience. Mr. Honda. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you are looking at that watch. I don't blame you. Dr. Griffin. I am having a bit of trouble with my contact lens. I am sorry, sir, go ahead. INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION IN SPACE STATION PROGRAM Mr. Frelinghuysen. No. We are going to have you here for a day and a half. I am sure I would like to get into the weeds. But I think we are all interested in American preeminence in space. It does bother me that even though we have a good working relationship with the Russians, I don't like the notion that we would be beholden to them. I do have a specific question relative to how the Chinese are progressing. The European equivalent of our space program has been--that they have worked pretty well with us, haven't they? Dr. Griffin. Europe and the European Space Agency and the United States are close partners. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Very close partners. Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And we are working pretty closely with the Japanese in terms of their offering to the plate. Dr. Griffin. Very much so, sir. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So our working cheek by jowl with these--with our European allies and those in the Pacific. Dr. Griffin. As well as Canada, sir. Mr. Frelinghuysen. We have a lot of credibility on the line here. Not only on our own behalf, but to some extent we have promised them. Dr. Griffin. That is absolutely the case. The European, Japanese, and Canadian participation in the Space Station Program, as well as, many participatory activities in our robotic science program. Really is contingent upon the United States keeping its word, meeting its obligations and commitments to those partners for the things that we do together. CHINESE SPACE PROGRAM Mr. Frelinghuysen. I don't mean to mix apples and oranges here. But, you know, what comes to mind is, what is it, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' the Augustine Report. And I guess you are not specifically part of that. But to me you are part of that. You are part of, a very important part of, our scientific foundation. The thought that somehow we would be outflanked in space by the Russians on one hand and a very aggressive, you know, Chinese program. Can you talk a little bit about--you have been to China? Dr. Griffin. I have, sir. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You discussed the general goals and achievements of the Chinese space program. Where do you see the Chinese at this point? Dr. Griffin. Well, China, with its first human mission back in 2003, accomplished at one stroke all of the goals of the U.S. Mercury Program 40 years ago, which was six space missions. With their second human mission, they got through half of our Gemini Program of the mid-1960s. Their third mission will essentially accomplish most of the remaining Gemini Programs. So the Chinese are taking very careful steps, very carefully plotted, strategically plotted. They will be putting up a three-man crew after the Beijing Olympics as they have claimed. And I believe them. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And this in itself in the general sense is all about stature? The world view---- Dr. Griffin. I think it is about strategic position in the world. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. Mr. Frelinghuysen. They are doing to some extent I guess what the Russians are doing. They are partnering with a lot of countries around the world that may have, you know, minimal potential for space exploration. But they are giving them an opportunity should we say to put their flag in space. Dr. Griffin. China is forging space partnerships with otherwise uncommitted nations. That is correct, sir. Mr. Frelinghuysen. How would you describe the power and the force of how they are getting into space compared with our our program? Dr. Griffin. Well they are developing--is it---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Are they leap frogging in that sense as well? Dr. Griffin. I wouldn't say leap frogging. I would say catching up. China is doing the things in space that you would expect a great power to do. They are developing as we speak, a new launch vehicle called the Long March 5. It will have essentially the same capability, maybe slightly more, as our Ares 1 and Orion vehicle, capable of taking Americans back into Earth orbit after we retire the shuttle. So they are developing that. They will have it available by 2013 so they say. Again, I believe them. So they are catching up. Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is interesting and important. Then if you tie in what I assume is a military aspect, which they don't have I think the degree of separateness that we do, we are talking about a highly committed effort. Dr. Griffin. I would not be the one to comment on their military efforts. But certainly the Chinese space program as a whole, evidences everything you would want to see in--a program and they are very committed. They are very committed. Mr. Frelinghuysen. What do you know about how much money they are spending? Dr. Griffin. I don't know that figure. In response to several different requests I made at several different times in meeting with the Chinese space officials, here and there, they claim with great consistency that they have about 200,000 people working on their space program. And for reference, NASA---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Do they have a system of standards like we have? Dr. Griffin. They do. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I assume they have---- Dr. Griffin. They do. And NASA---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. They have broken it down I assume. They have done a pretty good job of---- Dr. Griffin. I---- Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. If not---- Dr. Griffin [continuing]. Think they have. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Doing their own innovation, they obviously have done some degree of their own, should we say, reverse engineering? And I suspect some degree of espionage. Dr. Griffin. Well I don't know about that. I see plenty of evidence that they are entirely capable of having created what they have done on their own. I mention the level of their support to their program, which they claim to include about 200,000 people. They have claimed that on several occasions. Our NASA budget supports about 80,000 people. So clearly they are focusing a very intensive effort on their program. Mr. Frelinghuysen. See as we wrestle with your budget numbers if you frame it to the American people, the potential for us to be dependent on the Russians, and a very aggressive Chinese program, this is a whole issue of American preeminence. Maybe that is expressed in the President's vision. But it is certainly inherent in what you are all about, making sure that we are second to none. Dr. Griffin. Certainly that is our goal. TRANSITION COSTS Mr. Frelinghuysen. I just want to get back to the transition costs issue. We started down that path. Dr. Griffin. We---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. We are familiar with what the GAO says you should have been doing over the last couple of years, reflecting more of those costs in your budget figures. Is there something in the offing in future years? Dr. Griffin. Well, I am going to let Bill Gerstenmaier comment on transition costs. But broadly speaking, transition costs through fiscal year 2010, are captured in the Shuttle budget, because they form part of the current Shuttle program. After the Shuttle retires, it is our goal to keep those transition costs as low as we can keep them. We are not putting figures out there, which represent an entitlement. Mr. Frelinghuysen. If we can't put figures out there, because they represent an entitlement, and you are telling us that those figures are within your existing budget? Dr. Griffin. They are a lien against the Constellation budget. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Dr. Griffin. Okay. So the money is there. It is a lien against the Constellation budget. We obviously desire to keep the transition and retirement figures as low as possible. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And you are working to drive those costs down. Dr. Griffin. We are, sir. Bill, do you have any more comments? Mr. Frelinghuysen. We had quite an extensive discussion with the GAO. And, we are not necessarily buying everything they say. But this is one of those issues that I think is worthy of some public discussion. Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, I would just say as Mike reiterated to you, through FY 2010, it is in the Shuttle budget. Then we have a lien for the transition activities beyond FY 2010. It is our goal to try to drive those down as low as we can. One thing that is nice about the way we are doing business is a lot of our systems will hand over directly to Exploration. For example, our pads will go to Exploration, the Vertical Assembly Building will go to Exploration, our test stands at Stennis will go to Exploration. So the transition costs associated with those are really not very big. I mean, that hardware, those physical facilities, those personnel, they actually transition directly to Exploration. So what we have been doing is going through very methodically all our facilities, all our major areas, and trying to identify where there is a unique item that actually has to be retired or disposed of. Then we are looking at the most creative and most effective way to do that disposition of that hardware, that physical asset. We are looking at ways to reduce those costs. Several years ago, when we first had our cost estimates, they were fairly large. But we have those. In the first year, we will probably have them again. But now we are at the point, where I think, we have got that budget understood sufficiently through this next budget cycle to bring forward and resolve it with Exploration. But we are motivated to bring that down as low as we can, because for every dollar that we spend on transition costs---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Mr. Gerstenmaier [continuing]. That is a dollar we do not get to spend on Exploration and doing the things that we really want to go do. So we didn't want to create a program. We didn't want to create a group whose responsibility was to go do that activity until it was absolutely---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. We don't want to drag on your budget. But that is one of those issues. Mr. Gerstenmaier. I think we may not have the budget defined as well as GAO would like, as it looks at us. But, if you look at the processes, the procedures we have got in place, the identified work, the amount of discussions, and activities that are occurring, I think it is a very sound program for transition that sits under there. INDEPENDENT AUDITORS Mr. Frelinghuysen. Just one last question, which may not be related. The independent auditors that somebody referred to earlier, what-- those are independent auditors. I mean, they are, you know, outside auditors that take a look at the---- Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. They are external industry auditors that---- Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. These are auditors that are intimately familiar, obviously, with this industrial base, or how would you characterize who these people are? Are they firms? Are they contracts? Dr. Griffin. Well, I know who it is. I mean I didn't necessarily want to say names. Ernst & Young are our---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Dr. Griffin [continuing]. Independent auditors. Mr. Frelinghuysen. No harm in giving them---- Dr. Griffin. Okay. Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. In making that public. Dr. Griffin. We have been working with them for years. Again, when I came to NASA, we were in a position where our financial status, in terms of our quality of our audits, was red. We have worked over the past three years to improve that. The current position that we are in is that everything is pretty much okay, except for property management. Specifically in property management, the Space Shuttle assets that have been acquired over 35 years. Mr. Frelinghuysen. This is a lot of stuff. Dr. Griffin. It is an awful lot of stuff. As we write it off our books---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. And it is all over the place. Dr. Griffin [continuing]. Exactly right, sir. So it is all over the place geographically. It is an awful lot of stuff. It is three-and-a-half decades old in heritage. Frankly, if it wasn't book kept properly at the time, and it wasn't, I can't fix it retroactively. Even our auditors agree that we can't fix it retroactively. So what we have to do, going forward, utilize the property management system that we have in place for all new assets. As we retire the Shuttle, we have to write these things off our books and dispose of it in that way. Then we will finally, finally have a clean audit opinion. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Schiff. Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I was wrong about the order. So please I defer to my Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. No, no, no. Mr. Schiff, go ahead. I insist. OVERALL BUDGET CUTS Mr. Schiff. It is not good to supersede the Chairman. I had a couple of quick questions that I wanted to pose, and I know we have to run off to vote. This gets back in part to the Chairman's comment about what cuts are necessitated by the overall size of the budget. I am sure that it wasn't the intent of the National Academy in giving Mars Program an A and Earth Sciences a D, to bring all the programs down or up to a B minus by cutting funding for one to augment funding for another. I am sure that was not their intent. And I wouldn't want to see us go in that direction. I do appreciate what you are doing in the Earth Sciences. I think it is necessary and desirable. I think it does get back to the Chairman's point though that we need to make a broader investment so we can get A's on everything, but I do want to compliment you on the Earth Sciences work. I particularly appreciate the investment in SMAP and the scheduled launch in fiscal year 2012, the other missions recommended for the Earth Science, and the CATO Review thereafter. PLUTONIUM AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HSPD-12 One of the two questions I want to ask is on the issue of plutonium. We are heavily reliant on the Russians to get our people into space, and we are also heavily reliant on them with plutonium. I am interested to know how much are we paying Russia for this. I also know there was a study commissioned in our last Appropriations bill to have the National Research Council conduct the review of what our nuclear power needs are for NASA missions, so if you could comment on that. The other issue that is quite unique--well, not unique to JPL but it is very significant in JPL. I know as you know many of the staff at JPL are concerned with NASA's implementation of HSPD-12. Some have filed suit, and I am not going to ask you to comment on the litigation. I do understand that other federal agencies, including the Energy Department and the National Science Foundation have interpreted HSPD-12 in a way that doesn't mandate contractors working on non-sensitive work to comply with HSPD-12. I would be interested to know why NASA is interpreting this directive differently than these other agencies. Dr. Griffin. I am sorry. I have to say that I can't tell you why NASA or why other agencies are interpreting HSPD-12's requirements as they are. NASA's plan was carefully reviewed with Justice Department and OPM before going forward with it. So we think our plan complies with the law. Of course, you are aware there is a legal challenge ongoing at the moment to decide whether or not that is true. Mr. Schiff. I would assume those other agencies also---- Dr. Griffin. I---- Mr. Schiff [continuing]. Conferred with Justice to make sure what they were doing was appropriate. I would like to follow up with you if I can and with the other agencies. I understand you are trying to comply with the law, but I think that we may be asking employees for information that we don't need. We are working on matters that aren't sensitive, and perhaps the other agencies have a more appropriate application of that directive. Dr. Griffin. Possibly. The matter is under litigation. What I can say is limited. But it would not surprise me if other agencies believed that what they were doing was not necessarily very sensitive. Whereas those who touch information technology facilities and aerospace facilities, as you know, aerospace technology is more carefully controlled than other technologies in this country. We have ITAR and export control limitations that specifically apply to aerospace technologies that do not apply to other sectors. So it would not surprise me that the details of working at JPL require a determination that employees are in more sensitive positions than might be the case for other agencies. We are not trying to impose any requirements beyond what we believe the law requires for HSPD-12. Mr. Schiff. I am sure that frankly there are people at the Energy Department that are working on sensitive national security issues that are of equal significance as those being done at JPL. I will follow up with you on that. If either of you have time to make a quick comment on the plutonium issue. Then I know we need to---- Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir, I can. In 1988, the United States made a conscious decision to stop producing plutonium 238. Now since that time, DOE has been able to maintain a capability to refine it but not to produce new stuff and to encapsulate existing plutonium that we get, for example, from Russia. Now under the Atomic Energy Act, DOE, not NASA, is responsible for producing plutonium for all Federal government users, including NASA, but for all government users. So we have been using so far the plutonium 238 in the inventory. We are basically, you know, nearly out of that. It is not enough, after the Mars Science Laboratory, launches down at JPL, we are basically out of plutonium for--sorry, you are shaking your head. Mr. Stern. But we do have sufficient plutonium in the inventory for MSL, the stuff Dr. Griffin just mentioned, in addition for the outer planet flagship. For one additional small nuclear mission, Discovery demonstration of new nuclear technology. Mr. Schiff. If I could, I will follow up with you both on this tomorrow. Dr. Griffin. Okay. Mr. Schiff. I don't want my Chairman and Ranking Member to miss a vote on my account. That is the last thing I want to do. Dr. Griffin. Oh, okay. Mr. Schiff. But thank you. Dr. Griffin. Anyway, looking ahead, plutonium is in short supply. We will talk to you about that tomorrow. Mr. Mollohan. Doctor, we have four votes in a series of votes. That will take us probably until about--we couldn't resume till about 4:30. So we are going to recess the hearing until tomorrow at 10:00. And we will reassemble at B-313 in the Rayburn-- I am sorry, B-318 in the Rayburn Building. Thank you for your testimony here this afternoon. Dr. Griffin. Thank you, sir. We will see you tomorrow in Rayburn B-318. Mr. Mollohan. So we are in recess. Thursday, March 6, 2008. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WITNESS MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, NASA ADMINISTRATOR PLUTONIUM-238 Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will resume. And we would like to welcome back this morning Dr. Griffin and the NASA panel, welcome. Thank you all for returning. Let me ask the Administrator if he will elaborate, if he needs to, on the question Mr. Schiff asked at the end of the hearing yesterday when we had to go for a vote regarding the availability of plutonium. I think you may have been in the middle of an answer, Doctor, and if you want to answer here before us or for the record, we would like to give you an opportunity to elaborate. Dr. Griffin. Thank you sir, yes, we were right in the middle of answering that question when the call for a vote came, and so I think we left you hanging. Let me tie a bow around that if I might. I will provide a full answer for the written record. But briefly the situation is that we shut down plutonium-238 production for space power sources in 1988 as a matter of national policy at that time. We had a substantial inventory in the United States. That inventory has been gradually depleted. We have made purchases from Russia, from their plutonium inventory. They have advised us that they are down to their last 10 kilograms of plutonium. So between U.S. and Russian inventories, we are now foreseeing the end of that production line. We, at this point, have only the capability in the United States to refine existing plutonium-238. We cannot make new material. NASA has enough available now for the next Discovery mission and the outer planets flagship that I spoke of yesterday that is a high priority for the Academy of Sciences. When those missions are allocated, we have no more. It takes about seven years to bring new plutonium-238 production on line from the day we start. I would remind everybody that plutonium production is not a NASA charter. That is a DOE responsibility. But we are told by DOE that it takes about seven years to bring capability on line from the start. So therefore, if we were to start sometime in Fiscal Year 2009, the earliest date we could have new plutonium for space power applications would be 2016, around the time we would like to be starting Mars sample return or another Mars Rover mission, which would need such plutonium. And in any case, if we want to do any scientific missions past the orbit of Mars, we would need new plutonium. So the Planetary Science Program would be severely hampered if we do not get that production restarted. Now again, I would remind everybody that NASA is a customer in this, not a supplier. It is not our facilities or our production or our production money; we would need, at the national level, to get DOE to restart that production. More of the details I would like to furnish for the record. So I think that finishes up Mr. Schiff's question. [The information follows:] Plutonium-238 The Department of Energy (DOE) and NASA have worked closely together to assure that the missions identified in the FY 2009 budget request have adequate Plutonium (Pu-238) by using any domestically stockpiled Pu-238 and augmenting the supply with Russian produced Pu- 238. NASA is currently using DOE's contract with the Russians for the purchase of Pu-238. NASA relies on DOE's contract with the Russians for the purchase of Pu-238. NASA is in the process of purchasing 10 kg of Pu-238 from Russia suppliers. Five kg will be purchased before the end of FY 2008 and five more in FY 2009, even though NASA will not use this supply for a number of years. By purchasing the Pu-238 as early as possible, then NASA is comfortable with moving ahead with its plans for missions that will require Pu-238 heat-conversion power systems. NASA is evaluating the need for nuclear energy sources for the lunar surface. While it is still formulating its lunar architectural needs, NASA is considering that Radioisotope Power Systems may provide an important power source for enabling mobility for human explorers on the lunar surface. NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate will work with the Science Mission Directorate and the Office of the Chief Engineer to develop an overall Agency strategy to engage the DOE to acquire the Plutonium-238 that may be needed to meet NASA needs. NASA's exploration technology development program also has a Fission Surface Power Systems project that is examining technologies that might enable the development of a nuclear fission reactor for potential use on the lunar surface. The fission surface power system project would utilize uranium, not Pu-238, as the nuclear fuel. Mr. Mollohan. What are the timelines involved with that? You are able to do what you---- Dr. Griffin. Well, the Outer Planets Flagship would fly when, Alan? Dr. Stern. 2016 or 2017 depending on the final choice of target. Dr. Griffin. The next Discovery mission that we have completed would be 2013? Dr. Stern. 2013-2014. Dr. Griffin. 2013-2014, right. So we would fly a mission in 2013 or 2014, and another in 2016 or 2017 with the inventory we have, and after that there will be no more. Obviously that is an issue for our Science Program. AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. You know, everybody understands that you have worked very hard to ration your resources in a way that allows you to do the vision and then to fulfill the other missions that NASA is charged with fulfilling. A lot of people would like to have more resources for NASA to spend more money, and not only on the exploration activities but on science and education and aeronautics, principally. But the requests forthcoming from the Administration do not seem to be responsive to that, so we have to conclude that the Administration does not agree with that. But certainly the Congress has, and the President has signed the America Competes Act. And it clearly states that NASA should be a full participant in any interagency effort to promote innovation and economic competitiveness, which was the focus of that. Your budget request cuts aeronautics, cuts science, cuts education; I think I am right in all of that. And NASA Science Programs, am I wrong in that? Dr. Griffin. I do not think we cut Science, sir. Mr. Mollohan. Science is not cut? It is flat. It is flat out the next several years, yes. But the, so but NASA's programs are not a part of the American Competitiveness Initiative. Is there any reason why NASA programs should not be a part of the American Competitiveness Initiative? Is there some intrinsic aspect to NASA science, NASA research, NASA technology development, that would justify its not being included? Dr. Griffin. No sir, there is no intrinsic reason for that. In the end, since the President's initiative must be enacted in legislation, it is a judgment that the Congress must finally make. But the rationale on the Administration's part for leaving NASA out of it, and I did have this discussion, was two-pronged. The first was that the kind of science that we do at NASA is not immediately productive of the kinds of results that enhance American competitiveness. It is world class science, by any measure. But it does not result in near-term enhancements to our economic competitiveness as a nation. Mr. Mollohan. Really? I mean---- Dr. Griffin. Well, that was the view, sir. I mean, when we do planetary science, when we investigate the geology of Mars; when we study the physics of the sun, those things are extremely interesting and very important to know, but they do not speak directly to economic competitiveness. Mr. Mollohan. You know, I do not have all the examples in my head but there are a lot of examples that NASA touts that get transferred, the technology that they develop gets transferred, and I know that is a real part of your actual statutory mission is to transfer that technology. Dr. Griffin. Yes sir, it is. Mr. Mollohan. I would bet that NASA transfers, I do not know how you would measure this, but I bet NASA transfers more technology over the years than a number of the agencies that are a part of the American Competitiveness. Maybe that is not right, but---- Dr. Griffin. No, that is probably true. Yesterday, Mr. Ruppersberger referred to our research and development missions, and he is not wrong. We do one-of-a-kind things that have never been done before. In the process of inventing those things we invent new technology and new processes, and we do transfer that technology out. So that part does go to American competitiveness. Mr. Mollohan. And all of the aeronautics activity. Dr. Griffin. Of course all of the aeronautics activity. Mr. Mollohan. I mean that is, as I understand it, directly---- Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. But the other part of the rationale was that NASA is already being well treated within Administration funding. As I have pointed out earlier, NASA's funding from the Administration has been essentially level with inflation, whereas broadly speaking domestic, nonnational security domestic discretionary programs have actually been reduced across the board. Mr. Mollohan. So there are two rationales. The first one we do not have to necessarily completely agree with. Dr. Griffin. Correct. And the second one is---- Mr. Mollohan. The second one is relative and---- Dr. Griffin. It is a matter of---- Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. It does not mean this funding is adequate. Dr. Griffin. Correct. The ACI, as proposed by the President, was intended to address those agencies where funding was perceived not to be adequate. Now, again, it is the judgment of the Congress as to what is adequate and what agency should or should not be included in the initiative, and we understand that. But if you ask why NASA was not initially included in the ACI, it was because of those two reasons. Mr. Mollohan. I think it makes an additional very good argument, and a politically correct argument at this point in time, to talk about NASA's contribution to American competitiveness and argue that it should be a part of the American Competitiveness Program. If not initiated from the Administration, a good argument is for the Congress to consider additional funding for that purpose. Mr. Frelinghuysen? Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, good morning. GAO ACCOUNTABILITY Mr. Mollohan. Good morning, Mr. Frelinghuysen. As I mentioned yesterday, we heard testimony last week from the GAO on what they see as the highest areas of challenge and risk for NASA. I would like your reaction to what they had to say, and to summarize their overall assessment, which is not necessarily mine. I would like your reaction. I must say to be cooped up with them for a couple of hours and for them to go over your budget, I am not sure I would wish that on anybody. But it was an interesting exercise and I learned a lot. And so here we go here. Your large scale projects are costing more and taking longer to delivery than earlier envisioned. You are pursuing more projects than you can afford over the long term. And estimates for the Constellation Programs and International Space Station are highly optimistic and unreliable. How would you respond? Do you agree that those are the foremost challenges you are facing? And if so, what NASA is doing on addressing those challenges? I am not doing this to irritate you. And I understand, you embody risk taking, exploration. GAO embodies, and I am not knocking it, predictability, green eye shades, you know, supra analysis. I would like your reaction, overall reaction to their views. Dr. Griffin. Thank you, sir. I am sorry if my body language conveyed irritation. You actually have a constitutional right to irritate me, so feel free. Mr. Frelinghuysen. No, no. These are questions that are out there. If you look at the GAO report, they are substantive. And we have sort of got, you know, the camel's nose under the tent a little bit yesterday. And I think you should have an opportunity to respond and react. Dr. Griffin. Thank you. Let me try to do that. First of all, I flat disagree with those assessments. Specifically to Constellation, we are at the early stages of the Constellation Program with several goals. The first is to replace the Space Shuttle as a means of access to Earth orbital space by U.S. astronauts. Then from there, we proceed to the Moon. Now, obviously we are not into the lunar construction phase yet. We are into the phase of constructing systems to replace the shuttle. Yesterday, prior to coming to this hearing, I was in a budgetary and programmatic review on a piece of that system. It is going extremely well. Its contracts have now been let. Excellent progress is being made. We are a couple of years into the program. We are not seeing, nor are we forecasting, overruns. We are not having major technical problems. We are having minor technical problems that one expects in a development program. The programs are going as well as anything I have seen. I have been in this business for 37 years to this point. These programs are large programs, and at this stage of the game they are going very well. The early stages of a program are the most dangerous. The period of time when you are setting them up and beginning execution is when you sow the potential seeds for trouble later on. I think the folks who are executing them are doing very well. We are, at NASA, for the first time in NASA's history, now using statistical budget estimation tools, and we are giving these estimates to Congress. We are giving Congress and our key appropriations and oversight committees schedule estimates that are budgeted at the 65 percent confidence level consistently across the board on Constellation programs, and that is a major improvement in the quality and predictability which the GAO seeks. We are giving you a major improvement in the quality and predictability of our budget estimates. We are telling your staff, and our other stakeholders, exactly how we are arriving at those estimates and what they mean. When it is said that our large programs are slipping and are over budget, there are two of those that I can think of that would fit in that category, but I do not regard either program slippage as fatal or even close to it. One is the James Webb Space Telescope. In my first days as the new Administrator three years ago, my management team was presented with an overrun for James Webb. The Program was originally scoped at $2.2 billion and we received a $1.4 billion increase. We budgeted within the NASA Science Program, we deferred some other missions to fix James Webb's budgetary problems, which, I will emphasize, do not reflect a failure of execution on the part of the James Webb Telescope team. Phil Sabelhaus, one of the best program managers we have, works at Goddard. The Program is going well. It was under-budgeted. It is not being poorly executed, it was under-budgeted. We fixed that. The Mars Science Laboratory is experiencing a cost growth as they approach spacecraft integration. In Senator Nelson's hearing yesterday I indicated the cost growth was about $175 million. If that changes we will let you know. It is a $1 billion program. It is a planetary flagship mission. It does things that never before have been done. The cost growth, while regrettable, is understandable. Again, I look at the project. The project is not doing anything wrong. The initial budget estimates, made years before my time, may well not have been as accurate as they could have been so when the GAO talks about cost growth, what I want to talk about is obtaining more realistic estimates. REBASELINED PROJECTS Mr. Frelinghuysen. They are critical of what they call your use of rebaselining and obviously there are appropriate reasons for that. Where is it appropriate? Dr. Griffin. If we believe that a program has changed sufficiently in its budgetary estimates and schedule projections the old ones are no longer relevant, we try to explain to you what we are doing, then yes, we do rebaseline the program. Mr. Frelinghuysen. They seem to feel that the practice of rebaselining is being overused to the point where it becomes impossible for them or anyone else to assess how much a project has deviated from its original estimate. And if you look at the original estimates, I mean in some cases they are minimal. Maybe they were underestimated. Dr. Griffin. I think that is often the case. I have worked very hard over the past three years to put a stop to the practice, and I think our team at NASA is fully subscribed to producing for you better estimates so that rebaselining can be reduced. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Could you talk a little bit---- Dr. Griffin. In any case, we are completely transparent about what we are doing. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am sure you are. Can you explain when and why you rebaseline projects? And what have you done to improve your original cost estimates and to improve the transparency of deviations from those estimates? Dr. Griffin. When and why we would rebaseline generally comes to what I said just a moment ago. Let me expand on that a little bit. If we think in the course of execution, if a project has deviated sufficiently, and it is a soft criteria, but if it has deviated sufficiently from its initial ground rules and assumptions as to schedule and cost, or maybe technical content that it will deliver, then it no longer becomes productive to track deviations from the original baseline and we need a new plan. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well sometimes, when you have a new plan the original figure sort of goes off into history and it gets forgotten, except I guess by GAO. Dr. Griffin. I regret that. We keep track of it, and I regret it if that is regarded as a loss of transparency but that is not the intent. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, I serve on the Defense Committee. These types of things happen all the time for defense programs, that somehow GAO has a better way of tracking just defense programs and the development of different platforms than they do. Dr. Griffin. It actually happens less often with us. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Dr. Griffin. Now, as to what we have done to try to get a handle on that, again, I think the adoption of probabilistic budget estimation techniques with delivery dates at a consistent competence level, as well as explaining that to Committee staff and working with folks, affords an entirely new level of transparency to our budgeting process and cost control, which we have never had at NASA. INDEPENDENT COST ESTIMATES Mr. Frelinghuysen. When and under what circumstances do you get independent cost estimates? Dr. Griffin. On the establishment of any new program, at any rebaselining exercise that is necessary, and we track programs continuously throughout their life cycle with independent cost estimates. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, GAO did recommend the adoption of new cost estimating best practices to you. Dr. Griffin. Which we are doing. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes, which you are doing. And are you including tracking the original estimates through the life of the program? Is that being done? Dr. Griffin. We certainly track the original program estimates through the life cycle. We absolutely do know internally how the programs have grown with respect to the original cost estimates and we try to understand why they have grown so that we can avoid whatever mistake was made in the future. Sometimes it is an execution mistake. I made reference yesterday to the APS sensor on the Glory Mission. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Dr. Griffin. That particular sensor is very late and it is causing cost growth throughout the program. We have tracked that and we understand it. We are monitoring it and we are working with the contractor to fix it. Other times, no one has done anything wrong, but the original estimate was low. We want to understand that because it is our goal to produce better estimates. This is not a one size fits all---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. I understand that. Dr. Griffin [continuing]. Kind of a scenario. There can be different reasons for cost growths. For example, a year ago we got a Continuing Resolution, which meant that some programs which were counting on additional money, had to be delayed a bit. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Dr. Griffin. When you delay a Program you increase the cost. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You mentioned stability is so essential to your critical mass of all of these programs. Dr. Griffin. One of the best examples of how NASA is able to control costs occurred more than 15 years ago on one of our largest efforts, when we replaced the Shuttle Challenger which was lost in 1986. In the late 1980's we replaced it with Shuttle Endeavor. The money for Endeavor was appropriated all at one time and the project finished ahead of time and under budget. When we have stability of requirements and stability of funding and stability of purpose, we are able to perform and we are able to perform well. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well those were the, I will not say the good old days, when there was more money available so now we are counting on you to do more, apparently, with a lot less. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Aderholt. ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR EXPLORATION Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Administrator, for being here. Thank you for your time before the Committee. One thing that I wanted to just inquire about and you may have, you have alluded to it a little bit but I did want to follow up and maybe asked a little bit more about it, was the concern about NASA and its request for adequate funding for exploration to return to the expected launch date of Ares I in 2014. And it looks like the request for the funding for that was not as much as many of us would have liked to have seen. It appears that the requested funding for the fiscal year 2009 is the same as was projected over a year ago before the fiscal year 2007 CR reduced the funding by $500 million. Given that it is critically important to minimize the gap between the shuttle's retirement and Ares beginning, I just wanted to know your thoughts and how you would respond to NASA's not being increased to the amount, or the request being increased to the amount, to compensate for the lost money that was from the fiscal year 2009 CR. Or I am sorry, the fiscal year 2007 CR. Dr. Griffin. Yes sir, I understood what you meant. Thank you. The only thing I can say is I serve the President and I support the President's budget. Extensive discussions were held within the Administration on whether we would request the additional money to compensate for the delay introduced by the CR into the Exploration Systems development. The final decision was that the Nation has other priorities which outweigh that, so the request for additional funding to counteract the effects of the CR in 2007 was not made. So the Administration chose to accept the 6-month delay to the Shuttle replacement systems, Orion and Ares, rather than request the extra funding to compensate the CR. Mr. Aderholt. So basically this in no way minimizes the cut that happened in fiscal year 2007. The cut that did occur is something that is there and you are by no means saying it is not an issue that has to be dealt with, it is just this is the way that you all chose to move forward at this time? Dr. Griffin. That is correct, sir. The choice was made to accept the damage which was done. Mr. Aderholt. But still recognize the damage is there? Dr. Griffin. Still recognizing that it is damaging, yes sir, of course. U.S. PRESENCE ON THE MOON Mr. Aderholt. I have heard that there are some rare minerals on the Moon that may provide further justification for building some kind of permanent outpost there. Just if you could take a second and talk about what a permanent presence on the Moon would mean, and would mining be a part of that, and I will just open it up to get your thoughts on that. Dr. Griffin. Well, certainly I am one of those who leads the parade in believing in a permanent U.S. presence on the Moon in the form of an initially small outpost. I would urge you to think about something like Antarctica back in the 1950's, when we first returned people to Antarctica and had them stay for long periods of time. So think about a scientific outpost, a research base, something small to start with. But, I think that that is important for the Nation, because our purpose with the Space Program is to take the range of human action, human thought and human experience outward into the Solar System. That is what we do with NASA, with our people and our robotic probes. Now specifically to the issue of lunar resources, lunar resources do not have economic value on Earth. The expense of transporting them back would outweigh any value they had. The value of lunar resources such as we might find there, is to reduce the dependency of such an outpost from shipping material up from Earth. For example, the lunar crust is, depending on where you are, 15 to 40 percent oxygen by weight. So one of the first things that a crew on a lunar outpost would do, we would hope, would be to learn to extract oxygen from the lunar soil by heating it up and capturing the effluent. There are also other gases that they would capture that would be useful in lesser quantity, but oxygen is one of the main ones. The sooner that we start doing things like that, the sooner we can reduce our dependency on a logistics train from Earth to support such an outpost. So yes, an early focus on our Program would be learning to use lunar materials, not from the point of view of their value on Earth, but from the point of view of their value on the Moon in enabling more robust exploration and utilization of the Moon itself. Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Dr. Griffin. Thank you, sir. CORE VISIONS/CONSTRAINED BUDGETS Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt. Dr. Griffin, how is NASA able to meet the time tables presented with in the President's vision and meet its other core visions within these constrained budgets? Something has to give, does it not? Dr. Griffin. Well sir, things have given. As I pointed out yesterday, this, of course, calls for a conclusion of the witness, but I am your witness and so I will give you my conclusions. I think with regard to our core programs-- finishing up Space Station and utilizing it, building new systems to replace the Shuttle and then return to the Moon, our Science Portfolio with its four individual portfolios, and our Aeronautics Program--I believe that all of those are strategically going in the right direction. I do. So when you address the issue of funding, how is it possible to keep them on track? Well, they are on track. They are going in the right direction. They are doing the right things. People will quibble at the margin, things like we should be doing a little more Mars or a little less Mars, or a little more outer planets or less outer planets. Those will be quibbles that we should have. The community should debate one thing versus another. But broadly speaking, I think we are going in the right direction. We are on the right track. So now the question becomes how fast do you move down the track? That is funding driven. I cannot argue with you. When you say that, if more money were supplied, we could do more and have it more quickly, you are correct. But we also have within the Nation many other priorities, and they also must be paced with the available funding. So this Administration has chosen a pace of accomplishment which we believe is acceptable. The funding that we are requesting in FY 2009 and beyond allows us to accomplish the things that the President is asking us to accomplish and that this Congress has authorized and approved, at a pace which is judged to be adequate. SPACE TRANSPORTATION GAP Mr. Mollohan. Well you know, you have expressed considerable concern about the gap that is going to exist with regard to the transportation, unavailability of a transportation system to access the Station and otherwise. So I would like to talk about that just a little bit. We visited on that and for the record, let me read you a quote. This is out of a NASA document. The title of this is Resources to Implement the Vision Have Eroded. And it does a computation here, it all adds up to $11.7 billion and in a box it says, ``The cumulative effects of $11.7 billion in reductions and costs absorbed in NASA's budget since the vision for space exploration was announced is the overriding reason why NASA cannot develop the Orion Ares I by 2014 and can afford only those robotic lunar missions absolutely necessary to support future human exploration activities.'' Could you comment on that? This is your---- Dr. Griffin. Yes, it is a document with which I am familiar that was prepared by staff. I have mentioned on several occasions that we do have discussions within the Administration as to what the budget request should be and what we should try to accomplish with it. That was a document which was prepared to support those discussions and it does reference the fact that, if you will, the buying power available to us in the Agency has eroded over the last few years by that figure that you quoted. A substantial portion of that figure was manifested, when I arrived at NASA, and I noted that the Shuttle and Station programs had been underfunded to complete the President's direction to finish the Space Station. We had place holders in the budget for Shuttle and Station, and the difference between the place holders and what was really needed was about $5.5 billion. Additionally, we lost some top line budget authority in the Fiscal Year 2006 budget submission and then there was the Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Mission, Hurricane Katrina, and a few other things, all of which added up to the $11.7 billion that is in the document. So that was a document prepared to support those discussions. Now in the end I am permitted to discuss, and I am certainly permitted to make my arguments, but I do not win every argument. Mr. Mollohan. No, absolutely. Dr. Griffin. So the decision ultimately was made that the Nation has other priorities that are more significant than to restore that $11.7 billion in funding. Mr. Mollohan. This document was generated in house---- Dr. Griffin. It is an internal document. Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. To justify your deliberations within? Dr. Griffin. It was an internal document generated to quantify what has happened over the last few years to support my deliberations within the administration, and that is all it is. CONSTELLATION CONFIDENCE LEVEL Mr. Mollohan. Yes, okay. Let me just use that to talk about the gap in the availability of Constellation and what timeline we are talking about. I believe you had some testimony on the Senate side just recently about that with Senator Nelson? Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. And you talked about if you had additional resources perhaps the confidence level of completing Constellation, getting Ares and Orion operational, could be accelerated with a certain level of confidence. Could you just discuss that? Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. If you had additional funding and how much, could you accelerate its availability and with what degree of certainty? Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. This is a question I have now been asked so often that I---- Mr. Mollohan. I am sure you are tired of answering it. Dr. Griffin. I probably have the answer memorized so I can give it to you fairly expeditiously. We are with 65 percent confidence, using our statistical budget estimating tools that I spoke of, more modern cost estimation methods that Mr. Frelinghuysen was talking about, with 65 percent confidence we believe that we will deliver Ares and Orion, the Shuttle replacement systems, for first flight by March of 2015. At that same confidence level, so apples to apples, I was asked by Senator Nelson what is the earliest that that could be delivered. In fact, the first time he asked that question, I believe, was last November in a hearing and then he asked it again in the recent hearing. I said, if things went well technically and we had all of the funding we needed, the system could be delivered by September of 2013, eighteen months earlier. Senator Nelson asked how much that would cost, and I said the total price tag for that was about $2 billion as closely as we can estimate it spread across, at this point, Fiscal Years 2009, 2010, and a little bit in 2011. Very roughly, we have estimated that it is about $100 million to accelerate schedule by one month. You reach a limit on that when you just cannot get things done any more quickly, and that would be the September of 2013 limit. Now we have recently reexamined that, to make sure that our figures were as accurate as we could make them and our estimates were as good as they could be, and we still stand by that estimate. So we have a technical limit that we can reach, and about 18 months earlier than what we are planning today, and the cost of that is about $2 billion spread over three years. I am sorry, did I answer your question adequately, sir? Mr. Mollohan. You did. So if you were to be able to apply $2 billion more to this program with a 65 percent level of confidence you could accelerate its availability by 2013? Dr. Griffin. That is our best estimate, yes sir. HUMAN EXPLORATION BEYOND EARTH ORBIT Mr. Mollohan. I understand that there was a conference at Stanford some time ago with industry groups, advocates for NASA and academia to discuss whether the United States is on the right track in its plans to reach the Moon by 2020, build a long term lunar base there, and eventually send humans to Mars. You have been reported as saying that the questions asked at the conference have been asked, they have been answered, and that it is time to move on and support the program. Is that an accurate characterization of your views? And would you elaborate? Dr. Griffin. It is, sir, and yes I can elaborate on that. I mentioned just a few moments ago, in response to Mr. Aderholt's question, that I do believe that the Moon is very important, and the most important early target for human exploration beyond Earth orbit once we get the Space Station built. That's not because I believe it, but, because before my time, that opinion was codified into the President's Civil Space Policy for NASA, and the Congress subsequently adopted that goal in the 2005 Authorization Act. So the order is Moon, Mars, and then beyond. So Space Station, Moon, and Mars in that order. Not everyone shares the view that those are the proper goals and in the proper order. That debate was extensively had. So some of the organizers of that conference believe that the Moon is not interesting. That the Moon is old hat, that we have been there and done that. They would like to see a more expeditious program going directly to Mars. I understand their view. Many of them are old friends of mine. I just do not happen to share that view. Some of the organizers of the conference believe that the Nation's exploration money would be better spent building large telescopes at what is called Sun- Earth L1 Point, the Lagrangian Point, where we can park large instruments and they will stay where they are parked. I, too, find that to be an interesting goal but not one that I would adopt instead of returning to the Moon. So there are differing opinions on what the goals should be, and in an environment of limited funding some goals can be afforded and others cannot. Now a goal that I share with that group is the goal that I believe that the near-Earth asteroids are an important target for exploration. But I would place them in a time place between the Moon and Mars, not instead of the Moon. So the conference was basically a discussion of whether the United States space policy has the right goals in the right order. I think, broadly speaking, we do with small modifications. Some of those folks would disagree. Again, the discussion has been held multiple times. I am sure it will be held again. Mr. Mollohan. Do we have any asteroid program going right now? Dr. Griffin. We have a, per Congressional legislation, a small program going to identify--Alan help me, 90 percent of the near-Earth asteroids by what year? Dr. Stern. This year, by the end of this year. Dr. Griffin. By the end of this year. Ninety percent of the asteroids larger than one kilometer by the end of this year. You have recently put in some funding to increase that, right? To make sure we meet the goal. Mr. Mollohan. But that is just finding them and identifying them? Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. How about accessing them? Dr. Griffin. The Constellation systems that we are building today can access the near-Earth asteroids, should a subsequent Administration or a subsequent Congress decide that that is a good goal. The systems we are building today can get you there. Mr. Mollohan. When you said between Moon and Mars, is that what you were referring to? Would be accessing them? Dr. Griffin. Yes sir, that was. The reason is, it is fairly simple as an engineer. The Moon is three days away. We have a lot to learn. I would like to learn it three days from home. Once we set out for Mars, the first crews to go to Mars will be gone in excess of two and a half years, maybe more. Mr. Mollohan. If you were going to plan to do that---- Dr. Griffin. The asteroids are in the middle of that. They are months away from home, and so I think a stepped sequence of voyages from home, from days and weeks to months to years is the right way to go. Mr. Mollohan. That would be a reprogramming, that would be a change in your plans, would it not? If you were to put the asteroids? Dr. Griffin. It would. Mr. Mollohan. What would you call that? Asteroid exploration? Asteroid visit? How would you talk about that? Dr. Griffin. I would just refer to them as destinations. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Asteroid destinations. That would cause a change in plans, would it not? Dr. Griffin. That would. Mr. Mollohan. Would that affect the budget? Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. Over a decade from now, but yes sir. Mr. Mollohan. Would it affect the budget today---- Dr. Griffin. No. Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. In terms of planning and---- Dr. Griffin. No. It does not affect anything today or for the next decade because, we are building systems with Constellation that are capable of accessing the inner solar system. Mr. Mollohan. Would that be a good idea to look at that? Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. Would it be a good idea to do it, do you think? Dr. Griffin. Again, I do think the near-Earth asteroids are a legitimate scientifically interesting, productive destination for humankind. I would, on a personal basis, favor including them in our program. Now to actually do anything will be after my tenure. But, if you are asking do I think that that is a useful goal, I do think so. EXPLORATION ON ARCHITECTURE REVIEW Mr. Mollohan. Do you plan on any review of the exploration architecture prior to the arrival of the next administration to lay a groundwork for reviews by the next administration? Dr. Griffin. Well, I think our architecture is firmly in place and shows the right approach. It satisfies all the goals that were specified to us by the Congress and the Administration, and we picked it as the cheapest available approach with the lowest risk. So we think we used good criteria to select it and we think we are there. Now, our progress in building the systems required by the new space architecture is something we review all the time. We conduct regular reviews of our progress in meeting the goals of that architecture, and, when a new Administration comes in and sends a transition team over to NASA to discuss how we are going, we will be ready, willing, and able to describe for them our progress on those systems. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Thank you, Doctor. Dr. Griffin, we are going to recess. We have two votes so we cannot go and leave some people here questioning. So we are going to take a recess probably for about fifteen minutes, and we will return after votes. Thank you all. Dr. Griffin. We are at your discretion, sir. Thank you. [Recess.] SPACE INTERFEROMETRY MISSION (SIM) Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will resume. Mr. Schiff? Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to follow up on a couple of questions that we discussed yesterday. First of all, I wanted to follow up on SIM. It is my expectation that a decision on how to proceed with the exoplanet research will be made in time for the fiscal year 2010 start. I expect, I think my Committee colleagues feel very much the same way, that SIM will be given every consideration as it meets all the scientific requirements of the last two decadal surveys. This is not just my opinion. It is a sentiment that was shared by appropriations committees of both the House and the Senate, and by your own advisory committee which believes that the astrometry mission is the way to go. The follow up question I want to ask is, what more do you contemplate that NASA will need to make a decision? And what is your timeline on a decision? Dr. Griffin. I am going to ask Dr. Stern to comment on that. Dr. Stern. Good morning. As you know, we are studying a variety of exoplanet experimental techniques that all are meant to achieve the same objectives, SIM being one that is quite mature. But over time, a number of other important contenders have come to the fore. Those studies are now in work, as you are aware, and will finish late next year. There is also the decadal survey currently underway in astrophysics, which will make a specific scientific recommendation from the National Academy as to which approach is preferred. Mr. Schiff. You know, the more that I think we are coalescing on something the more I hear that maybe we are not. We seem to be having the same debate we had last year and the scientific community has repeatedly expressed its support for SIM and in decadal after decadal survey, and then here we are waiting for another survey, another potential opinion. It just gives me great concern that we are going to be in another fight over this. I really do not know what more you are requiring, what more you want. Congress could not have been more clear on the subject. The scientific community could not be more clear on the subject. And I guess I am perplexed. Dr. Griffin. Well sir, I certainly do not want to have a fight over SIM. If the Congress legislates that we do SIM, then we will do SIM. Now the Administration has not requested it but I can ask them to do that. But I need to be honest. SIM was prioritized high in the last decadal survey, when it was assumed to be a $250 million mission. Today it is presumed to be a $1.6 billion mission. We do not have those funds in the budget. We have discussed this, those funds are not available without killing most of the rest of the astrophysics portfolio. When you say that the astrophysics community supports SIM, that is not the input that we are getting from the astrophysics community through the committees which advise NASA and the Congress. That is simply not the input that we are getting. They do not want to see this kind of damage done to the astrophysics portfolio in order to favor one mission. So we have been working with your office, and I will continue to do so, to find a way to accomplish the goals of exoplanet research without having to do the full SIM mission with all of the cost that that entails. Now, if that is what the Congress directs us to do then we will do it. But, this year we would like to study some alternatives to come back and talk to you about. Mr. Schiff. Dr. Griffin, this kind of hearkens back to your comments at a conference a few months ago. It is not support for SIM that is jeopardizing any other project. It is rather, in my view, coming in with a budget that is wholly inadequate to do the science that we want to do and that the President has set our goals to do. I do not think it is helpful to create an artificial competition over this issue. The scientific community has been very supportive of SIM. This Congress has been very supportive of SIM. I thought we had a concept of SIM that brought the cost down to $1 billion or less that was manageable within NASA's budget. I thought that was the operating assumption we were acting on. If this is being completely revisited again then I think I and the other members of the Committee need to know about it. We are willing to work with NASA to scale down a version of SIM that is affordable, that can fit within the portfolio, but I need some sense from NASA that this is a priority of yours and that we are not simply throwing this open again to delay and having launch dates slip into the distance, and killing this with a thousand lashes. Dr. Griffin. I am sorry the budget is not adequate to support the doing of all that folks would like to be done. I understand that you wish the Administration had requested more. When we look at SIM Light, the mission that you are referring to, the question logically arises, whether SIM Light would accomplish most of but not all of the goals of the full SIM mission. Given that that is the level of accomplishment we now strive for with this first exoplanets mission, would there be another technology which would do as well for less money? The question is not whether JPL will get to lead this mission. They will. The question is not whether an exoplanet mission is important to us. It is. The question is not whether it is a huge priority to us. It is. The question is whether the SIM technology is the best technology, given all that we know today, to accomplish those goals at JPL. I am trying as hard as I possibly can to do this on, an objective, impartial basis in a way that is affordable within the budgets that I am told that I can expect. If we implement SIM as it stands today it will create a very substantial amount of collateral damage to other astrophysics missions in the portfolio, some of which are also of interest to JPL. So we are looking for objective, rational alternatives that we can share with your office. Mr. Schiff. And your analysis of the objectively rational alternatives will be completed in time for a 2010 start? Dr. Griffin. We will complete it in time for a 2010 start. MARS PROGRAM Mr. Schiff. Let me turn while I have some time remaining to Mars. As I mentioned yesterday, I am concerned about addressing programs with a D by bringing down those that have received an A. I think there was a very effective op-ed on the subject of the Mars program by Robert Braun in the current issue of Space News. It is an article entitled ``Future Of Our Mars Exploration Program.'' I would ask that that be made a part of the record. [The Future Of Our Mars Exploration Program Article, Science News, March 2, 2008 follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Schiff. Mr. Braun states that by removing all semblance of the continuous exploration program, NASA's 2009 budget request puts the Mars program on a path toward irrelevance. He goes on to state that the program contemplated by the budget request will not produce the type of compelling science that has been achieved over the past decade. Rather, it is the beginning of the end of what has been a dramatic advancement in our understanding of the Mars system. I think many of us that have looked at the Mars budget are concerned that he is right. I am particularly concerned about the loss of expertise that we will have and I can imagine that those who are working on the program are already pretty disspirited by what looks to them as a significant abandonment of the program. I, Mr. Chairman, want to work with you and my colleagues on the Committee to make sure that we restore the Mars program and keep it the robust producer of good science and fascination with the space program. However, I want to make my concern about this very clear and want to reiterate today. You are more than welcome to comment on it if you think Mr. Braun's point of view is somehow flawed, but it seems very credible to me. So I want to reiterate that concern. Dr. Stern. Mr. Schiff, I would like to say a few words about that op-ed which I am familiar with. It is Dr. Braun's opinion. But let me actually explain our Mars program so you understand it. We are flying the Mars Science Lab, as you know. That is planned to launch in 2009. Very high priority from the decadal survey. We are continuing that unabated. In fact, we are supporting it in technical and schedule difficulties. The next mission on our plate is called Mars Aerology and we have two missions competing, one of which will go forward. It is in our plan. That is the number three priority of the Mars portion of the decadal survey. The other priority among the three is Mars Sample Return, which is the place that we have aimed our program subsequent to that aerology mission. So we are actually planning to accomplish all three, three for three of the objectives of the National Academies decadal survey. I do not know how Mr. Braun can refer to our program as deconstructing, or not going after high-priority objectives because we are checking them all off. It will take some time to do that, but we are accomplishing them and accomplishing them in the way that they were described in the decadal survey with the scientific content. MARS PROGRAM BUDGET Mr. Schiff. What is the percentage cut you made in the Mars program, the projected Mars budget over the next several years, as compared to last year? Dr. Stern. In the current five-year plan, it is cut about in half. Over the next 10 years, which includes the large amount of funds needed for Mars Sample Return, it is actually not very different than it is right now. It goes down and then comes back. Mr. Schiff. If I could just interject. In the next five years, Mars' budget, compared to what it was last year, is cut in half and you are saying that it will not affect the science, that it will not affect the loss of the talent pool during those five years, that those people will not go elsewhere and how can that be? Dr. Stern. Let me speak to both parts of your question. First of all, it is very important to realize that Mars Sample Return, as called for by the Mars community, has to be an international endeavor. Our national partner in this is the European Space Agency. In order for them to be a partner in this mission, it needs to occur around the 2020 time frame, not earlier. So our funding and our plan for the Mars Program is what it takes to match our European partner and get the mission done. Were we to try to do it earlier, they would not be able to participate from a financial standpoint. Mr. Schiff. Why is that situation radically different this year than it was last year? I assume you had the same information about European participation last year. It did not seem to be a concern last year. Why has it changed from December to January? Dr. Stern. In fact, it is different for two reasons. The first is that last year, Mars Sample Return was back-burnered. We have moved it up in priority and gone to Europe, and spoken with the European Space Agency about that. They are as excited as we are to do it. But it is going to take some time to get it back into their budget plan just as it will for ours. The other point that I want to make is that the Mars budget reached a natural high because we are doing the Mars Science Lab, which is a flagship class mission. The Mars budget has varied quite a bit over the last 20 years, up and down. The budget was, in fact, to return toward an average level following the completion of the Mars Science Lab. Now, it has come down more steeply than earlier projections, but it was never planned to sustain at that level in perpetuity. Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chair, I know I am out of time, but one concluding thought on this is if you found a way to do all the science with 50 percent cuts, that will be remarkable for us in the history of NASA and probably the history of the federal government. That does not seem to me to be enhancing the priority of Mars or, frankly, acknowledging the success of the program. You take a program that has earned an A grade and you cut its budget in half and that ensures that you are going to take an A and turn it into a C. I do not know how you possibly can keep the talent pool alive during the five years and 50 percent cuts. I look forward to working with my Chair and fellow Committee members to try to deal with this because I think this has been an unmitigated positive in our science program, kept the public interest alive when there have been a lot of setbacks in man space flight, and I would hate to see us put our shining success in the glide path towards an obscure future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Frelinghuysen. TRANSITION WORKFORCE Mr. Frelinghuysen. Changing the location quite dramatically. I just want to say I ran into part of your NASA team in Antarctica in late January when they dedicated the new South Pole Station. I know the Chairman has been there. And I must say what a privilege it was to be there with the National Science Foundation at their invitation and run into quite a lot of your NASA people. We were sort of snowbound for a couple of days in a blizzard, so I got to see quite a few different groups that are out there. Remarkable in many ways, pioneers and explorers in their own right. And I like the notion, and this sort of gets back to the issue of American preeminence, that you are trying to do the same type of work potentially on the Moon and that you are doing a lot of those same things with the international Space Station. That is a wonderful platform for the type of science we need for generations to come. I also had a chance to meet Cathy Sullivan, who is unbelievable. It is like putting your finger, wet finger, in a light socket. She is quite a remarkable person. So here I was with Neal Lane, Rita Caldwell, Arden Bement, and then you add in Cathy Sullivan, it was quite a group. And as the plane was pitching coming back from the South Pole, she was cool as a cucumber as our plane was going up and down. You know, she is one of your remarkable astronauts. Getting back to more general questions, you are on the brink of some pretty big shifts in your workforce needs with the retirement of the shuttle and the ramp-up of the new constellation system. Your budget shows the NASA workforce staying level at approximately 17,900 full-time equivalents for the next five years. What workforce planning have you done to support that request and how confident are you that you can manage the transition with current staffing levels? Dr. Griffin. I am very confident we can handle the transition with the current staffing levels because, as you know, with regard to Shuttle to Constellation transition, most of the change that occurs is among contractor employees who operate the Shuttle systems, and you are talking about a civil service level. Mr. Frelinghuysen. The largest fluctuations are in the contractor---- Dr. Griffin. Right. Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. Community. Dr. Griffin. So I think our civil service employment will remain just fine. For Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010, we actually fully utilize all the folks we have and could use a few more, but that is okay. Then, as the out years approach, the planning for those gets firmer. So I think our Civil Service workforce planning is in pretty good shape. CONTRACTOR WORKFORCE Mr. Frelinghuysen. The contractor community, can you give us an overview as to what sort of changes are in store there? Obviously, there is a lot of apprehension and concern, but what process are you using to sort of manage to do that? Dr. Griffin. Gerst, do you mind if I turn to you and let you work through this? This is mostly Shuttle and mostly in the area---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. I know you have been doing, what do they call them, workforce mapping exercises and you are about to come up with a report. Dr. Griffin. Let me mention this just at the top level before I give it to Mr. Gerstenmaier for a couple more details. We owe you on March 24th, a report, and then an update every six months, of our workforce mapping progress across all of our Centers as we transition from Shuttle to Constellation. You will have that. Now, we can give you a few highlights at this point. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I think that would be valuable---- Dr. Griffin. Good. Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. If you could do that. Dr. Griffin. Gerst. Mr. Gerstenmaier. We have done a couple of things to try to capture our workforce picture and give employees a sense of the future. We have added some additional line items within our existing contracts that essentially provide another charge code for some of the workers that are going to be working on Constellation. For example, for our solid rocket motors built in Utah, we have a contract line item allowing workers to start doing some work for the Constellation activity ahead of time. So it is actually a transitional workforce. So when they have some down time on their Shuttle activities, they can actually charge to a different charge code that goes to Constellation and actually begin some of that work. So there is ability to do that. We have done a similar kind of thing with some of our processing contracts in Florida. Next year in April or so, we are going to fly the Ares 1-X demonstration flight out of Florida and the folks actually supporting that effort are United Space Alliance employees who are supporting the Shuttle activities. So the employees that actually stack the rockets in the Vertical Assembly Building will do that same work for this demonstration flight. They have a different charge code and a different aspect. So we are able to give them a sense of the future and let them actually start working on some of the new systems while they are still doing their current shuttle work. That has been very effective. We have also provided some schooling available for---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. So there is schooling and retraining? Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes. We have also provided some schooling and retraining opportunities where, if a discipline is going away--for example, maybe some of the tile technicians we use that place the tile on the bottom of the shuttle--we have given those workers opportunities to go improve their skills in wiring, which will be clearly needed in the future. So we have given them some opportunities to go do things in other areas. So we have provided hands-on experience to gain future skills and we have also given them some training opportunities to go do that. So far, the workforce is very motivated about what we are doing. This is a very exciting time for us. The changes in Station and Shuttle programs are very dramatic during this period, but workers are also getting a chance to see the future. NEXT GENERATION Mr. Frelinghuysen. I want to shift gears while we have Dr. Shin here relative to NextGen. We had a fairly lengthy discussion with the GAO on NextGen. Can you tell us where we stand relative to NextGen? I know we have this joint planning and development office and you are providing the basic research; is that right? Mr. Shin. Yes, sir. Our contribution to JPDO is, as you accurately pointed out, particularly through research. We have made really significant progress last year working with JPDO and all the member agencies there. Most notably, JPDO has released several seminal training documents. One of them is a NextGen research and development plan, and it identifies 163 research needs that need to be addressed. About half of the 163 research needs are associated with NASA. We are not leading all of them. JPDO has identified about 20 percent of them that can be led by NASA. And so throughout last year---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Twenty percent of? Mr. Shin. Of research needs identified in the NextGen R&D plan. There are all together 163 research needs, sir, in that. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So which ones would you be in lead on? Mr. Shin. Well, we will be working on airspace and ground automation, a lot of concept development, and assuring airport surface optimization can be achieved. Also, one of the backbones of this next encounter is about a trajectory-based operation, meaning that you know the airplane's location any time, anywhere, and you can actually predict how the trajectory of this airplane will be from the departure to arrival. A lot of automation concepts and algorithms need to be developed. Those are all research needs. NASA is working on all of those. We have gone through a fairly laborious effort of mapping technical milestones to the NextGen R&D plan. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So how would you characterize the process? How would you assess where you are? Mr. Shin. I am happy to report to you, sir, we have not found any gaps. All our technical milestones are addressing the NextGen R&D plan. In December, we also have program reviews for our three research programs and, most notably, the air space systems program, which addresses NextGen 100 percent. The independent review panel, which consisted of a lot of members from FAA and JPDO, gave excellent scores for relevance and quality. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I do not know whether you are familiar when the GAO testified in their testimony, they did raise some questions about the direction of the joint planning and development office and the interagency effort. You are familiar with those? Mr. Shin. Yes, I am. I am serving as a board member there, and so we meet periodically. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, I know you are. That is excellent. But their view is that maybe things are not working as smoothly and perhaps as expeditiously as they might---- Mr. Shin. I think---- Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. And the sense of sort of urgency. Obviously, NASA has lots of priorities. But many members of Congress feel this is something we would rather see sooner rather than later. Mr. Shin. As I mentioned earlier, since we have been addressing fundamental research needs of this NextGen capability, we have not really heard that NASA is not working these things expeditiously as possible or slacking. I think the whole enterprise issue, this national air space system issue is very, as you might guess, very complex issue, so---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is complicated. It is complicated by the fact that there has been a cut in the money that you have available for your work. Has not the Earth space systems' budget, which funds research for this type of work, been cut by 25 percent from levels that Congress established in fiscal year 2007 and 2008? Mr. Shin. From Fiscal Year 2008 to Fiscal Year 2009, there is roughly a 25 percent reduction, but that is reduction from the Congressional augmentation in Fiscal Year 2008. Of course, we have not seen the 2009---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, the bottom line is when are we going to see something which can be put into effect? I assume like with a lot of military programs, if you come up with technology out of whatever the spirals are that you are involved in, that that stuff gets, in some ways gets utilized. Mr. Shin. Yes. The leverage and---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Mr. Shin [continuing]. They are important as you point out. DoD is a member agency in JPDO. So we are working very closely with our DoD partners and---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Have they been fully cooperative? Mr. Shin. Yes. We have a very close working relationship with DoD and also Commerce and Homeland Security. So I think NASA's research conservation has been significant in making good progress. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You are familiar with the GAO's take on where you are? Mr. Shin. Yes. I have seen them. Also, last year, there was an audit of JPDO, and we participated in that audit. So I am familiar with GAO's view, sir. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. DEEP SPACE AND NEAR EARTH NETWORKS Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Dr. Griffin, when adjustments are made to recognize the transfer of deep space and near Earth networks from heliophysics to space operations, it appears that investments in your Science Mission Directorate are unchanged from the fiscal year 2008 enacted levels. Is that pretty accurate? Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. How did the Science Mission Directorate manage to accelerate the Earth science decadal missions and quintuple funds for lunar science research without an overall budget increase in science? Dr. Griffin. Well, money was moved from other portfolios to create the additions that you spoke of. Alan, would you care to comment on the specific sources? Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. So $570 million was moved within the space science to the Earth science side of the Science Mission Directorate. The Heliophysics Division, Astrophysics Division, and Planetary Divisions each participated in that. Let me be specific about what we did. In the case---- Mr. Mollohan. By program? Dr. Stern. I am going to go by division, yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Dr. Stern. In the case of the Planetary Division, the money that funded the acceleration of the Earth Science program to impact Mars program funds is, as you may recall, there was a difficulty with the current procurement activity on the Mars Scout mission, which caused it to be delayed so that it would have to fly two years later. That meant that we did not have to spend large sums on the development of that mission in 2008 and 2009. There was no other mission to infill that you could do feasibly just starting immediately. Therefore, the Planetary Division elected to make that money, that had become available, its contribution to the Earth Science initiative. So that was a relatively painless way of going about it because of the slippage that had taken place. In the case of the Heliophysics Division, we made a number of minor adjustments in the program. They are a smaller division and they did not contribute as large an amount. We asked them to contribute proportionately to their size. As you know, we were starting the Solar Probe mission. Solar Probe has been high priority in the decadal survey. What we did was we just stretched out the development of Solar Probe a little bit longer, and moved its launch date to the right so that Heliophysics could have a budget profile that accommodated Earth Science needs. In the case of Astrophysics, because of the development requirements of missions that are now being built in the Explorer Program (the James Webb Space Telescope, et cetera), Astrophysics was not in a position to contribute in the early years, but the contribution from the Planetary and Heliophysics program were sufficient. So Astrophysics made its contribution in the outyears, primarily in 2011, 2012, 2013 through efficiencies in the operations of missions that are now flying on-orbit observatories. Mr. Mollohan. Are those all the programs that suffered in order to pay for these increases? Dr. Stern. Yes, sir, I believe they are. LUNAR SCIENCE RESEARCH Mr. Mollohan. Why is the increase of nearly five times necessary for lunar science research? This year, it increases at another 20 percent and most years thereafter. Dr. Stern. The lunar program that we proposed has two components. The first component was proposed by the President's Fiscal Year 2008 request and was a part of the appropriation that was passed for Fiscal Year 2008. That is a program that began at around the level of $40 million and then went to $60 and $80 million. That was a part of the Fiscal Year 2008 proposal. On top of that now, that provided research and analysis funds as well as for funds to build instruments to fly on the missions of other nations going to the Moon, what we call missions of opportunity where we are a minor partner. What we proposed in the Fiscal Year 2009 request was to have a lunar science robotic program within the Science Mission Directorate flying small missions in response to the National Academy's lunar science report that was published last year calling for just such a sequence of missions. That is where that second component is. That runs at $60 million a year for three years and then $70 million a year subsequently. SCIENCE MISSIONS COST GROWTH Mr. Mollohan. Is there a new policy for containing cost growth on NASA's science missions? Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. What is it? Dr. Stern. It has three parts. The first part is that we properly scope the missions to fit the budget so that we do not put ourselves in a position of selecting what has been termed, ``eight pounds in a five pound bag.'' That is a part of our selection criteria when we select the mission. We make sure that we are not getting ourselves into trouble to begin with. Secondly, as Dr. Griffin explained, we treat our reserves differently now using statistical estimation criteria that give us a very robust reserves program so that when missions do have development issues--and they will because, of course, we are doing things for the first time--we are doing things that are state-of-the-art in terms of the science and sometimes the engineering as well. We want to make sure that we have healthy reserves budgeted from the beginning. Mr. Mollohan. You do not have now? Dr. Stern. No. We do. SCIENCE PROGRAM RESERVES Mr. Mollohan. What reserves do you have typically in these science programs? Dr. Stern. What we have typically done is asked the mission to propose its reserve level and we evaluate whether we think that is sufficient. Under Dr. Griffin's leadership, we have gone to a different approach in which we use a confidence curve, and we require the missions to be at the 70 percent level in cost confidence, which has empirically been shown to, on average, to be sufficient based on actual aerospace experience. The third component of our cost control is to make sure that we have in our pocket, and are willing to execute, appropriate descopes between full mission success and minimum mission success, what are called level one requirements. We have been taking advantage of that and using it successfully over the last year. I would be happy to provide examples. Mr. Mollohan. Have you been using it long enough to be able to make comparisons about what the results are and compare the success to the program? Dr. Stern. Well, I do not think that is ready for a strict mathematical comparison, but we have definitive examples where we were actually able to make relatively minor changes in those requirements allowing us to stay on track with the mission. Mr. Mollohan. Can you give us an example? Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. The Kepler mission is a good example. Last summer, they had a fairly significant problem with costs. We worked through their test program and their scientific requirements. We reduced their expected time on orbit by about ten percent and achieved a substantial reduction in their cost needs. By looking at their test program and some other aspects of the mission, we were able to essentially erase what would have been a $50 million class up problem. Mr. Mollohan. A cost overrun? Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. What kind of problem did you say that was? What problem? Class problem or what? Dr. Stern. Fifty million dollar class up problem, something---- Mr. Mollohan. Oh, class up. I see. Scale the problem? Dr. Stern. Scale the problem. Mr. Mollohan. What was the explanation for the overrun? Just badly estimated to begin with? Dr. Stern. Well, the Kepler Project has had a variety of difficulties, some on the management side and some in terms of an underestimation of the technical difficulty. When you go out and buy a good digital camera, it has got eight million pixels in the CCD. This is a focal plane which will be the largest CCD focal plane that NASA has ever launched by a very large margin, approaching a billion pixels. The data handling and electronics that go with that turned out to be more complicated tasks than had been understood at the time that the proposal was initially accepted. That and some other technical problems as well as awkward management structure caused that mission to repeatedly get into cost difficulties. However, I have to tell you after the management changes and the suite of direction that we gave them, including this descope, they have been performing extremely well. They are on track and have been month after month for the February 2009 launch date next year. All the performance data we are seeing from the scientific instrument and spacecraft look very good. The team is performing extremely well. Mr. Mollohan. All that was a contractor issue, not a requirements issue? Dr. Stern. It involved contractors, as well as, NASA personnel. SCIENCE MISSION BUDGET Mr. Mollohan. The 2009 budget request for the Science Mission Directorate reduces the budget for technology missions such as New Millennium and reduces the programmatic content for planetary sciences, technology development from current levels through fiscal year 2012. What are the implications of the proposed cuts on NASA's ability to pursue several new missions and to maintain schedule and cost discipline in executing them? Dr. Stern. What we have done is change our approach with regard to how we handle technology budgets. In recent years, much of the technology program has been pooled in a program called New Millennium, which was not for science missions, but entirely for on-orbit technology demonstrations. When we analyzed the effectiveness of that program, we found that it was not as effective as we would have liked it to be. Many technologies that were demonstrated were not needed by future missions and were, therefore, not picked up and had a relatively low efficiency of application. So we have gone to a different approach in which missions individually develop their own technology so that we know that there is a buyer out there that really needs what we are developing. A good example is the James Webb Space Telescope. We could give you other examples. Be happy to do that. In addition, you will see in our budget request we have also augmented the Suborbital Program, which is a natural test bed for technology development. It has been used very successfully in the past. So what we have actually done is redistribute and refocus the way that we spend our technology money, walking away from the older paradigm under a New Millennium to a newer paradigm in which the projects in the Suborbital Program spend technology dollars that we hope will be much more effective use of those funds. NEW MILLENNIUM APPROACH Mr. Mollohan. Why? Talk a little more about that millennium approach and the way you are doing it now. Dr. Stern. Well, as you might imagine, if there is a pool of funds available for technology development, the selection criteria by which that program makes its decisions on what to fly has to be based upon projections of future needs and wants of the Science Mission Directorate. Sometimes those are not the best decisions. At least, historically speaking, we have learned that quite a number of those technologies that were demonstrated on orbit were not, in fact, subsequently used. Mr. Mollohan. Not used for what? Dr. Stern. Not used in subsequent science missions. The technology was developed, but it was not technology that people needed to have to do future missions. So by asking the missions to develop their own technology, we know that there is a buyer who really needs it. We are not spending money where we do not need to nor are we buying too much. We know it is going to be applied because it is within the mission's budget and they need to develop it to meet their own needs. Mr. Mollohan. The next phase? Dr. Stern. Well, once we develop it to the technical readiness level, where it has been demonstrated on-orbit or on a group test program, if that is sufficient, then the mission that needs it actually flies it and counts on it. Mr. Mollohan. A lot of cost overruns in NASA's science missions. They have become almost routine. Can you explain why two-thirds of the programs have exceeded their thresholds on costs and schedule? Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. There are quite a number of factors that are involved in that. We analyzed it and there is no single reason. Sometimes, as Dr. Griffin described yesterday, we have got into management issues like with the Glory instrument. The instrument's supplier was unable to perform efficiently. They moved their operations to another base of operations for development of the instrument and it set it back. In many other cases, the missions were---- Mr. Mollohan. So Glory was a contractor performance issue essentially? Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. Other factors have included too ambitious a set of mission objectives for the available budget and not budgeting sufficient reserves. Those are just the things I spoke about earlier that we are trying to rectify now so that we do not have these problems going forward. COST OVERRUN IMPACTS Mr. Mollohan. What impact do these overruns have on other projects within the Science Mission Directorate? Dr. Stern. Well, their effect is particularly what I call ``the slaughter of the innocent.'' When we have a problem that is related to a mission that is in development and we want to go forward and finish that mission, we have to put off future missions. That means delaying or canceling missions that have not gotten into trouble but are in the wings waiting to be started. Mr. Mollohan. What are some examples of missions that have been delayed? Dr. Stern. Well, Solar Probe is a good example. Some are the missions that we are starting this year, the Explorer Program within Discovery, there is quite a long list. Almost any mission that we are starting now might have been started earlier, had we not had cost overruns or associated unexpected costs causing us to put them off until we could fit it into the budget wedge of a given year's request. Mr. Mollohan. How many of the programs that have been eliminated have been eliminated as a result of cost overruns? Dr. Stern. I would have to take that for the record and have that tallied for you, sir. [The information follows:] Cost Overruns No Science programs have been eliminated as a result of cost overruns. Mr. Mollohan. Some of them have been eliminated because of the budget, right, due to the amounts you are getting overall, but some of them have been eliminated---- Dr. Griffin. It is not a typical event at NASA to eliminate a given mission because another mission had a cost overrun. But delay is common which, of course, produces a cascading effect because the delayed mission then becomes less efficient and may itself overrun and the effect ricochets downstream. I mean, there has been a lot of discussion in this hearing on cost control. We have taken that on as a challenge that we want to address. We are very serious about it because if we can control it better, it feeds on itself. It produces a virtuous circle rather than a vicious circle, where one mission reflects on another downstream and it continues on. If we can get a handle around it, all of our missions will be better off. RETURNING TO THE MOON Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Griffin, what is the justification for going to the Moon? Science, preparation to go to Mars, commerce? I read a speech by Dr. Marburger last year where he or a large part of it was justifying going to the Moon for commercial purposes. Dr. Griffin. Well, I personally think that the justification for returning U.S. astronauts to the Moon is to expand upon their presence. Certainly there is science about the Moon, science which can be done from the Moon, which is of the first rank. You might or might not choose as a policymaker to make that the primary justification, but it is one of the justifications. Another important justification is if we do believe that Mars is an important destination for humankind, and I do, then we need to go to the Moon before we go to Mars. We are going to be living on Mars for months at a time, many months at a time, and it will take months to get there. We need a lot more experience of living, working, and operating in space than we have today if we are, in my judgment, going to mount a successful expedition to Mars a couple of decades from now. That experience will be gained on the Space Station, and it will be gained on the Moon. When we make mistakes, as we will, it is better if those mistakes occur three days away from home than many months away from home. So it is a training ground for Mars in my opinion. Finally, Dr. Marburger's speech is one that I remember with great clarity. I thought it was one of the better speeches I have heard on the purposes of space exploration generally. Dr. Marburger asked the question. The question comes down to, do we wish to incorporate space within mankind's economic sphere of influence, or do we not. It is a choice. And I think that the choice should be answered in the affirmative. Mr. Mollohan. That is a question to be answered to the whole world at this point. Dr. Griffin. It is, but I would like the United States to be, and to continue to be, a leader in the world and in the world of tomorrow. In my opinion, and very firmly and often stated, if we are unprepared to lead in space, we will not be leaders on Earth. LUNAR RETURN PROGRAM Mr. Mollohan. And it is another question to what extent are we prepared to provide leadership with regard to how resources are exploited from the Moon. I mean, as I understood it, he was actually talking about extraction and how you---- Dr. Griffin. That is correct, sir. Mr. Mollohan. Are we thinking about that as a Nation? Dr. Griffin. One of our earliest goals with our lunar return program is to learn how to utilize the resources on the Moon and later, on other planets, to again reduce the dependency on supplies shipped up from Earth. In a word, without using money, we are looking at how one goes about creating an economic enterprise in space, how one utilizes the resources and capabilities that are there in furtherance of human activities. Mr. Mollohan. A lot of aspects to that? Dr. Griffin. There really are. Mr. Mollohan. Much more than to get into here. Dr. Griffin. It is fascinating. It is important. And it is about our future. Mr. Mollohan. Yeah. Mr. Culberson. NASA FUNDING LEVELS Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a joy to have you guys here and to work with you, with NASA, with the scientific community. My hero, Thomas Jefferson, always said that you enjoy the dreams of the future better than memories of the past and it is one of the great aspects of this job, that we get to help you make the dreams of the future come true. And it is particularly frustrating to see the Office of Management and Budget continue to give recommendations to this Committee and the Congress that inadequately fund NASA. You have got more on your plate than you can deal with. One of the things I would love to work with you on, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Schiff, and others on this Committee and the other authorizing Committee is I would love to think longer term about restructuring the way you all are managed. I think you have got a lot of funding problems because you are subject to the whims of the Office of Management and Budget. And I would love to see the recommendations for NASA's budget come from an independent panel of engineers and scientists that are not obligated politically to any Administration or any political party but are driven purely by science and engineering. Anyway, just something to think about for the future because it is just going to continue to be a problem. And I know that the Chairman mentioned earlier during the earlier set of hearings and of questioning. I know how frustrating it is to you and would love to sit down with you and talk to you in some detail about what we ought to do for the future to cure some of those problems. But let me zero in on a couple of areas in particular that are of concern. And I am struck in particular by the phrase ``put off the future and slaughter the innocent.'' I just grieve. We all do. In particular, the most successful, I think, missions that NASA has ever flown, the Mars exploration program, the highest number of hits ever on NASA's web site were immediately after the Mars Rovers landed and they are, of course, still operating, doing beautifully. You have got a terrific team of scientists working on that, on the Mars missions. I think without a doubt that is one of the most successful programs at NASA. Yet, you are asking for a big cut. You are taking money away from--you mentioned yesterday, Administrator Griffin, Mars has been so successful that you are taking money away from it to fund other flagship missions. And I know you have got a lot on your plate. But it just frankly to my mind, and I know to Mr. Schiff and others on the Subcommittee, is unacceptable to take money away from Mars when they have been so successful. Could you comment on the funding levels that you are asking for this year that OMB, excuse me, Office of Management and Budget, not you guys--you made your best case to OMB and the bean counters over there are recommending this big cut, bean counters and bureaucrats, which drive me nuts. I think it is one of the problems. If we would let the scientists drive NASA and then the engineers who we have so much faith in it rather than the bureaucrats. But if the OMB recommendation were followed, it appears to be, and I have got this from a variety of very knowledgeable sources, if we followed the recommendation of OMB in order to keep a Mars sample return mission in 2020, would it not be essentially impossible to do any Mars missions between the Mars science lab which has, I know, had a little bit of a delay, I understand you may have to change the heat shield because of some tests that showed that the existing one may not be adequate and that that may delay it and knowing that you can only launch to Mars I think every other year because you have got to wait until it is essentially on its closest approach to Earth, so if we follow this recommendation in light of those restrictions, would it not be essentially impossible to do any Mars missions between science lab and sample return? Dr. Griffin. I will let Dr. Stern speak to that. But, no. We do have Mars missions between MSL and Sample Return. Alan. Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. We are going to be flying next the aeronomy mission of which I spoke to you just a little bit earlier, a highly recommended mission to study the mission of Mars' atmosphere, how it lost its oceans, et cetera. Mr. Culberson. Now, these are low to moderate cost missions? Dr. Stern. This is a medium-scale mission. Mr. Culberson. Medium scale. Dr. Stern. In costs, it is very similar to many of the orbiters that we now have operating at Mars, in fact. Mr. Culberson. Could you tell me its name again, sir. I am sorry, Dr. Stern. Dr. Stern. Mars Aeronomy. Aeronomy is the study of upper atmospheres. Mr. Culberson. Aeronomy. Dr. Stern. Aeronomy, A-E-R-O-N-O-M-Y. Mr. Culberson. Okay. That is actually a word I am not familiar with. Dr. Stern. It is a term invented in the 1950s, the study of the upper atmosphere of the Earth. Mr. Culberson. Okay. So that is a medium. But if you, therefore, are going to do a series of low to moderate cost missions, do you not have to postpone--this, I understand, is a conclusion of a group of Mars scientists who looked at this and concluded that if you do these moderate to low cost missions in 2013 and 2016, you have to postpone the sample return indefinitely? Dr. Stern. No, sir, I do not believe that is the case. Mr. Culberson. That is not accurate? Dr. Stern. That is right. Our analysis, we---- Mr. Culberson. Top scientists working on---- Dr. Stern. The analysis that we have shows that we can support the Mars aeronomy mission---- Mr. Culberson. Okay. Dr. Stern [continuing]. Which itself is approximately a half a billion dollar enterprise, an $880 million mission for 2016. The Mars community is deciding what they want to do. That is a fairly large mission as Mars missions go. That is the next launch opportunity after aerology. In that same timeframe, we are supporting U.S. participation in ESA's, European Space Agency, rover activity, where we are putting about $70 million worth of instruments on their rover mission. Then it is our ambition to have the first of the Mars Sample Return missions, and they have to be staged a few launches in a row. The first would launch in 2018 to begin the Mars Sample Return enterprise. We are still looking at the architecture for that. We may put the orbiter there first, which would be the rendezvous return vehicle bringing the sample back, and provide communications architecture, or we may provide the rover first. And that study is still in process. Mr. Culberson. Okay. So you are happy with OMB's recommendation on Mars and you would not ask for any more? Dr. Griffin. Let me, if I might, make a comment, Mr. Culberson. There has been considerable discussion of the cuts and reductions we have proposed in the Mars program already. That is a matter of policy. One can spend more on Mars, but then one must spend less on Earth Science which we have recommended increasing. Mr. Culberson. Unless we give you more money overall. Dr. Griffin. Well, of course. But that is not what the Administration is recommending. One must spend less on an outer planets mission. The question is not whether good work can be done on Mars. Of course it can. It is a wonderful program. It has gotten an A grade. It is a wonderful program. Mr. Culberson. Why would you cut it then? Dr. Griffin. Because there are other programs and other communities of outer planet scientists. There are other communities of scientists besides those working on the Mars program. The question is, what is an equitable and reasonable balance of resource distribution across our many communities. Mr. Culberson. Okay. Dr. Griffin. Mars is not the only scientific community that NASA supports. Mr. Culberson. Okay. Dr. Griffin. And I have to say that without offering---- Mr. Culberson. Part of our job on this Subcommittee is to help make those policy decisions and we will help you. Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. I have to say that without any criticism of the Mars community which has done a wonderful job. Mr. Culberson. Right. Dr. Griffin. But our planetary science program cannot be all Mars all the time. Mr. Culberson. Well, I am not suggesting. And we know you do not have enough money on your plate. This Subcommittee is-- -- Dr. Griffin. I cannot do an outer planet flagship unless I take money from some other pieces of the Planetary Sciences Division. Dr. Stern. Sir, if I may interject just to tell you a little bit of history. This is not new. Now, I have only been at NASA a year, but I have been in the Planetary Science Program for decades. For example, in the 1990s, we can only afford in that program, as we do in others, one flagship at a time. Those are very expensive enterprises. Mr. Culberson. Right. The Cassini class. Dr. Stern. Cassini was a flagship of the 1990s. Mr. Culberson. Right. Dr. Stern. Following that, we did Mars Science Lab. Mr. Culberson. Okay. Dr. Stern. Now, and according to the decadal survey, in fact, it has turned---- Mr. Culberson. Outer planet---- Dr. Stern. It is time to catch up on Europa or the outer planet flagship and then we go to the Mars---- Mr. Culberson. Science, but I love it. Dr. Stern [continuing]. Sample Return, which is the following flagship to that. So we take turns and we are following the behavior that has been---- Mr. Culberson. Okay. Dr. Stern [continuing]. In place for quite a while. OUTER PLANETS MISSION Mr. Culberson. Talk to me for a minute about the flagship to Europa, the outer planets mission, which is the highest priority of the decadal survey, and how you intend to get there and what time frame to Europa---- Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Which is the moon of Jupiter that has an ocean, saltwater ocean that is as large or maybe even larger than, in terms of volume, the oceans on the Earth. And because of tidal flexing, of course, you have got heat coming up from the bottom of the ocean and almost certainly vents, volcanic vents where you have got heat and saltwater very likely the chemical energy then producing life like we have on the bottom of the mid ocean ridges on earth which is why, of course, we do not want to go there, right? Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. You are going a little further than I would as a scientist. Mr. Culberson. Logical, though. Dr. Stern. We are genuinely conservative in our extrapolations, but we do know that Europa has an ocean on its inside. In fact, one of the great discoveries of the outer planets program, which the United States has led for the world, is that oceans are very common. It is just that they are rare on the outside of planets. They are very common on the inside of these icy worlds like Europa. The question, the operable question about Europa is how deep is the ice until you get down to the ocean. Is it accessible that we could actually imagine some 21st century probe getting through that ice? If it is hundreds of meters or perhaps a kilometer under the surface, one can imagine down the road, towards the middle of this century having the technology to get a probe into that ocean, which can communicate back to us. Mr. Culberson. And get off and swim in the ocean. Dr. Stern. Like a submersible, for example. But if it is many kilometers, that will not be possible. So the purpose of the Europa mission, if that is the outer planet flagship that we fly, is to assess the depth of the ice down to the ocean interface. Now, I am not sure if you are aware, but the science community has put forward three different concepts for an outer planet flagship, which are in competition, Europa being one of the three. Our Cassini mission, which is at Saturn, the Cassini Saturn orbiter, is a flagship mission itself. Mr. Culberson. It is still thriving and doing well? Dr. Stern. It is doing extremely well. We have just authorized it for an extended mission. It has discovered another kind of ocean, actually lakes. Mr. Culberson. Encelioides? Dr. Stern. This is a Titan, a world that is larger than some planets in our solar system. These are hydrocarbon oceans. It is estimated that Titan has more than a hundred, and perhaps more than a thousand times the hydrocarbon reserves of the Earth. This shows an analogy to the early Earth's environment, a pre-biotic environment of extremely high interest to the planetary science community. Mr. Culberson. Maybe a good gas station on the way there. Dr. Stern. It could turn out to be that way in the future, yes, sir. There is a third competing outer planet mission. Mr. Culberson. Okay. Dr. Stern. Those are going through scientific development and peer review. Mr. Culberson. Titan, Europa, and what is the third one? Dr. Stern. The third one is called the Jupiter science orbiter, which would be a second-generation Galileo mission and would terminate in orbit around another one of Jupiter's planet-size moons, Ganymede, which also is believed to have an ocean like Europa on its interior, but it is easier to access because the radiation environment is lower at Ganymede. Mr. Culberson. That is the third Galileo moon? Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. It is, yes. Mr. Culberson. I was not aware it had an ocean. Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. PROMETHEUS MISSION Mr. Culberson. Okay. But all the work, of course, that has been done, you are going through a competition now. But I always remember my first year on this Subcommittee, I asked for a variety of briefings and was absolutely charmed and mesmerized with the Prometheus mission that John Casani, and I hope he is still thriving and doing well, you are taking good care of the projects. Dr. Stern. Yes. Mr. Culberson. John Casani is a national treasure. Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. Mr. Culberson. He is at JPL and doing well, I hope. Dr. Stern. John is fine. Mr. Culberson. Yeah. He was leading that effort and they briefed me on these different missions they had. And this one they were developing. They were going to Europa and they were developing an ion engine because today we are still flying the same rocket engines that Robert Goddard designed. It is fundamentally, but they were better pumps obviously and better fuel, but fundamentally we are still flying Robert Goddard 1920 technology. It is like we have left our astronauts and the science community at NASA, it is like leaving our Navy shoveling coal in the steam-fired boilers. It just drives me nuts. I want to help you find a way to develop that next generation of rocket propulsion. But on the outer planets mission, what timeframe are you thinking about? And I am concerned that we are just not going to get it flown because it is a Cassini-class mission. It is a big---- Dr. Griffin. We are talking 2016 or 2017 for the outer planets flagship, whichever---- Mr. Culberson. For launch? Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. The President's budget request provides a sufficient budget wedge to launch that mission by 2016 if it is Jupiter and 2017 if Saturn is the target. That is driven by the orbital mechanics, not by our budget needs. That also times well with our European partners, who will be major partners, as they have in other flagships---- Mr. Culberson. Okay. Dr. Stern [continuing]. The outer planets. How their funding profile---- Mr. Culberson. And that would include a lander obviously for Europa; would it not? Dr. Stern. No, sir, not for Europa. It is only an orbiter. The Titan concept does include a lander. These are very different missions obviously and the Jupiter science orbiter is yet a third architecture---- Mr. Culberson. Okay. Dr. Stern [continuing]. Depending upon the needs. But we are---- Mr. Culberson. Okay. So you are saying 2016 or 2017 for launch? Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. Mr. Culberson. And you are sure we can get there with the money that you are asking for on the glide path that you are on? Dr. Stern. I am quite confident of it because we are scoping the mission to fit the budget, not leaving it open- ended in budget to fit whatever desires might be out there. Mr. Culberson. Okay. The Chairman has been very generous of the time. Whenever you need me to stop. I could just go. But, I mean, I would love to ask about SIM, for example. Can I have a couple more minutes, two more minutes, a minute? Mr. Mollohan. Why don't we come back to you---- Mr. Culberson. Sure. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Because you have had ample---- Mr. Culberson. I know Adam will also have---- Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Schiff. OUTER PLANETS MISSION Mr. Schiff. I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to defer a couple of my minutes to Mr. Culberson because I actually just wanted to comment on something that Mr. Culberson said and then I would be happy to yield to the gentleman. I strongly support the outer planets mission. I think it is some of the most interesting work that NASA does and I am very excited about all the possibilities. And I have loved reading about the hydrocarbon lakes on Titan which are wonderful to imagine. My own theory is that there were dinosaurs up there. But I do not think the situation is that we cannot do outer planets if we want a strong Mars program. We cannot do our sciences if we want to do SIM. We cannot do SIM if we want to get the cost overruns under--of the Webb telescope under control. The testimony you cannot give, I will give. If you were not constrained to be soldiers in the service of the Administration, you might come in and say we have to make drastic cuts to Mars and it is criminal because Mars is the best, one of the best programs that we have run. But we are going to cut it in half over the next five years because this is what we have been given. You might say if you were not constrained by the Administration that we have historically underfunded Earth sciences. There is a lot of need to do work in our sciences. We need to understand global climate change better. We need to make investment there. But we are not going to come in to you and ask you to savage Mars to do Earth sciences. We want to go with outer planets. We have got three great candidates. We would love to do two of them or three of them, but that is not possible. But we are committed to doing one of them and we are going to find out which is the best. You cannot say that, but it is our, I think, responsibility to look at those sacrifices you are proposing to be made in the interest of the numbers you are getting from OMB and the Administration. But I do not think it is productive to try, either try deliberately or have the inadvertent effect of trying to pit one center against another or one project against another. This is not, you know, whether we do outer planets or we do Mars or whether we do Webb or whether we do whatnot and I do not think it is constructive to the process to suggest that it is. Exactly. Exactly And I would be happy, Mr. Chairman, to yield the balance of---- Mr. Culberson. No. I am through. I had a chance to ask my question, so I would yield to my colleague. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Dr. Griffin. May I comment, sir, or would you prefer that I did not? Mr. Mollohan. Certainly. Dr. Griffin. We are not trying to pit one program against another or one Center against another. That is the last thing I want to do. I have striven hard for three years for more unity in support of all within our program. But it is fiscally true that at whatever budget level you would care to set, this Administration has set a budget level, which is very favorable to NASA in comparison with other domestic discretionary programs. But at whatever budget level you would set, you would have competition from various communities, each wanting to have the lion's share of that budget. We try very hard without putting our own spin on it to execute what the scientific community says are its priorities in each of these different camps. But they are irretrievably committed to scientific competition for scarce resources among themselves, and we try to sort that out on an objective an impartial basis. We are not trying to create rivalries of one Center against another or one program against another. Mr. Schiff. Happy to yield. Mr. Culberson. Mr. Chairman, may I follow-up? Thank you. I think one way that this Committee can certainly deal with it, it seems to me and our colleagues on the authorizing Committee, is to do whatever we can and we need to do to make sure that NASA flies the decadal survey missions as you always have. That is a great way to prioritize. The scientific community, as you know, has this survey every ten years. They meet. They talk. They debate. And they voted scientists one of the highest priorities. And you all have always flown those missions and that is, of course, what outer planet mission is, but the scientific community chose Europa. Why are you going back through another competition when the scientific community has said Europa is the highest priority? We have got this magnificent mission at Titan. We have landed on Titan. Cassini is doing beautifully, will obviously continue to thrive for years. Why are we doing another competition when the decadal survey says it is Europa? Dr. Griffin. Between the time when the last decadal survey said to go with preference to Europa, we have flown the Cassini mission and learned much more from earlier missions. So now the scientific community is no longer sure that they want to go to Europa as a first preference. They may, but these other possibilities have been put on the plate. I will emphasize again we, NASA, as a Federal agency are not trying to dictate to the scientific community which priority it must have. Mr. Culberson. Okay. Dr. Griffin. We are also not trying to tell them that once you pick Europa as a priority, it must forever remain your priority. We are giving them the latitude before we actually start spending money on a particular path. Mr. Culberson. On a flagship mission. Dr. Griffin. Flagship mission. We are giving them the latitude to change their minds. OUTER PLANET FLAGSHIP PROCESS Mr. Culberson. Okay. How do you do those surveys, if I could, Dr. Griffin? What is the process? How do you do that? Who will make the decisions? I hope it is essentially a peer review. You know, the scientists and engineers and not being driven by a political appointee or a bureaucrat somewhere. That is really the scientific community that will make this decision, which flagship we fly. Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. Mr. Culberson. What is the process? Dr. Stern. Let me---- Mr. Culberson. How do we guarantee that---- Dr. Stern. You are specifically asking, I believe, about how we are going to choose the outer planet flagship. Mr. Culberson. Between these three, yes. Dr. Stern. Yes, sir. Mr. Culberson. What is the procedure? Dr. Stern. We are actually in the middle of that process. As Dr. Griffin described, science is always evolving. Because we flew the Cassini flagship, interest in Titan rose quite a bit, also in Enceladus as well, the moon of Saturn that has the giant geysers that you are familiar with. Mr. Culberson. Water geysers. Dr. Stern. Right. As a result, through our Outer Planets Assessment Group, led entirely by scientists, not bureaucrats or politicians---- Mr. Culberson. Good. Dr. Stern [continuing]. They took it through a variety of different possibilities. Their charge from NASA, from the Science Mission Directorate was as follows. Historically and as we see going forward, outer planet flagships have been rare and precious, with approximately one every 15 years. So pick this one carefully based on needs and what can best advance the science field, because the next one will come down the road another 15 to 20 years. So start with the fact that Europa was the highest priority in the 2001 decadal survey process. But take into account everything we now know so we don't misfire using only data from almost a decade ago. Mr. Culberson. Okay. Dr. Stern. And then do the scientific rankings at the same time that we are doing engineering studies and costing studies to see what produces the best result to fit in the budget envelope, to deliver the biggest bang for the approximately---- Mr. Culberson. Okay. Dr. Stern [continuing]. $2.1 billion that is available. Mr. Culberson. It sounds good. And I would like to be briefed outside of this hearing. I would like to come down and have you talk to me about when you are doing it, because I would love to help. I want to be a---- Mr. Stern. We would love to do that. Mr. Culberson. We want to participate and help. I don't know that the OMB has ever given you a budget request that has been sufficient. And this Committee--your best friends in the world are right here. These are your best friends in the world. Dr. Griffin. And we take it that way, sir. Mr. Culberson. It is meant sincerely. We want to help. But it is frustrating. And I want to be sure, Mr. Chairman, before we--if I get a chance to come back to ask about the near earth asteroids that they were referring to earlier. If I am correct or actually you are supposed to identify ones that could strike the Earth, to identify ones that could at some point impact the Earth and how you would intercept them and nudge them out of the way. And be thinking about that. If I could, I want to do that and follow up. And then also trying to nail them down on SIM, if I get a follow up. SHUTTLE MANIFEST MISSION Mr. Mollohan. Oh, you will get a follow up. It is quite an agenda there. I was going to comment that you can tell your best advocates are sitting on this Committee although it needs money. In light of the Shuttle flight delays that have occurred since the shuttle's return to flight after the Columbia accident, how realistic is it to assume that the shuttle will be able to complete all the remaining missions on its manifest by October of 2010, Doctor? Dr. Griffin. Well, to complete the remaining Shuttle manifest missions means that between February of 2008 this year, counting the mission we just flew and the end of 2010, we need to fly five missions a year on average. Our historical flight rate, including periods of time of almost three years each, where we had two Shuttle accidents and were down, as well as other periods of time where we were down for extended periods without an accident, our historical average is four- and-a-half flights a year. So we are now in a period where we were up and running and operating relatively smoothly. I have every confidence that we can execute at the rate of five flights a year from now until retirement. Mr. Mollohan. And does that complete the manifest? Dr. Griffin. And that completes the manifest that has been scoped out. Mr. Mollohan. How will NASA avoid the schedule pressure that the Columbia Accident Investigation Board warned against when NASA's need to complete the Space Station's assembly, repairing the Hubble Telescope, creeps up against that October 2010 deadline? Did your answer to the last question imply that you are not going to have this schedule pressure? Dr. Griffin. No, it didn't. We always have schedule pressure. I dislike intensely the idea that external reviewers and advisers suggest that we should ignore schedule pressure. The importance of schedule is obvious to all project managers who ever ran any project in any kind of a human field of endeavor. Time matters. The expression, ``time is money,'' didn't just originate for no reason. Time matters. What I would like for you to want of us is that we are a group of responsible managers who know how to balance schedule pressures against cost, performance, and risk, and to do so in a manner that no one of those parameters ever gets out of the box. It is true that in the past, in space projects as in many others, sometimes schedule pressures have been allowed to dominate inappropriately and to produce bad behavior and bad outcomes. Whenever a failure happens--a Mishap Investigation Board looks at it, and says that we should not do that. That is correct. We should not. We should not allow schedule pressure to dominate. But at the same time, we cannot ignore it. We must take it into account. We must make operational decisions to fly or not to fly in the face of less information than we would like to have. But we must do it. I think we are doing it today quite well. Mr. Mollohan. At what juncture will you know that you have time to complete all the missions on your manifest by the scheduled---- Dr. Griffin. This is 2008. At this point in time, we have until end of Fiscal Year 2010 to accomplish the job we want. So all of 2009, all of 2010 and half of 2008, 30 months to accomplish the missions we need. If we get down to the last year, and still have nine missions to go, I would be very concerned. I mean, I would say we probably can't accomplish that. If we get down to the last year and have six missions to go, I would say we probably can. Mr. Mollohan. Is there a contingency to push the date out if necessary? And what would be the consequences of that? Dr. Griffin. I would not. Again, you are asking me for an opinion. There is not presently a plan to push the Shuttle missions out beyond 2010. I would not want to do that, because our future mission portfolio, discussed earlier from Members of the Committee, showed how we get into program overruns and delays and all of that. A classic way to get into an overrun situation is to have funding instability in early years. I mean one can make technical mistakes, one can mismanage contractors. Those things can happen. But a classic way is to underfund or to disrupt the funding stream promised to programs. If we fly the Shuttle beyond 2010, that will take an additional $3 billion or so for every year that we wish to keep the shuttle fleet around. That will produce a huge collateral damage effect on all other programs within NASA. I don't recommend that to you. We will do as the Congress directs, of course. But I don't recommend it to you that we extend the program. HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE Mr. Mollohan. What is the priority of Hubble in that with-- -- Dr. Griffin. The Hubble will fly this August or September. And so it is---- Mr. Mollohan. It is in the--well in the---- Dr. Griffin. It is the third flight from now. I mean, we are launching next week. We are launching in May, and then we do Hubble. Mr. Mollohan. Is next week's flight a night flight? Dr. Griffin. It is a 2:38 AM launch on March 11th we are currently scheduled, sir. So I don't recommend we extend the Shuttle program past 2010. The other thing is for the Shuttle workforce itself, what our workforce needs is again stability. Stability in our plans. They need to know that we expect them, and we expect to pay them through 2010. And that after that we will transition to new programs, that we will work with them as best possible to transition them over. But they need to know what is going to happen, not to be deciding every year, will we extend the Shuttle program or not extend the Shuttle program. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Frelinghuysen. BUDGET STABILITY Mr. Frelinghuysen. This issue of budget stability, obviously, was sort of one of your centerpieces yesterday. What in this given time of Fiscal Year 2009 and 2010 makes the Constellation programs particularly vulnerable? Dr. Griffin. We are in possibly the most difficult transition period in the 50-year history of NASA. We are trying to phase out---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Dr. Griffin [continuing]. In a disciplined, orderly, rational, intelligent, impartial way. We are trying to phase out a system that will be 30 years old by the time we fly the last flight. We are trying to phase in a new system to accomplish---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. This is a special plane, because time is a wasting. Dr. Griffin. Yes. Yes, sir. This is a very special time period. We are trying to phase in a new system with a minimum of delay. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And this would be part. And I don't mean to be rhetorical here. Get back to what some raised yesterday that is you had to leave a portfolio for the next President, that this is part of what you would say in terms of your anxiety or expectations. Dr. Griffin. Absolutely, sir. Absolutely. On behalf of the Nation's civil space program. We have set a course. I believe it is an intelligent course. It clearly is dependent upon the amount of money we have. But for the amount of money we have, I believe we have an intelligent course of action. That we should stay on it. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for letting me get my oar in the water. SUPPLY MISSIONS Mr. Mollohan. The last missions on the manifest are supply missions, are they not? And I understand there are provisions that can only be taken up by shuttle? Dr. Griffin. That is correct, sir. Mr. Mollohan. Are they at all expendable? And would you push out the last fly date in order to accommodate those missions? Dr. Griffin. It depends on what you mean by ``push out.'' Now our target is to finish flying by the end of Fiscal Year 2010. But we rarely get, and we do not expect to get, new Fiscal Year monies on October 1st of any given year. So we go into any new fiscal year with a little bit of carryover for several weeks or a couple of months worth of operations. So no irretrievable harm would be done if our last mission launched in--I will just pick a number, November of 2010 versus September 30th, of 2010. No one would notice the difference in our budget. If we tried to go more than a couple of months and use money from a new fiscal year, we would have to keep contracts open that we intend to close. That would then now get us into a huge impact. Again, I do not want to do that. With regard to the last couple of flights that you asked about, the plan in our manifest is that those are logistics flights. Yes, sir. They carry up spare parts for the Station to allow it to continue operating in the event of breakage of some certain subsystems. They carry up spare parts that we cannot get up by any other means, because---- Mr. Mollohan. That sounds like they are pretty important. Dr. Griffin. They are very important to us. Precisely because we expect to have a five-year gap where we don't have real good access to the Station, because the Shuttle will be retired. Our new systems will not be available. We need to preposition those spare subsystems and parts ahead of time. Now you asked, ``is it a hard cutoff.'' Well no, first of all, we are not flying up all the spare parts we have. We are leaving some on the ground. That involves a reasoned judgement as to which subsystems and units are most likely to fail. Which are least likely to fail. We make the best judgement we can based on our existing flight experience, but we will leave some things on the ground. Can you leave more on the ground? Sure. We don't want to. We would like to fly it all. It is a question of engineering judgement as to what will fail first and how often it will fail. We are making those judgements at a time when we don't really have enough flight history on the Space Station to make the best judgement we could make. So we are making reasoned judgements. They are not perfect. We hope to get as many spare parts as possible up before we end the Shuttle Program. COMMERCIAL ORBITAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES (COTS) Mr. Mollohan. Can any of those spare parts--when will the unmanned alternative systems be available? Will they be available before the 2015 date, the COTS Program? Dr. Griffin. I can comment on COTS. We have a procurement going out this year. So I would like Mr. Gerstenmaier to comment on the details of the commercial procurement that we are trying for---- Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Dr. Griffin [continuing]. Unmanned cargo, to answer your question. Mr. Gerstenmaier. We just released a draft request for proposal for the resupply services. That went out last week. In that we specify how much cargo we need, roughly, by calendar year. The cargo is in three categories. It is unpressurized cargo, cargo that can fly outside exposed to the vacuous space, cargo that flies on the inside or pressurized cargo, and then there is a line for cargo we would like to return to the ground. That cargo is broken out by metric ton delivered in each of those calendar years. We show we can start taking cargo as early as 2010 from a commercial supplier if we get a proposal back that shows that they can provide that capability to us. It starts at a very modest amount in 2010, roughly on the order of a metric ton or so. It grows to about 10 metric tons per year beyond that period. That is what we are seeking from the commercial sector to see what is available. Mr. Mollohan. Are there items that you are talking about in these last Shuttle flights that could not fly commercially? Mr. Gerstenmaier. We selected items for these last Shuttle flights that are uniquely suited to the Shuttle. For example, the large control gyros that provide stability for our Space Station. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Mr. Gerstenmaier. There will be two of those on those flights. They could fly on an expendable vehicle. But they are going to really stretch the capability of the expendable vehicle. They may drive the shroud larger. They may drive up mass requirements. We picked items for the Shuttle flights that the Shuttle is uniquely suited to carry. Those last spares are uniquely designed for Shuttle. Also, the design environment, how much it will get vibrated during assent, thermal environment, if they need power, those kinds of considerations. If they are uniquely suited to Shuttle, we have chosen those to be placed on the Shuttle flight. Mr. Mollohan. Not that you could do them otherwise, but---- Mr. Gerstenmaier. But there will be an additional cost and---- Mr. Mollohan. Time and money. Mr. Gerstenmaier. It will be an additional expense and drive a unique capability to the expendable that has not flown on a routine or easy basis. Mr. Mollohan. Do you have authority, Dr. Griffin, to extend the sunset date for Shuttle missions? Dr. Griffin. I do not. No, sir. Mr. Mollohan. You do not? Dr. Griffin. I do not. Mr. Mollohan. Where does that reside? Dr. Griffin. Well, Presidential policy was established before--actually before my arrival at the agency. Recommending a 2010 retirement date. The 2005 Authorization Act for NASA stipulated a retirement date of 2010, I believe. Mr. Mollohan. So it would require a new Congressional authorization---- Dr. Griffin. I---- Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. To extend? Dr. Griffin. I am not an attorney. I am an engineer. I--my understanding of---- Mr. Mollohan. No. I---- Dr. Griffin. My authorization is that if one wished to extend Shuttle flights beyond the year 2010, it would require Congressional authorization. That is my understanding, sir. Mr. Mollohan. Mm-hmm. Mr. Frelinghuysen. ARES THRUST OSCILLATION Mr. Frelinghuysen. Getting back to the stability in your budget issue, I don't want to have a play on words. But the road to an initial operational capability in March of 2015 depends on stable funding. Dr. Griffin. That is correct. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Absolutely essential. Dr. Griffin. That is correct, sir. Mr. Frelinghuysen. But the road is not without some impediments. I don't mean to raise the specter of GAO. But GAO has highlighted several critical risk factors in constellation program, which I am sure you are quite familiar with. Could you comment on thrust oscillation? Where we stand. Is that one of those obstacles? Dr. Griffin. It is one of the obstacles GAO quotes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, how do you view it? If I set these up, will you bat them out of the park? Dr. Griffin. Probably. I am happy to tell you more about thrust oscillation---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes, would you. Dr. Griffin. More than you would ever want to know. Mr. Frelinghuysen. How are you dealing with it, and defining requirements, and impact of the weight of vehicles. Those sort of issues that the GAO raised. Dr. Griffin. The issue of thrust oscillation and solid rocket motors is nearly universal. When we began the detailed design of the Ares rocket, which uses the solid rocket motor first stage, we realized it was likely to have, in the worst case, considerably more effect than we see on our Shuttle flights, where we have a huge stack of hardware that essentially damps out the vibration. That may very well end up being the case on the Ares. But in case it is not, we have had a Tiger Team looking at that for the past four months. First of all, we have carefully refined our estimates of those loads down to a factor of five or more, lower than originally thought. So the loads themselves are not as great concern as originally thought. Second, we have come up with several mitigation methods. In fact, the team that has been working this meets next week to provide a set of final recommendations for flight on how we will design the thing to deal with those loads. I had a review of that just yesterday, a quick review of progress. I am entirely satisfied with what they are doing. I don't see that as an insurmountable obstacle to our flying. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Relative to defining requirements and the impact on the weight of the vehicles. Dr. Griffin. We will have the estimate for that next week. ORION HEAT SHIELD Mr. Frelinghuysen. Technology development such as the Orion heat shield. Dr. Griffin. The Orion heat shield is an interesting matter. Mr. Culberson mentioned the Mars Science Lab heat shield. It has been a while in this country since we have flown heat shields that were significantly challenging beyond the Shuttle materials. So we are having to reconstitute the Nation's technical base for those types of heat shields. It does not rise to the category of a problem for Orion. It is not a schedule driver. It is not a cost driver. It is not a technical driver. But it is a fair statement to say that the Nation, as we sit here today, cannot replicate the heat shield used for the Apollo spacecraft. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Dr. Griffin. We drifted away from that technology when we adopted Shuttle. There was no other market for it, so we have to recreate it. But I am not worried about that. WIND TUNNEL TESTING Mr. Frelinghuysen. Their contention that test facilities are inadequate to demonstrate new technologies. Dr. Griffin. I do not think that is right. We are testing those technologies today out of the Ames Research Center in our jet that we have out there. We do other tests in wind tunnels. Now, we do need to again reconstitute a technical base that was allowed to drift away, that once existed in the Nation when it was allowed to drift away. Mr. Frelinghuysen. It drifted or atrophied? Dr. Griffin. It atrophied. But between the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate and the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, we are aware of that. We know what we need to do and it is in the budget. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And that is reflected, of course, in the confidence factor which you have repeated again. And we will not have you mention the percentage. Dr. Griffin. Absolutely. I am not trying to convey the impression to the GAO or anyone else that we do not have technical problems to solve. We do. You, this Congress, appropriate money for us to do bold new things that involve the overcoming of technical problems. You pay us to do that. We are doing it. It is frustrating sometimes and I think ultimately counterproductive for people to say, well, you have technical problems to solve as if that were new news. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You do it every day? Dr. Griffin. We do it every day. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Everything you do is inherently risky? Dr. Griffin. It is what you pay us to do. Mr. Frelinghuysen. That divisible report, I just wanted to give you an opportunity to, shall we say, set the record straight. I do not have any problem with your reassurance, but sometimes the public record needs to reflect your strong objectives to some of the conclusions they have reached. Dr. Griffin. Do not mind providing you with that opportunity. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Griffin. If we did not have technical problems to solve, I would not be interested in this job. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am sure. Thank you. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Culberson. CHINESE SPACE PROGRAM Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Griffin, we talked last year a little bit about the Chinese and where they are going with their space program. Do you think today, as we sit here today, that it is likely the Chinese will land on the Moon before we do? Dr. Griffin. I certainly believe that they can if they wish to. Mr. Culberson. Can you talk to us a little bit about their plans and their program and the time table that they have set out to go to the Moon. Dr. Griffin. Well, China has not exactly laid out for us a blueprint of its space program. What they have announced is that their next flight to be conducted in the same timeframe as the Beijing Olympics will feature a crew of three. That is a very impressive feat for them on their third human space flight. Their third orbital flight will feature a crew of three. They have announced the intention to put up a small, I would call it a Salyut class Space Station like what Russia did in the late 1970s and early 1980s within their next few flights. I have no doubt that they will accomplish those goals. They are working on the development on the Long March Five which you can look on open sources on, you know, the web and find that they project to have a 25 metric ton carrying capacity and to be available in 2013. With four Long March Five launches, it is entirely possible to construct a scenario by which Chinese astronauts could be placed on the Moon. In my opinion, that could be done by late, in the next decade quite easily if they choose to do so. I find no fault with what they are doing. In fact, I admire their program. The Chinese are building a robust human spaceflight program, step by logical step in the very careful and very thoughtful way that they do everything else. So we should not be surprised by that. Mr. Culberson. Sure. They could land on the Moon then before the end of the next decade. And when under our current schedule will Americans return to the Moon? Dr. Griffin. Under our schedule, in 2019 or 2020. SEA TREATY LAW Mr. Culberson. The law of the Sea Treaty has intrigued me and watching the Russians and others try to make claims to some of the mineral resources under the Arctic is in my mind, and correct me if I am wrong, but there is no law governing those mineral assets under the Arctic and there is no real established law or treaty governing who has ownership rights or can exploit the mineral resource, for example, mineral resources on the Moon or on an asteroid that is rich, true? Am I right or wrong about that? Dr. Griffin. I do not know anything at all about the law of the Sea Treaty, sir, or the Antarctic Treaty. I am sorry. We recently did, at Congressman Feeney's request, with benefit of external advisors as well, a study of the status of law and policy regarding lunar property rights. Mr. Culberson. That is where I am driving at. Dr. Griffin. Okay. So that study has been completed internally. It requires review within the White House before it can be released. But when it can be released, it will be provided to you. Again, I initiated that study at Mr. Feeney's request, but certainly it will be available to you as soon as we can make it. Mr. Culberson. It is an important question that the Chairman was driving at that a little earlier, too, is about who has ownership rights or the ability to--because obviously the Moon is rich in resources. You got asteroids that are rich in resources. So I look forward to hearing it. NEAR EARTH OBJECTS Let me follow-up, if I could quickly, on the near earth objects and the charge from Congress, I think a number of years ago, that NASA identify asteroids of a kilometer in length. Dr. Griffin. Our requirement is to identify, by the end of this year, 90 percent of all the near-Earth objects of one kilometer or greater in size. Mr. Culberson. And I know a part of that, because it was in some language that we in this Committee adopted year before last, Rusty Schweickart came in to see me several years ago. I think he was on the Apollo 9 mission and brought it to my attention. And it seems to me an important function of what you are doing identifying these objects is to how would you intercept one if you needed to nudge it out of the way? What has NASA done in terms of trying to identify technologies or prepare for a mission if indeed one was spotted? Like, I think there was one last year that they thought for a while might have a chance of--would make a real close pass. And I forget the name of the asteroid, but it is going to make a close pass and depending on how close it is in the year 2014, you will be able to see it visually from Europe. It will come so close to the Earth that I think in broad daylight, you will be able to see the thing whiz by. And Rusty showed me the calculations and it is going to come very, very close. What contingencies has NASA prepared to send the mission out to nudge an asteroid out of the way if indeed it looked like it might strike the Earth? Dr. Griffin. We've prepared no such contingencies. We're not authorized by the Congress to do that mission. Money has not been appropriated for it, and the President has not directed us to do that. ALPHA MAGNETIC SPECTROMETER Mr. Culberson. OK. Obviously, you don't have enough money to do everything your plate right now. But it's something I just wanted to get on the record to find out where you were on it. I do think it's important. But we've got to make sure you have enough money for other requirements as well. I'm glad to hear you're asking private contractors to find ways to get cargo to the Space Station. If I could also, Mr. Chairman, just briefly ask about the-- when the Texas delegation met with you a number of months ago, that's a cosmic ray experiment I think. Dr. Griffin. The AMS, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer. Mr. Culberson. What are you doing to try to find a way to fly that? I know it would require--it has to fly on the shuttle in order to make it up to the Space Station. And about $1 billion has, I think, already been spent to get this thing ready. And commitments were made that it would be flown, I think. I know the University of Texas is heavily involved in it. I'm not intimately familiar with it. But it is a very important science experiment that the scientific community is very supportive of, and is a high priority. Yet I don't understand. It's not going to be flown? What can be done to make sure that is on the manifest. Dr. Griffin. Allow me, if I might, to review the status of that with you. Mr. Culberson. OK. Dr. Griffin. In last week's hearing before Senator Nelson we received a direct action to study a particular approach to manifesting the AMS by removing some of the spare parts that Mr. Mollohan mentioned earlier. Mr. Culberson. And AMS stands for? Dr. Griffin. Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer. Mr. Culberson. Okay. Dr. Griffin. That is the name of the experiment. We will, of course, answer that action. We will also answer the action to determine exactly what it would take to fly the AMS on a separate shuttle mission. So Mr. Gerstenmaier has those actions in work. Mr. Culberson. Okay. Dr. Griffin. The results are not completed but they will be completed as soon as possible and furnished to the Congress. Mr. Culberson. Broadly speaking, AMS is a 15,000 pound particle physics experiment. I am not a scientist, or certainly not a particle physicist, and I accept that it is a good piece of science to do. And I certainly know that in an earlier time commitments were made to fly it. When we lost Columbia we drastically reduced the number of Shuttle flights, limiting them to those that were involved with the construction and maintenance of the Space Station until its completion. So a good deal of science has now been left on the ground by the reduction in Shuttle flights and the AMS was one of those. It does represent science with a substantial international commitment, as well an interagency commitment to DOE. And I understand that. Mr. Culberson. About $1 billion has already been spent, is that right? Dr. Griffin. I am not arguing that point. So one of the damaging results out of the loss of Shuttle Columbia was leaving this experiment on the ground. Mr. Culberson. $1 billion experiment. Dr. Griffin. Now there has been considerable advocacy to fly it. So I have said in the strongest possible terms that I do not recommend that the mission be directed to be flown if the consequences of flying that mission would be to remove Station logistics spare parts from the Shuttle manifest. I think that would be a poor trade. The Space Station is worth many of tens of billions of dollars and I just do not believe that it is wise to place it at risk to fly a science mission. I do not have the authority to direct adding one more Shuttle mission to the manifest. So I cannot take advantage of that. I do not have the money in the budget anywhere to make the changes to the AMS necessary to fly it on an expendable vehicle, or the purchase an expendable vehicle, and I do not recommend, as an engineer, making such changes to the experiment. They will be very costly and very difficult. Mr. Culberson. Okay. AUTHORITY TO CHANGE MANIFEST Dr. Griffin. So I do not recommend that. Mr. Culberson. So the one option is find a way to get it on a shuttle flight. And you do have the authority, though, to change the manifest of what is flown on the shuttle. Dr. Griffin. But in the strongest possible terms I do not recommend, I recommend that you do not direct me to fly, to eliminate Station logistics units in favor of the AMS. I believe you would be putting at risk the Space Station in which we have many tens of billions of dollars of investment. Mr. Culberson. Very quickly, just one last follow up. It only would require the removal of about 25 percent of one cargo I understand? Dr. Griffin. No sir, that is by volume. You would have to remove 43 percent by weight. Mr. Culberson. Okay, so forty-three---- Dr. Griffin. Which would be several racks of spare parts that we would want to take up. Mr. Culberson. But you are doing this analysis for Senator Nelson I understand? Dr. Griffin. We are doing the analysis for Senator Nelson. Mr. Culberson. We will see that on this Subcommittee as well. You will give it to us as well, I hope. Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. Mr. Culberson. I would like to ask for it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being so indulgent with me. Thank you, sir. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Culberson. Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Dr. Griffin. IRAN, NORTH KOREA AND SYRIA NON-PROLIFERATION ACT (INKSNA) Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Griffin, you need authorizing legislation, do you not, to permit you to buy sole use flights from Russia beyond 2011? Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. Mr. Mollohan. What is the status of that? Are you in conversations with the authorizing committees about that? Dr. Griffin. We are in conversations within the Administration to produce a coordinated request from the Administration for such additional exemption going beyond 2011. We have the exemption until 2011. I have notified the authorizing committees that, as a courtesy if you will, that they should expect such a request, that we are working within the Administration to obtain it. That the consequences of failure to get that exemption would be that there would not be any U.S. crew on the Station after 2012, nor would we be able to complete our existing obligations to our international partners to fly their crew. Mr. Mollohan. What authorizing committees have jurisdiction? Dr. Griffin. I believe that the House and Senate Foreign Relations Committees have jurisdiction over this. But of course, I have to also notify my authorizing Committees and am doing so. Mr. Mollohan. So the committees that have jurisdiction that will move the legislation is Foreign Affairs Committee? Dr. Griffin. I believe that is right, sir. Mr. Mollohan. And when would be the last date that you would have to have this authorization as a matter of practicality in order to negotiate with the Russians a deal? Dr. Griffin. As a practical matter, let me work backwards. As a practical matter, we need to fly in the Spring of 2012 a crew. We would have a normal crew flight, logistics flights, in the Spring of 2012. There is a three-year production sequence, for the Soyuz system. So we would have to have a contract in place, up and running, by the Spring of 2009 with the Russians. So as a practical matter, by this time next year, in order to have an uninterrupted logistics plan, I would have to have a contract in place with the Russians. Backing up from that then---- Mr. Mollohan. You really need this authorization this year. Dr. Griffin. I do, sir. Mr. Mollohan. Does the Administration plan on coming forward with the request? Dr. Griffin. We have so far nothing but positive indications from within the, we have had not negative conversations within the, Administration. It is just a matter of coordinating carefully with all of the stakeholders to produce a request that is fully coordinated among all the appropriate parties. Mr. Mollohan. You would think the Appropriations Committees would have a room either in some office building or in the Capitol that we owned that we could control hearings, would you not? Dr. Griffin. Well, you too sir are with government, as are we, and I think we all know the efficiency of government. Mr. Mollohan. Now what should we do about that? Dr. Griffin. Would you like to come over to NASA and resume the hearings? I am certain I can find a room for you. Chairman's Closing Remarks Mr. Mollohan. This is a Ways and Means Committee room and we are ten minutes past due in turning it over to them. And we have a lot of other, I mean, aeronautics questions, you have folks here who we have not even spoken to. But we are going to bid you all a goodbye and submit a lot of questions for the record. Mr. Frelinghuysen cannot be here this afternoon so we very much appreciate your attendance. We appreciate the excellent work you and your staff--these guys are smiling--do for us and we look forward to working with you. And if you would be forthcoming in answering our questions that we submit for the record we would appreciate it. Thank you, Dr. Griffin. Administrator Griffin's Closing Remarks Dr. Griffin. Thank you, sir. We will answer all questions as expeditiously as possible. I would like to say for just a moment that I do recognize that there are of course differences between this Committee's views and those of the Administration. I very much appreciate your support of us and our plans for the Space Program to the extent that you have been able to do that, and very much appreciate the collegial working environment that I think we have established. Thank you. Chairman's Closing Remarks Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, and we are going to work very hard. You see the support on the Committee. It is just scarce, we have the same issues at trying to find money that you do. But we are going to work very hard to see in some of these areas if we cannot get you additional resources. Thank you, Dr. Griffin. Thank all the witnesses here today. Thank you to everybody. Dr. Griffin. Thank you, Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Mollohan. The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Tuesday, February 26, 2008. OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY WITNESS JOHN H. MARBURGER, III, DIRECTOR Congressman Mollohan Opening Remarks Mr. Mollohan. Good morning. I would like to welcome all the members, staff and agency witnesses and the public to the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee's first hearing of the second session of the 110th Congress. There are many fresh faces here on the subcommittee staff, some familiar, others new, but I want to welcome them and encourage you all to reach out to them. This year, like the last, will be another busy year with a fast-paced hearing schedule, but this time it will be wedged into an election year. We surely have our work cut out for us, but I hope and expect this year to be exciting and productive. I am certain, given my past experience in working with the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, Mr. Frelinghuysen, that it will be a cooperative one. Before we proceed with this morning's hearing, I want to reiterate this subcommittee's procedures. For purposes of asking questions, I will recognize members arriving prior to the beginning of the hearing in the order of seniority. And then, for those arriving after the start of the hearing, I will recognize them on a first-come, first-served basis. All members will have 5 minutes of questioning during the first round, 10 minutes in the subsequent rounds. And in order to ensure that all members get to ask questions--Rodney, you and I will abide by this, and then we will inform people as they come in--that they respect the time restrictions. I ask, Doctor, that you keep your oral remarks to 10 minutes or so. And we won't be as restrictive with you, as your prepared statement, as you know, will be made a part of the record. This year's first witness before the subcommittee is Dr. John Marburger, III, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for the executive branch of the President. Dr. Marburger serves as the senior advisor to President Bush and also co-chairs the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology and supports the President's National Science and Technology Council. We are here today to more fully understand the President's proposals for Federal research and development across our Government, with particular interest in NIST, NSF and NASA. Our Nation's investments in science and technology; our place in the world and how it is threatened; and how we, as a Nation, must respond to the narrowing gap. Collectively and cooperatively, we must ensure that limited Federal resources are optimally invested to sustain U.S. leadership in science and technology. Dr. Marburger, I would like to welcome you to the hearing today. Thank you for your good service to the President, to the administration and to the Nation. We are really pleased to see you here this year, and we are sorry that you weren't able to be with us last year, which we understand, but we are really glad to see you here this year, for all the obvious reasons. And before turning to you, Doctor, I would like to recognize the ranking member of this subcommittee, Mr. Frelinghuysen, for any opening comments that he may wish to make. Congressman Frelinghuysen Opening Remarks Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you, as we go through the hearing process here, and having the active involvement of all members of the committee. I am pleased to join Chairman Mollohan this morning and welcome you, Dr. Marburger, to testify on the Nation's science and technology policies and priorities, as well as the appropriations request for the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President. First, let me congratulate you and the administration. You are again representing a very strong budget request for basic scientific research under the American Competitiveness Initiative, particularly for the National Science Foundation and for the National Institute of Standards and Technology under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. This request for NSF is an increase of 13.6 percent, and the request for NIST core research is 21.5 percent. When you consider the overall non-security discretionary budget is under 1 percent, it is clear that science is at the very top of the administration's budget priorities. Congress has endorsed in this committee large increases for science budgets in both the America COMPETES Act and in the appropriations bills for the last 2 years. So I think you will continue to find broad bipartisan support for the increases you are proposing. However, like other committees, this one operates in a climate of limited resources. At the same time the administration hands us this outstanding science request, we have other areas, including State and local law enforcement, all of which are popular and necessary, where deep and unsustainable cuts are proposed. All of it comes from the same allocation. The Chairman and the subcommittee have had a historically very difficult task in balancing these priorities, and this year will be no exception. You are here to testify in support of your own OSTP budget request, for which you are proposing a modest 2 percent increase. I and all of us look forward to your testimony, and we will have specific questions later on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Dr. Marburger, for being with us this morning. Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Marburger. Mr. Marburger. Well, thank you, Chairman Mollohan and Ranking Member Frelinghuysen and members of the subcommittee as they appear. I am very pleased to appear before you once again after a gap of a year to present the President's fiscal year 2009 research and development budget. My written testimony has more detail about the overall budget, and I know you have considerable detail about the agencies that we will talk about, so I will make my oral remarks brief, and I will answer questions to the extent I can. And if I can't do it here, I will do it in writing. And I want to make sure that we are all clear about this budget. First, I want to thank this subcommittee for its support of the President's American Competitive Initiative through the initial House passage of the fiscal year 2008 Commerce Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Unfortunately, the provisions of that act were not ultimately included in the 2008 omnibus funding bill. But the President remains committed to the ACI and is once again requesting funds to ensure America's future economic competitiveness. The ACI and the ACA, the America COMPETES Act of 2007 that the President signed last summer, do respond to recommendations from a wide range of scientists, business and educational leaders and they're many organizations who believe Federal actions are needed to ensure America's future leadership in science and engineering--fields that are essential to the processes of innovation that lead to long-term economic competitiveness. And I look forward to working with this subcommittee to address the important goals of these initiatives. While the President's fiscal year 2009 budget substantially funds authorizations under the COMPETES Act, of the $13.8 billion authorized in fiscal year 2009 in the act, the President's budget funds $12.2 billion, or 85 percent, which, in total, compares favorably with the 82 percent level at which Congress funded the act last year in the omnibus bill. If the President's request is funded, the COMPETES Act budgets would grow by almost 15 percent. To place this in context, as Ranking Member Frelinghuysen has noted in his opening remarks, the President's overall request for all non- defense R&D increases by 6 percent, compared with the remainder of the non-security discretionary budget which increases by less than 1 percent. In constant dollars, growth and outlays in non-defense R&D have increased by nearly a third under this administration. Total Federal R&D in the 2009 budget stands at $147 billion, an increase of $4 billion over last year's appropriated amount, which represents $1 out of every $7 requested by the President in the discretionary budget, a growth of 61 percent during this administration. So it is just an extraordinary record for the R&D budget of this Nation. My written testimony summarizes the President's request for several key research programs that cut across agencies and gives somewhat more detail for the agencies under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. Overall, the President is requesting an increase of $850 million in the basic research category, for a total of $29.3 billion in basic research, which includes a 15 percent increase of $1.6 billion for the three agencies that are prioritized in the American Competitiveness Initiative: the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the laboratories of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Basic research at the Department of Defense, which is another important priority for us, would grow by 19 percent, or $270 million, over the fiscal year 2008 request. The budget provides for key multi-agency science programs, including more than $2 billion for climate science, a 12 percent increase over the 2008 enacted, and an increase of about 9 percent for the entire range of climate-related activities, including science, technology, international assistance, and tax incentives. The total climate package in this budget is nearly $9 billion when everything is taken into account. The budget includes increased funding for a number of Earth observation programs: $74 million for NOAA for certain climate sensors that had been demanifested from the National Polar- Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, otherwise known as NPOESS; there is $103 million for NASA to begin a series of Earth observing missions recommended by the National Research Council's Earth Sciences Decadal Survey; and $102 million for ocean science and research at NOAA, NSF and the U.S. Geological Survey in Interior. Information technology is another major cross-cutting Federal program. The Networking and Information Technology R&D program--we call it NITRD--would receive $3.5 billion in this administration. That amount has doubled. Another cross-cutting program, the National Nanotechnology Initiative, would receive more than $1.5 billion--on an international scale, one of the major contributors to this area of research. At the agency level, National Science Foundation budget would increase by 14 percent to $6.8 billion, $822 million above the 2008 appropriation. The NSF physical sciences directorates, a priority for this administration, would increase about 20 percent. The NIST core research and facilities budgets would receive $634 million in 2009, an increase of 22 percent over the 2008 omnibus provisions for these crucially important parts of the NIST portfolio. That includes increases of nearly $114 million for new initiatives at NIST in high-leverage areas such as nanotechnology manufacturing, expansion of NIST neutron facility for material studies, and improved understanding of complex biological systems to accelerate innovations and enable investment in the biosciences. I have already mentioned new Earth observing programs at NASA. The NASA budget would increase by 3 percent over fiscal year 2008 to $17.6 billion. And, once again, this is a complex budget. I would be glad to discuss it further in response to your questions about NASA. But I do want to emphasize in my oral remarks that it is important to maintain NASA budget appropriations in order to avoid costly schedule delays in their large and multiple missions. For NOAA, the 2009 budget provides $383 million for oceanic and atmospheric research and again requests $20 million for ocean science and research as part of a $40 million interagency effort to implement the Ocean Research Priorities Plan, which is part of the President's U.S. Ocean Action Plan. Finally, my own office, Office of Science and Technology Policy--which, by the way, sustained a 6 percent reduction in fiscal year 2008 in the omnibus--is requesting $119,000 above the fiscal year 2008 appropriation but $215,000 below the fiscal year 2008 request on a budget of $5.3 million. This fiscal year takes us through the end of the current administration and the beginning of the next, and I believe the increased funding is important for this transition. And I am also requesting that the Science and Technology Policy Institute--we call it STPI--continue to be funded within the NSF budget. I would be glad to explain why this is important. So I thank you for this opportunity to highlight the President's 2009 budget proposal for science. I think it is a strong proposal, and I urge your support of it. And I would be glad to provide more detail. I know we will discuss these issues in the question-and-answer session. I am happy to be here once again. Thank you for the opportunity to appear. [The written statement of Dr. John Marburger, III, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Dr. Marburger. BUDGET PREPARATION Dr. Marburger, you serve as the science advisor to the President and as the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. In those roles, you provide counsel to the President and to his executive offices on the impact of science. You coordinate science among the agencies and the interagency effort to develop sound, balanced budgets in research and technology. Describe for the committee, how you discharge those responsibilities, and particularly as they relate to the development of the annual budget estimates that the President sends to the Congress. What is the interaction with the agencies and with OMB? Mr. Marburger. Congressman, the process begins early in the year with requests to the chief scientists in the various agencies for recommendations for priorities for the subsequent year. And it continues with a priorities memo that I sign jointly with the Director of OMB, which outlines the priorities that will be paid attention to in the budget process for the ensuing fiscal year. And the agencies prepare their budget proposals, which are submitted to OMB, during the early and mid parts of each year. And as those budget proposals come in from each agency, my office works with OMB to review the proposals that the agencies are making, see to it that they do reflect the plans that have been worked out jointly among the agencies on who will do what and what the priorities are. And then, subsequently, we participate in the presentations that the budget examiners make to the budget director and advise on priorities in that forum. The ultimate choices about the actual amounts that the President will request are made, of course, by the President in consultation with the budget director and his Cabinet officers. And our primary role in that is simply to advise on the quality of the proposals and their relevance to the priorities that have been established. Mr. Mollohan. Do you review those budgets before they are sent to OMB? Mr. Marburger. We do not review them before they are sent to OMB, no. We see them at about the same time that the OMB staff does. The OMB staff receives them and shares them with us. Sometimes the agencies share the budgets with us. But it is---- Mr. Mollohan. Before they go to OMB? Mr. Marburger. No, at the same time. Mr. Mollohan. You receive the budget requests from the agencies under your jurisdiction at the same time they are sent to OMB? Mr. Marburger. That is correct. And I think we probably both receive them at pretty much the time that they are completed and ready to submit. Mr. Mollohan. Excuse me for interrupting. Do you recommend to the agencies, while they are working up their budgets? Do you give direction to them in any way? Is there any interaction? Mr. Marburger. We do continually interact with the agencies, some more than others. The agencies that we interact with tend to be the ones that have larger science budgets and that have budgets that cross agency boundaries. For example, we would probably give considerably less direction, if you wish--it is not so much direction as advice and working with them on their priorities--we probably give less to agencies like the National Institutes of Health, which more or less owns biomedical research, and on issues that are totally within an agency's purview. Energy research is another example. Mr. Mollohan. Well, at what point in the process are the administration's priorities imported to the agencies, so that when agencies come forward to you and OMB at the same time they reflect the administration's priorities? Mr. Marburger. I would say the strongest feedback on administration priorities comes within the context of the budget preparation. Although, we do let the agencies know the general priorities in that priorities memo that we produce about in mid-year or spring of each year. But the most direct feedback does come in the budget process, where the agencies are negotiating with the Office of Management and Budget regarding the amounts and what they will be spent on, because those agreements will be reflected in the document that you receive from the President. Mr. Mollohan. Right. But in that process, it seems logical that you would be inputting at some point, if not at a budget level, at a policy level, what you want these agencies to concentrate on. For example, ``We want you to fund MEP,'' or, ``We consider TIP--'' or something else that is to be a priority or to highlight something that is in the COMPETES Act. In other words, how does that policy interaction occur? Mr. Marburger. We actually work with the agencies all year, during the course of the year. We convene them in interagency working groups to develop strategic plans and so forth. And, you know, unlike other areas of Federal operations, science, particularly the research part of the R&D budget, is something that comes from the scientists. We don't attempt to dictate what the best course of action is in a research program. We tend to follow the recommendations from the agencies, from their advisory groups, and particularly from the National Academies of Sciences, and from the reports that are prepared by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. And we try to assimilate that material and find out what the science community and the people who rely on the science community for their technologies, what they want and what they think is most important. And so, it is not exactly a top-down process. There are some raw principles that the administration espouses. The administration does believe that basic research is the most important research activity for the Federal Government to fund, and applied, shorter-term, lower-risk research is the proper province of---- Mr. Mollohan. Do you carry out that priority in this interaction that occurs during the year? Mr. Marburger. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. Do you give direction to the agencies? Mr. Marburger. We let agencies know that that is what the priority is. But most of them seem to sense that without us telling them. RESEARCH GOALS Mr. Mollohan. When you came to the job, did you have any personal goals about where the country should go with regard to basic or applied research? Mr. Marburger. Yes, I did. Mr. Mollohan. What were those? Mr. Marburger. Well, my personal goals were to achieve a good, balanced portfolio for the Nation. I did believe, coming into this job, that basic research was a very important driver for the country, that it's not very well understood by the public and what its role is, but that it needed to be sustained and supported in a variety of areas in order to feed everything else. I do believe that technology draws upon the physical, biological phenomena, the natural phenomena that research investigates and clarifies, and that we have a, sort of, hierarchy of activities that have to be carried out, extending from basic research, primarily supported by the Federal Government, through applied research and development and on to industrial research and applications and innovation. And I came into the job with kind of a vision, a picture, of how that should work. And that picture is formed by being a scientist myself, being the director of a national laboratory, president of a research university. I saw it work. And I read the literature, I read the reporters of the National Academies, which I highly respect, and experienced imbalances in the budget that I thought were hampering our ability to compete internationally. I came to the job believing that it was important to increase funding for basic research in the physical sciences, in certain key areas. And I still believe that that is an urgent necessity for the country. And, otherwise, my intention was to try to make science work for the Nation. And I still believe that science is an important tool for us that we need to use in this globalization of our economy and world competitiveness. Mr. Mollohan. If you are comfortable, would you share with the Committee what you think we, as a country, are doing right and where we might not be doing as well, as reflected in the President's budget or in whatever terms. This is just an opportunity for you to address what we can do better. If you don't feel comfortable answering---- Mr. Marburger. I understand. No, I do feel comfortable with that, because I think we are very lucky in America. We do have huge investment in science. We really are doing very well. We are the envy of other nations, all of whom are trying to copy our models, and that puts a great deal of pressure on us to get it right. I think that we do have a need to have steady, more or less reliable funding. I think, speaking as someone who has managed research as a high level for much of my life, it is almost more important to have stability and predictability in Federal funding in research and programs than it is to have a lot of money. Although, a lot of money is desirable. So I think we do a lot right. We do have substantial Federal programs. We do listen to the science community. The agencies do a good job of that. Mr. Mollohan. The important word I had in my question was ``specifically''--``specificity.'' Because, at the end of the day, we have to end up putting dollars on accounts. Can you talk about it in those terms? INVESTMENTS IN SCIENCE PROGRAMS Mr. Marburger. Well, I will tell you one very specific thing: I think the NIST research budget is the most underfunded budget, if not in the world, at least in the country. NIST is a hugely productive and high-leverage operation. And I am speaking particularly of the research that they do into basic physical phenomena that underlie most of our products, including biomedical products, software, hardware, just about anything that you can name. NIST is a focused, well-managed agency that ought to be about four times bigger than it is, in my humble opinion. And, although it is a small agency, that is why it features in the President's American Competitive Initiative, and that priority has been embraced in the America COMPETES Act and by others. So I would start with NIST. If I had to put my money where my mouth is, I would start with NIST, their basic research budget. They have had three Nobel prizes in the last decade, and they know what to do. And I would be very proud of that. I have never worked for NIST. I don't have any stake in it, other than I think it is important. Second would be the infrastructure for science, the big facilities that are operated by a number of agencies, including NSF and Department of Energy, both in NNSA and the Office of Science. And NIST operates a research reactor. The Department of Defense operates some important facilities. Mr. Mollohan. NIST operates a research---- Mr. Marburger. Yes, NIST operates probably the most sophisticated research reactor in the United States. Mr. Mollohan. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Mr. Marburger. And that is used for material studies, improvement of various materials such as fuel cell membranes and things like that. So, similar facilities in other agencies that provide platforms for thousands, tens of thousands, of users in industry and universities, we need to make sure those platforms are there and available. And that is one of the reasons why the Department of Energy's Office of Science was featured as a priority, because it operates, for example, the X-ray synchrotron facilities that are used to unravel the structure of biomedical molecules. All of these nice pictures that you see on the covers of magazines that show intricate molecules, they look like tangles of yarn-- those structures are determined on the Department of Energy's Office of Science's machines. The Spallation Neutron Source has just been completed in Oak Ridge. That is another example of an infrastructure platform that--we need to sustain these. Other countries have discovered that they are important for their future economic competitiveness. They are building them at a great rate, and we need to make sure that we catch up on those. And then the important university-based research that is traditionally funded by the National Science Foundation, NIH. The Department of Defense is a very important funder of basic research and engineering. That needs to be sustained. Mr. Mollohan. But quantify that for us a little bit. I mean, give us an idea of how you think we are doing with that. Mr. Marburger. In these areas, there is an imbalance, in my opinion, between our relatively healthy funding for biomedical research and the other areas of research. Particularly in certain areas of the physical sciences, there has been an imbalance in funding. Now, I don't mean to suggest that NIH is getting too much money. Mr. Mollohan. No. Mr. Marburger. They also need to have stability and predictability in their budgets. Mr. Mollohan. Right. Mr. Marburger. But we have an imbalance here. Even the biomedical sciences depend on the physical science infrastructure and continued research in these areas. And so one of the things that the COMPETES Act, as well as the ACI, does is try to prioritize a little bit and, during the next some portion of a decade, try to redress that imbalance. It is hard for me to say just how much money is required, because it is more important for us to get the balance right. We invest, as a Nation, much more money than anybody else in the world does, including the European Union and Asia and so forth. They are catching up. They will be investing comparable amounts, and already in some areas they are. But I am not so much worried about the absolute amount of money that we have; it is how it is distributed and how we manage it. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. I have terribly overstepped my time and apologize to Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you, Chairman. I hope you will let me violate your rule. Mr. Mollohan. I will. I will. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Let me again---- Mr. Mollohan. It is really good testimony. COMPETITIVENESS Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is excellent. No, I think this whole issue of imbalance is important. And, quite honestly, we respect what you call your humble opinion. You are at the top of the heap, in terms of the leadership hierarchy. You are the President's science advisor. So you don't need to be humble about your opinion. That is why you're here. And we thank you for a very long and distinguished career. We became first acquainted when I visited all the Department of Energy labs, and you greeted me out in Brookhaven. And I think I have visited just about every one. And they are somewhat, at times, crying the blues in terms of their basic research. But, by definition, you are, sort of, the chief cheerleader for the American Competitiveness Initiative. I mean, it is you, perhaps the National Science Board and a lot of other groups with many different acronyms that, sort of, have oversight here. And we talked about it indirectly, you know, pointing to the National Institutes of Health, it has almost been like a favored nation, NIH. We don't take anything away from them. But both Republicans and Democrats have been able to say, over the last couple of years, that we doubled NIH funding and we took pride in that. We are talking, in some ways, the same language relative to this administration's investments in science, although we have fallen pretty short of the mark for reasons I have mentioned and you have mentioned. It is more than dollars. How do you judge what are really concrete and specific results? And then I want to get into the issue here, too, and if we have--how do we measure what we anticipate from these programs, the imbalance issue? And then where we stand, let's say, next to People's Republic of China; growing capacity and activity in parts of India. I mean, when we talk about competitiveness, there may be some internal, domestic competitiveness. It is more than just competing with Europe. How would you characterize where we are relative to--you know, dollars are one thing, but how we actually measure competitiveness? Mr. Marburger. Well, I will try not to take too long in my answers. Those are big questions. This administration is very interested in the process of measurement and assessment and understanding what works and what doesn't so you can invest wisely. And from the earliest days of my tenure in this position, my office has worked with OMB to craft some ways of making sure that science programs-- which are notoriously difficult to assess, because usually they have long-term benefits, and you can't just wait for many years to find out how something works. But, together, we have crafted assessment tools and the process of measuring and evaluating science programs and agencies. And each year in our budget request, the science chapter does include a section on how we do this. If you go to the President's budget proposal for this current year, you will see in there a description of the evaluation process. Economists have studied the impact of basic research on competitiveness and economic growth over the years and give some overall figures on how we are doing. And they always indicate that there is a very high rate of return on Federal investments in research. As to how we are doing with competing with other countries, we still are leading. We are still very competitive, according to national polls and surveys, particularly according to the OECD data. We continue to be a leader in competitiveness. And I think that the openness of our society and the encouragement of entrepreneurial behavior are real assets that will sustain us in the future. But other nations, the rest of the world, are investing heavily in infrastructure that is pretty clearly designed to feed their innovative capacity. Certainly, Europe is getting its act together. It is beginning to fund basic research on a Europe-wide basis that uses American models, peer review and planning and deliberate investments of their money. Asia also is making focused investments in areas of science, particularly physical sciences, where they expect to be able to innovate in the future and compete with us in areas like information technology. CHINESE ECONOMY Mr. Frelinghuysen. As you are aware, the Chinese economy has been growing at, like, 10 or 12 percent each year. I assume that productivity is fueled by their scientific research and innovation. Are we measuring that? Look where we are. Mr. Marburger. It is not clear to what extent innovation and science-based programs are responsible for the great rate of growth of the Chinese economy, but certainly they expect it to be important in the future and they are investing heavily in it. They still have a long way to go, and it is not clear just how their approach to planning their economy will work out in the long run. The U.S. has to have confidence that we have the right approach, and not lose faith in the ability of the basic research and technology development that we do so well. MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION Mr. Frelinghuysen. There are many spokes on the wheel here, and I just want to concentrate on one for a minute, relative to math and science education. The work of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, established by the President by Executive order in April of 2006. It was created to advise the President and the Department of Education on the conduct, evaluation and effective use of the results of high-quality research pertaining to the effective teaching of and learning of mathematics. The group has met 11 times, reviewed over 16,000 studies and scientific documents, received public comments. Its recommendations are, I think, to be issued momentarily. Would you like to give us a little bit of a preview, from what you know? I mean, you know, one of the things I tell my constituents--and they get quite irritated, especially when I visit schools--they only go to school for 180 days a year. I am not sure what their Japanese and Chinese equivalents do. But, you know, what would be some of the findings that you would suspect that they would be recommending? Mr. Marburger. I can't speak specifically to the findings in that report. I do know that it is modeled on the highly successful similar panel for reading. And controversies over best practices in how to teach reading were actually settled through the efforts of that panel, and I expect that similar controversies over the teaching of mathematics will be settled in connection with the report of the National Math Panel. That appears to be a successful operation. I have a lot of opinions myself, having talked mathematical topics, mathematical physics in my day. And I do believe that it is important for us to pay attention to how math is taught, from kindergarden all the way up through college, and that some of the programs that are authorized and have been funded in connection with mathematics and science education will certainly take us closer to ideals. GATHERING STORM Mr. Frelinghuysen. When I see you here, I think of Norman Augustine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm. And, you know, I hate the whole notion--I think all of us do--of recommendations sitting on the shelf somewhere. But one of those recommendations, obviously, is to take a look at what we are doing in a variety of areas. Mr. Marburger. There are some successes. It is hard to identify exactly what the reasons are. Everyone is concerned about the teaching of mathematics. We need more math teachers. We need more math teachers who are qualified in mathematics and not just doing it grudgingly as an assignment because the schools couldn't find somebody else to do it. And one of the objectives of the American Competitiveness Initiative is, in fact, to increase the number of qualified teachers in these subjects. But my understanding is that test scores in some grade levels have gone up over the past 5 years and that, although the results are sometimes difficult to interpret, the U.S. is making some progress in how---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Would you say--I don't want to take words out of context--the imbalances of which the Chairman--you were reacting to--it is not only financial, you know, the imbalances. It could be that we are, you know, maybe doing--we should be doing some other things. Mr. Marburger. Yes. These education issues are multi- dimensional. And they depend on having good teachers. They depend on having parents that are aware of the opportunities for their children and doors that might be closed by not taking certain subjects. They are affected by the system of rewards that society offers for teaching positions. They are affected by the ability of local governments to fund adequate facilities for schools. There are so many different things. I think we have to address these both with broad measures like No Child Left Behind, accountability approaches, and also with sharper measures like giving teachers tools, such as the national math advisory and reading panels would give. And all of these things have to be done at once. It is not clear which one of them is going to have the greatest effect. But, from my perspective, I am the science advisor, I am interested in using good information. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You want things to move ahead. Mr. Marburger. I want things to move ahead. INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON Mr. Frelinghuysen. Simultaneously. And, obviously, there are some areas there where we have shown some weakness compared perhaps to our international competitors. Mr. Marburger. Yes. The international comparison tests show Americans not anywhere near the front of the pack. Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is discouraging, deplorable, so much so that sometimes people don't want to talk about it. But you are in a critical position, and we are counting on your humble opinion. We value that opinion. Mr. Marburger. My humble opinion is that this is an important thing for us to do and that we need to continue to invest in the kinds of---- OMB Mr. Frelinghuysen. And the last comment here is, we have our own view of the Office of Management and Budget; it doesn't matter which administration it is. We want you to press on. And, you know, this committee believes that basic research in science and science education is important. We don't want you to bend too much. Mr. Marburger. I am grateful for your support. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Marburger. It helps. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Dutch Ruppersberger joins us this morning. He has a busier hearing schedule than anybody I know in Congress. And he told me a couple of weeks ago that he wasn't going to be here for a couple of months, because he was having a very serious operation. So I am shocked to see him here this morning in one way, but I am not shocked on the other, because, as busy as he is, he is more faithful than anybody in attending the hearings. Dutch, it is great to see you. And I am glad you are---- Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. I hope, recovering. Mr. Ruppersberger. I had spinal fusion. Thank goodness for the research and discovery, so they are able to fix your backs when you get to be a little bit older. Mr. Mollohan. Yeah, well, there you go. Welcome. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you. Well, first, thank you for your testimony. What we do in research and development is so important to our country. One of my first questions is this: it is my understanding that we in the United States spend more money for research and development than probably all the other G-7 countries combined. Is that correct? Mr. Marburger. I believe that is correct. Mr. Ruppersberger. Do you know how we relate in the amount we spend in research and development compared to China and Russia? Mr. Marburger. I can't give you those numbers off the top of my head, but we spend substantially more overall in science R&D, both in the research part and in the development part, than China does. SATELLITES Mr. Ruppersberger. The Chairman talked about my schedule. We all have heavy schedules. I am also on the Intelligence Committee, and I chair the Research and Development Subcommittee. And we are now focusing on our satellites. We have had a lot of failures in our satellite industry. Years ago, when Sputnik was launched from Russia, we responded, as Americans, by within 12 years of putting a man on the moon. And one of the main reasons that we are the most powerful country in the world is because we do control the skies. And we must maintain that advantage. And, as you know, China and Russia are getting very close to us in that regard. We have brought in all of the major contractors, and we are working a tabletop exercise and looking at our space industry with the DNI, Director of National Intelligence. And one of the things that has developed is that we are doing a lot of our research and development with our operations. In other words, we put out contracts to major contractors, and once they have these--I am not going to give you the costs, but they are very expensive contracts to build our aerospace industry--contracts they are doing the research and development as they are building the satellites, which I think is very dangerous. Because when you start the actual manufacturing of the satellites, there should not be any room for error. And there have been numerous errors. The research and development must take place before you actually put the contract out for the operation. Do you have any opinion on that position? And I know that you do not do defense; you are non-defense. But it is still very relevant to a lot of the areas that you work in, as far as research and development. In other words, my question: doing the research and development, having the failures, doing what you need to do before we actually get to the manufacturing mode? Mr. Marburger. Yes, sir. Well, in fact, we do have a great interest in the defense research budget. And I agree with the analysis that you just suggested about the need for the research and development to be done before large amounts of money are spend on production or even pilots. This is one of the reasons why we--in the materials associated with the President's American Competitiveness Initiative, although we didn't target the Department of Defense science budget for doubling over 10 years, we did indicate that it was important for them to increase their basic science research. That is one of the reasons that, in this year's budget request, the President is asking for a 19 percent increase in basic research in the Department of Defense. One of the things that the Department of Defense needs to do is develop their in-house basic research capability, so that they can clear away some of the questions that are needed to resolve issues across the board in many more-advanced development projects. And I believe that they are headed in that direction. Certainly the research capacity of the Department of Defense is important for maintaining the ability to evaluate contracts or readiness of programs to move forward. And I believe that it is important for them to sustain that ability. DARPA Mr. Ruppersberger. How did you see DARPA, with the role that they play? Which I believe, personally, is a very positive role, is their research and development. Mr. Marburger. DARPA is an excellent organization. They have a great history, and I believe that the current leadership of that organization is attempting to follow that history, of taking risks, funding early-stage research and development of concepts that may eventually pay off---- Mr. Ruppersberger. Are you familiar with IARPA? Mr. Marburger. I am. Mr. Ruppersberger. And IARPA is really DARPA, only in the intelligence community. I think there is a strong belief that, because of the competition not only in the area of terrorism but Russia and China and our overhead architecture, that the intelligence committee needs a DARPA. And DARPA has just been stood up last year. Do you have an opinion on IARPA? Mr. Marburger. Well, you know, these are all---- Mr. Ruppersberger. Research and development, out of the box. Mr. Marburger. Right. Well, in my mind, it is more the nature of the research that is funded and the quality of the management of it. The structural niceties, like having a DARPA separate from the service organizations or having a central research organization that isn't committed to any particular one of the services, those are good ideas that could be captured in other kinds of management arrangements. DARPA was created, was successful and is used as a model in other agencies. But I believe that research programs, such as those in National Science Foundation or NASA or elsewhere, can be successful without that specific type of organization. So when it comes to evaluating a DARPA or IARPA, it really boils down to the leadership and the management, the people you have in place, the traditions that they have established to manage their research. So I think it is too early to assess the success of IARPA. But it is there, and it is an idea that is modeled on other successes. And we have to wait to see how it does. ITAR Mr. Ruppersberger. Let me ask you, are you familiar with the International Traffic in Arms--ITAR it is called? Mr. Marburger. As much as I can be, with such a complex issue. I am not an expert. Mr. Ruppersberger. Basically I think, just to bring it down, that ITAR limits the sales of high-tech items to foreign countries. Mr. Marburger. Yes. Mr. Ruppersberger. That is the purpose of ITAR. And another thing that we have seen and has been developing is that ITAR efforts seem not to be working in other countries. In other words, we are doing this to protect our sale of all of our high-tech so that other countries wouldn't take our high- tech, and yet it seems now that, especially in Europe but in other places too, that a lot of the European contractors are offering ITAR-type free satellite development. And it has been said, again, getting back into the satellite area, that in the commercial area especially, that the United States is almost 10 years behind Europe in the development of what needs to be done from commercial satellites. So I am asking you, it seems on its face to be pro-American not to give away our high-tech, and yet other countries now, most of the European countries, are now taking their research and development, and they are using it, and it is now putting us in a position that could hurt us. Do you see that? Do you hear that? Mr. Marburger. Yes, I am aware of those analyses. I am concerned about the impact of ITAR on the ability of American firms and research organizations, including universities, to do work to advance the interests of our national security. So I think it is very important for us to watch ITAR and to evaluate it continually and update it and make it more effective. I think it is in our national interest to have a program, something like ITAR, to make sure that we don't inadvertently give our potential adversaries, whether they are economic or military, advantage by using our own assets against us. So there is a need for a program, but it has to be done very carefully to avoid the kind of undesirable side effects that you refer to. Mr. Ruppersberger. It seems like we have the technology today to protect our high-tech. That is what the intelligence community is about, the classifications and people that have clearances. But what would you recommend, to try to look at some of the complaints that we are receiving now about how ITAR is now putting us, the United States, and our major contractors at a disadvantage compared to a lot of the European countries and also China? Mr. Marburger. It requires a review. As I recall that, I have to be careful answering this question because my memory is failing me about recent administrative actions on this. But we are concerned, and I am not the only one who is concerned about these impacts, and the administration has activities ongoing to evaluate and review ITAR. The Commerce Department has been quite involved in these efforts and is interested in doing it right. So we do participate with this. My office convenes interagency discussions about what should be done, and I might say something that is incorrect if I just---- Mr. Ruppersberger. If you come to some conclusions on how you think you could make it better, if you could have your staff contact my office or contact this committee and get that information. Mr. Marburger. What I would do is tell you what is going on right now, and that would be our response to that. Mr. Ruppersberger. Mr. Chairman, I have one quick question. Mr. Mollohan. Sure. JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE Mr. Ruppersberger. As you know, NASA is funding the James Webb Space Telescope, and it is very important, I think, to our country. And it is the at-large infrared optimized space telescope scheduled to launch 2013. And I notice you did not mention it in your statement or for the record. Is this considered an R&D activity? Mr. Marburger. Yes. The Webb telescope is considered an R&D activity. It is a very important telescope, it has received high marks in all the reviews done by the National Academies and other advisory bodies. And although it has had cost overruns and schedule slips, there remains a commitment to it to get this done. Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. BUDGET REQUEST FOR MEP AND TIP Doctor, you indicated earlier the importance of NIST funding. Within NIST, there are two programs that were authorized in the COMPETES program: MEP, the Manufacturing Extension Program and the TIP program, the ATP follow-on. The administration's budget zeroes out those two programs. And based upon your thoughts expressed earlier, perhaps that was just a prioritization of funding and not a reflection by the administration necessarily or you particularly that those two programs weren't valuable, but other programs in this were valuable. I want to give you an opportunity to talk about MEP and TIP and their importance, and why the administration chose to zero those programs out, because they have a lot of support here on the Hill, and so you are up against that. I suspect you are not looking at it in terms of being up against those programs or against those programs. My sense is there is just a funding and allocation issue here. Mr. Marburger. Yes. The short answer is it is a prioritization issue. I will say that I feel very strongly that the basic research part of NIST, their core operations are the most important things, and that they are underfunded. I want to be clear about that. The what I would call, ``technology transfer operations'' have been much improved. The ATP program, I know, was developed in cooperation with Congress and with NIST to try to address some concerns that had been expressed, which I will mention a minute, about these types of programs. And I don't want to suggest that these are bad programs or that they are failing or that they are poorly managed, but only that in the grand scheme of things, if we have money that we can spend on NIST, I would like to see NIST grow its much more high-leverage operations first and let these others sort of rest until we can get the core up. So that is my personal opinion. Let me say about the technology transfer programs, there is clearly differences among administrations and various sectors of commentators about these types of programs. Many people feel that--well, it is very clear that the Federal Government should be supporting basic long-term, high-risk basic research, and the private sector should be supporting very short-term development activities. There is a grey area in the middle, and there is a lot of room for disagreement about the priority of programs in that grey area. This administration believes that the private sector should be investing in the types of activities that the MEP and the ATP program historically had been funding. So I want to acknowledge that the difference of opinion about the appropriate work to be done in private versus public sector does exist and does influence the decision about how to fund them. That said, the primary reason that these activities in NIST are not funded in the current requests is prioritization. I certainly understand the interest of Congress in doing these, and I regret that we can't just fund everything under the constraints that have been established for this budget. MEP OUTCOMES Mr. Mollohan. We have very impressive statistics that NIST itself reports regarding the MEP program per se. NIST reported the results of a survey of manufacturers that used the MEP program in 2006. One year after using MEP services, these manufacturers reported--I don't know if you are familiar with these statistics or not, so let me read them, and if you would comment on them--52,000 jobs created or retained; $6.8 billion in new or retained sales; $1.1 billion in cost savings; and over $1.7 billion in private investment leveraged. If those are accurate statistics, those results came from a $100 million Federal program. That seems to be pretty good leveraging. What do you think? Do you think those numbers are accurate, or maybe the impact of MEP was marginal, and there would be some of these statistics existing if MEP didn't exist? Are you familiar enough with the program to comment on that? Mr. Marburger. I am somewhat familiar with the program, and you, Mr. Chairman, answered a lot of my questions before I could get to them. But, yes, I do believe that some of those things are happening. It is not clear how much of that would have happened without the MEP funding. I do believe that industries and companies that gain benefits from MEP are bound to be happy with them, and I don't want to criticize the management of the program by NIST. I think---- Mr. Mollohan. I know you are not criticizing the management. Mr. Marburger. So I think that these are probably well run programs. The first question is to what extent are funds that are being used for that program could be used on activities that simply wouldn't ever happen if they weren't funded there? And I believe that the type of basic research that--basic and applied research that NIST does, and that it does much of it in cooperation with industry and in laboratories, this has very close ties in its core programs with industry and universities. That work has a potentially much higher benefit in terms of jobs and competitiveness and economic growth than the sort of ``one accomplishment at a time'' pace of MEP and ATPO. So it is a question of putting your money where the biggest payoff is in the long run. I believe, that we would get much more if we funded NIST to be--for example, to be more active in taking leadership and setting standards for nanotechnology applications worldwide. NIST is acknowledged to be a leader in Europe and Asia in the standard-setting process. We ought to be funding them to do more of that. And that is part of their core activity. But they are also leading the way in characterizing-- I used nanotechnology as an example and may as well continue. NIST is leading the way in characterizing nanotechnology products in a way that can be used by the people who study the health effects of nano. There is a lot of concern about that right now. Well, we can't study the health effects unless we know what is in the people. And NIST is where people turn for techniques for understanding the characteristics of these new substances. So it is that kind of a thing that we could be funding rather than the one-company-at-a-time job creation, which is--you know, it is--I don't deny its importance, but if you have got a choice to make, I would spend our money first on this, and if we can find money somewhere else to do some of these activities, then that should be evaluated very carefully. But I would say we have got a priorities problem. Mr. Mollohan. So your position, if I might restate, isn't that MEP or TIP don't have value or potential value in and of themselves. It is that the money is within the NIST budget. Being in the NIST budget, you would have a different priority? Mr. Marburger. That is correct. I do have some sympathy with the notion that private sector does have an obligation to fund that sort of thing, and I know that some companies find it hard to get access to private-sector funds. But I would be willing to work harder on helping private sector find ways to do that. For example, part of the American Competitiveness Initiative is to make the tax credit for research and experimentation in the private sector permanent and to simplify it so more companies can take advantage of it. It is conceivable that incentives like that could create pools of funds that could assist in the tech transfer end of the business. So I think we have got other tools that we can use to address some of these functions. We should try to do that. BASIC RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER I just wanted to add one thing to that. The private-sector assets, revenues and the private-sector investment in research is growing at a pace greater than that of the domestic discretionary budget at this time. And I have spoken over the past year about the desirability of finding ways to encourage the private sector to invest a greater portion of its assets and resources in more basic research or research and development that is a little bit closer to the tech transfer functions. So I just wanted to add that as an important---- Mr. Mollohan. Well, basic research isn't in that area. Basic research is as you have described it. There is a real consensus that the Federal Government ought to be investing in basic research. But these are applied programs, and I would suggest that while there may be other ways of getting it. There could be some tax incentive that could incentivize this kind of activity. I am sure that this was considered when the authorizing legislation was developed. Nonetheless, this is impressive leveraging--if these statistics are correct--over $1.7 billion in private investment leverage. This is the number that NIST reports, so that is a pretty impressive leveraging of private sectors. But I guess my point is--and it is not to try to tie you down or anything, but it is to get an appreciation for your primary reasons for supporting the zeroing out of these two programs, and it is that dollars are scarce, it is a zero-sum game, and given your predisposition about the prioritizing of that and favoring basic research, you just think that money could be better spent at NIST basic research, it is not that you are per se opposed to these programs? Mr. Marburger. That is correct. Mr. Mollohan. If that is a fair assessment? Mr. Frelinghuysen. MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION Mr. Frelinghuysen. Dr. Marburger, I want to get back to how we improve math and science education. The increases for math and science have been primarily in the Department of Education programs. For the National Science Foundation, the American Competitiveness Initiative prioritizes basic scientific research over education programs. The NSF education request, as you are aware, falls far below the amount authorized by the COMPETES Act. I suppose the basic question, are the National Science Foundation education programs effective? And if they are, which ones would you single out for perhaps being the most successful? Mr. Marburger. I would first like to point out that the President's 2009 budget request does request about a 9 percent increase in that part of the National Science Foundation that deals with education. So that is a sort of vote of confidence in NSF programs there. I think that the proper funding of research in science and math education is an important part of the American Competitiveness Initiative and obviously an important part of the COMPETES Act, so there is no animosity toward the National Science Foundation programs. The fact that it is only 9 percent is--well, which I think is a healthy increase at a time when the domestic budget is being held to 1 percent. But the fact that it is only 9 compared to 15 or 20 percent, which is the amount--20 percent is the amount that the physical science budget would increase at NSF under this budget is just an indication---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Those who have reviewed these programs have they found them to be effective, and it all boils down to what part of this ensures that we are actually, quote, competitive. Mr. Marburger. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And how we measure that. Mr. Marburger. There are two things I want to say in response to that question. The first one is that the National Science Foundation itself, as you know, most of its money goes out to university-based research programs. The NASA Science Foundation requires that the research grants that it gives under these programs have evaluation tools built into them so that they have accumulated a lot of information about what works and what does not in their research programs. Now, that is the first sort of general answer. Secondly, the Department of Education and OMB in cooperation with my office have launched a study of the very large number of education programs, and particularly in math and science, spread around the entire Federal Government. There is a large number of such programs. They established a committee, an interagency committee, called the ACC, Academic Competitiveness Council, I guess, which made recommendations about assessing all of these programs. And under the actions of that committee, my office was asked to prepare a document that gave more detail and more direction to agencies about how they might go about evaluating these programs to find out what does work and what doesn't, because most of these programs are not evaluated in a way that would allow you to tell if they are working. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So they are being evaluated? Mr. Marburger. They are being evaluated. Some of them are being evaluated now, and more of them will be evaluated during the coming months as this process rolls out. Once again---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Because these are the programs that provide the very underpinning if we are ever going to get ahead of what is occurring in China and India where the numbers are staggering. The teaching of English, in the second or third grade, I assume both science and mathematics, the statistics, and you are pretty familiar with them, are pretty shocking, a huge wake-up call. You say there is oversight through this new acronym or this new group? Mr. Marburger. Yes. I am satisfied that we are moving toward having a much more uniform and widespread evaluation process for all education programs throughout the government, not just the ones in NSF or the Department of Education, but elsewhere as well. I think it is needed, and we are supporting that effort. We are probably doing some things right. We could probably do a lot of things better. And we have to sort out which is which. AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, you are in the critical position. So we are supportive of whatever you are doing to crack heads and make sure that things are coordinated, one hand knows what the other hand is doing. I just wanted to touch basically, obviously the cornerstone of the American Competitiveness Initiative is the National Science Foundation basic research, which obviously receives a pretty healthy increase, 13.6 percent. The biggest increases, correct me if I am wrong, are for math and physical sciences, engineering, computer sciences, and cyber infrastructure. Why are we prioritizing these specific disciplines or technologies over others? Mr. Marburger. This is the area that we have been hearing about for the last--almost a decade from industry, from educators, from scientists and universities and the national academies. This is the area where there appears to have been the greatest lag in funding, and the greatest mismatch between opportunities and abilities, capabilities because the funding has been lagging. The physical sciences---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am interested to know, you are in the process of responding, what data supports---- Mr. Marburger. There are a large number of--I will be glad to provide reports---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. So there is substantive data that supports these types of investments? Mr. Marburger. Yes. These investments are in the areas that support the information technology, nanotechnology and instrumentation, the measuring instruments that are used in all areas of science. The physics and chemistry and information technology, computer science and systems engineering, all of these things are very basic components of practically every field today. Most contemporary research---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. The general consensus is, and I am a believer, that these will pay the biggest dividends. Do they match their counterparts from what we can gather from our own intelligence gathering of what is happening in parts of India, China? Mr. Marburger. Other countries are aware---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. The Pacific Rim? Mr. Marburger. I give you one example. Just last year Russia decided to make a huge investment in nanotechnology, just huge. It is $1.5 billion per year, which is comparable to our investment. It is just an amazing investment. It is structured very differently. It doesn't have quite the same emphasis on the basic research that ours does. But that is an example of a type of investment that countries are willing to make in these areas. They are building the kinds of infrastructure that are sustained by these physical science budgets and NSF and the Department of Energy and elsewhere. And we know that they are making those investments there, particularly because they see the payoff. So we are competing. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Just to sum up, we are doing it here, and it seems that everybody has a piece of the initiative. I mean, there are lots of consortiums or consortia that are around there. But who is sort of pulling all the disparate parts together such that we would have some way of knowing whether we would match the Russia initiative? I assume the Chinese are not asleep at the switch here, either through their own inventiveness or through what many of us suspect is their ability to, shall we say, cop information. Mr. Marburger. Congress has mandated a series of reports both from--in the case of the administration, the President's Council of Advisors on Science & Technology has taken on this responsibility and from the National Academies to report periodically and frequently on the status of the nanotechnology initiative in this country and compared with other countries. And there are reports available that are pretty current that have these data in them. It shows our investment compared with Asia and Europe. Mr. Frelinghuysen. There are people like you, and people who serve on the National Science Board, through whom these reports filter such that we have a pretty good grasp of what everybody is doing in university-based research and different medical centers, and within the DOD. Mr. Marburger. Yes. Our office runs a national coordinating office for the National Nanotechnology Initiative, and they produce copious reports. I will make sure that those reports are available to you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. VISION FOR SPACE AND FUNDING TO EXECUTE IT Doctor, you used the words when we were talking a little earlier about the necessity for dependability in funding, dependability on direction in some of these programs. I would say the stability in them in every way. As I look at NASA, I don't know any other agency that has had less stability, neither programs or funding. I would like to ask you a few questions about NASA. Let me begin with the notion which we get a lot of up here that the current vision focuses on space shuttle, space station programs, phasing out shuttle, doing something with station, followed by human exploration of the Moon. And there are those who would argue that that results in a deemphasis of the aeronautics accounts and the science accounts and the education accounts particularly. First I would like to ask you, were you involved with the development of the President's vision for exploration? Did that happen before you came, or were you---- Mr. Marburger. I was involved with that, yes. Mr. Mollohan. How did that happen? What led us to the conclusion that the President would initiate the exploration vision that he did? Mr. Marburger. The primary driver, the proximate cause for that vision exercise was the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report that found that the vision for NASA in general was in need of renewal and reexamination, that there needed to be a high-level statement of a program and a vision for what NASA was trying to do, where it should be going. And that recommendation in the accident investigation report triggered a number of activities. Another commission was formed which reported, and an extensive policy and exercise occurred in the White House involving NASA, and at the end of which the President made a speech and issued a policy statement on the vision. And I have given speeches about this giving my perspective in detail on this that I would be glad to make available to the committee. Mr. Mollohan. Would you do that? Mr. Marburger. I will do that. In my view, a practical vision for space is rather constrained by physics. We need to make sure that we have the ability to get equipment up and to maintain complex operations in space, which is subject to physical constraint, one of which is just the cost of getting material up, various kinds, out of Earth's gravity. So I attempted to advise the policymaking process based on the perceptions of my staff. Obviously I was working with experts on this. We advised the policy process on this regarding the constraints we thought were built into the science of space travel, if you wish, and space exploration, and the current vision does include those aspects. I think that the current path that NASA is on is a reasonable one and sustainable. In the President's statement on this, on the exploration vision, he emphasizes the importance of having a sustainable step-by-step process and to try to get away from the notion of sort of one-shot spectacular missions that are very expensive, but that don't accumulate an infrastructure that can be used to make subsequent missions both less costly and safer. So the whole program of phasing out the shuttle and working on a new generation of crew exploration vehicles that can serve the shuttle, as well as going beyond to the Moon and---- Mr. Mollohan. Service station, a service station? Mr. Marburger. Correct. I think that is a reasonable vision. And we do try to fund NASA on a regular basis. It is not easy. Of course, the President did request a budget within a long-term framework in 2008, but the omnibus bill failed to support it. That causes problems. The NASA budget is particularly sensitive to these shifts in funding. So I think the administration has a pretty clear picture of where it wants to go and how it should be funded, but we desperately need to be working with Congress to make sure that we have got the funding on a pretty smooth path. Mr. Mollohan. So you are affirming your support for the vision, generally---- Mr. Marburger. Yes. Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. As it was proposed by the President as currently being carried out given the funding you have. You used the term reasonable and sustainable. Mr. Marburger. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. Not optimal, I assume. Mr. Marburger. Optimal is hard to define. Mr. Mollohan. It definitely involves more money. But could you give us your thinking about the concerns expressed by people that the emphasis on exploration does come right now given the President's request at the expense of science, aeronautics education? And it is said that Dr. Griffin makes a case that science is, given his budget and his direction, not deemphasized, that it is not adequately funded, but it is in the balance of things fairly funded. There are a lot of people that don't agree with that, and I am asking for you to comment and give us your thoughts about that. In other words, it is a balancing question within NASA. Do you agree with how the administration---- Mr. Marburger. First of all, if you have more money, you can do more things. Secondly, NASA is doing a lot of science. After NIH, NASA has the largest share of the science budget, the nonmilitary, nondefense research budget. NASA has the greatest share. NASA is currently flying about 60 science missions. They are up there gathering data. And that is just hugely more than anyone else is likely to have in the near future. Mr. Mollohan. When you are at these conferences, and all your science-biased colleagues come up to you and start banging on you, is that the response you give them? Mr. Marburger. Yes. I look them in the eye and I say, can you tell me how many active science missions NASA has now? We know about the rovers on Mars, we know about the Hubble telescopes. How many? Well, they usually guess about 15 or 20. Well, there are 60. And so I tell them, how many do you think we ought to have? You can always put more up, but you need--you know, it is just a question of money. So I say that for the type of science that we are getting, and it is very exciting stuff, we are making a big investment in NASA science. There are pressures on NASA to do even more because we have a science community that sees possibilities. They would all like to have their satellite programs. And we have a very aggressive, competitive, capable space science community out there that is pushing for more and more. And I think that it is very important for us to have a clear idea of what we should be doing first so that if we do run short of money for one reason or another, there is a hiccup in the funding or another accident occurs, and we have to incur great expense, we know what we should be sustaining. Congressman Ruppersberger asked about the Webb telescope, for example. Well, that is a high-priority project that NASA is just going to keep doing regardless. And there are a number of science projects in that category. But I think it is a mistake for us to just try to do everything that everybody wants to do. We---- Mr. Mollohan. Well, surely that doesn't happen. But I had here a couple of years ago, or maybe it was last year, a list of all of the science programs that were being pushed out or terminated, and it was a pretty large list. So there were projects in the queue that for budgetary reasons were cancelled. Mr. Marburger. In my view, that was a direct result of the very tragic accident that took the shuttle program off line and incurred. Mr. Mollohan. Because NASA had to pay for that out of its hide, so to speak. Mr. Marburger. Yes. It sent ripples through the NASA budget. Mr. Mollohan. But NASA had to cover that cost within its own budget instead of having a supplemental or an emergency funding to pay for that. Mr. Marburger. There was some return-to-flight funding during that period. But, NASA deals with these big projects that have intrinsic difficulties that create cost overruns and schedule slips. You are pushing the edges of technology on these things, and there ought to be some flexibility in their budget to do that. Mr. Mollohan. You know, I know there is a lot of concern expressed about the vision, the vision being underfunded, I mean, by some accounts $4 billion, $4 billion-plus, and then in addition to the underfunding for the science and aeronautics and education. So do you agree with that? Do you disagree with that? Do you push for more funding for NASA in your efforts? Mr. Marburger. I talk about it differently from the NASA Administrator. He has a certain discretion about how he does these things. Since you mentioned education and aeronautics now, and I haven't responded to it yet, let me talk about those first and then the other. Mr. Mollohan. Please. AERONAUTICS PROGRAMS AT NASA Mr. Marburger. NASA has basically reorganized its aeronautics function, I think, in a very healthy way, restructured it to emphasize a smaller number of more focused objectives, back to basics as it were. There has been a lot of planning activity and policy-level activity on the aeronautics program. The President approved an aeronautics policy, and now we have an aeronautics strategic plan, and the expenditures that the President is requesting in the 2009 budget are consistent with the new look that NASA has given the aeronautics part and with the policy and strategic plans that have been developed. So I am comfortable with the direction of aeronautics. It definitely has been a change. There has been a refocusing, as it were, a reprioritizing of their mission. So I think that aeronautics and NASA is on the right track now. As far as the education part, well, that has to be evaluated along with all the other education programs that we have been talking about. NASA has real assets for education. Kids love it, grownups love it, and they make a lot of educational materials available. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Just if I can ask the Chairman. Why is NASA not part of the American Competitiveness Initiative along with NOAA? Mr. Mollohan. Absolutely. Mr. Marburger. The reason NASA and NOAA aren't part of the doubling track, for the American Competitiveness Initiative is that--there are two reasons. The first one is that they are more nearly adequately funded for the missions that they perform than these other parts of the science agency community; and secondly, that the direct product of their research is less relevant to long-term economic competitiveness and to the line of products that sustain the American economy at the likely future economy. So while there are important economic aspects, big economic impacts, of the operations, space operations, for example, weather and so forth, the research products are less directly relevant to the technologies that are likely to be--I mean, just to make it clear what I am saying so that---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. I don't want you to get too excited by responding, but this is the Chairman's time. The issue of sustainability---- Mr. Marburger. For example, cosmology or understanding dark matter in space, those are very important issues where there are many important opportunities in science. You can call them physical science as well. But they don't lead to technologies that are likely to be important in our economic future. You can get spin-offs from the various---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Our economic future is certainly connected to the 72 percent of the world's surface that is oceans. Mr. Marburger. That is correct. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And the way we treat our oceans--and obviously we have a lot of scientific assets directed towards-- -- Mr. Marburger. That is correct. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Talking about competition, look what the Chinese and Japanese are doing out there in terms of their fleets and the depletion. Mr. Marburger. Those parts of the NASA budget should be funded, and, in this request that we are discussing here, the President is asking for increases and dollars for carrying them out. But the entire agency budgets, research budgets, don't have the same level of sensitivity to economic competitiveness. So, I am trying to give you the rationale for these decisions, and they have been made carefully and based on analyses and extensive reports. It is not something that we just thought up. We try to listen to the communities out there and respond to what they think is important. So to get back to the funding gap, as it were, that we here discussed in connection with NASA, this is where the emphasis that the President has made on sustainability and step by step comes in. We think it is important for NASA not to have big increases and then decreases in its budget. We think that it is important for NASA to have a budget envelope that Congress can support and sustain administration after administration, if you wish, not something that is going to go up and down with the fashions of the moment or the political interests of a particular administration, because this is something that takes place over many, many years, decades. Mr. Mollohan. I would subscribe to the notion that we should have sustainable funding, and it should be level, and I think there would be a lot of concern, which I would share, about the adequacy of it, and it should be sustained at a higher level in order to achieve the goals of the vision and at the same time to fund the other terms. But thank you very much for your thoughts on that. NASA AND THE ACI Going back to Mr. Frelinghuysen's question about NASA being a part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, it is interesting to me that you said because the products that come out of NASA aren't as relevant, I think there would be a lot of people on Capitol Hill, and I would be one of them, that would think and believe that actually it is a part of NASA's authorization to be very concerned with and very focused on meeting goals with regard to technology transfer and bringing technologies to the economy that directly impact on America's competitiveness. I think, and please correct me if I am wrong, that is a part of the statutory mandate; is it not? Mr. Marburger. I believe so. And my remarks may have been misleading in this respect. There is no question that NASA and other agencies have important products that have an important impact on our competitiveness, but that there is a differentiation and impact among different areas of science. The people who are concerned about information technology, communications, telecommunications, materials, energy---- Mr. Mollohan. Again, kind of emphasizing the basic research---- Mr. Marburger [continuing]. Biomedical research. All of these things are pointing to these agencies as being significantly underfunded for the role that they play. They are not pointing to NASA as being significantly underfunded for the role that they play. So it is dangerous for me to make invidious comparisons here. I don't want to do that because all of these agencies are carrying out their missions quite well, but there are some differences at the level at which we have been funding these things, and we have had a situation where we have let a certain very key area of science go underfunded for decades, and we are trying to fix that. Mr. Mollohan. It is basic research? Mr. Marburger. Basic research in certain areas of physical science. And NASA and NOAA and a number of other agencies, while very important agencies doing their jobs well, are not as significantly underfunded as these key prioritized agencies. And even in the materials that were produced at the time that the President announced the American Competitiveness Initiative, we tried to explain that there were other agencies, and we particularly mentioned the Department of Defense as being a key agency, that had traditionally invested in research in this area that needed to increase it, but it was not being proposed to be put on a doubling track. Only these most seriously underfunded agencies relative to their missions were put on that doubling track according to the President's principles. You know, I tried to explain the rationale for a fairly targeted initiative. The idea was that within an overall constrained budget, you had to have some priorities, and priorities had to make sense, and we tried to design priorities that would funnel the dollars to the highest leverage, most needy areas, high-impact areas, while acknowledging the importance of all areas to achieve economic competitiveness; funding those high-priority things first, making sure that that got done, and then subsequently when balance is restored, we can, you know, move ahead on all fronts if we can afford to do that. So that is sort of the picture here. It is all about priorities. REVISITING THE VISION FOR SPACE Mr. Mollohan. One of my last questions with you with regard to NASA has to do with the basic vision, concept at this point in time, and I say NASA is one of those agencies that has been least stable in its funding profile, and that we try to redefine or some try to redefine every year. But there is significant thinking out there in the community, rethinking, of the vision, which I am sure you are aware of, and if I can just read a few paragraphs from Aviation Week and ask you to respond to this. First introductory paragraph: Influential leaders of the space community are quietly working to offer the next U.S. President an alternative to President Bush's vision for space exploration, one that would delete a lunar base and move instead toward manned missions to asteroids along with a renewed emphasis on Earth environmental spacecraft. Participants in the upcoming meeting contend there is little public enthusiasm for a return to the Moon, especially among youth, and that the Bush administration has laid out grandiose plans, but has done little to provide the funding to realize them on a reasonable time scale. Another contention is that abandoning the President Bush lunar base concept in favor of manned asteroid landings could also lead to much earlier manned flights to Mars' orbit where astronauts could land on the Moon. And it goes on to more specific justifications for revisiting the vision. But are you familiar with this thinking? Mr. Marburger. Yes. Yes, I am. Mr. Mollohan. And my first question was, learning progresses and ideas mature, and people begin one direction, and they get so far in the direction and decide, gee, there is a better one, but they wouldn't realize there was a better one if they hadn't pursued the first vision in this case. But was this notion a competing one? Was this vision that this group is touting a competing one of the President's vision at the time? Mr. Marburger. Yes. You know, people have been conjecturing or conceptualizing things to do in space and what our approach should be for decades, and nearly everything that you can think of, including missions to asteroids and buildings, structures, and so-called Lagrange points, which are points in space, all of these things were more or less in the air, have been in the air for a long time. And so when we began looking around, and others, at the time the vision was assembled, there were scores of ideas about how to proceed. With respect to the specific ones that you mentioned, I think there are some good ideas in there and some not so good ideas. I certainly believe that Earth observations are very important. Probably the highest priority for space operations for this country should be Earth observations. The most interesting thing in the solar system is the planet Earth, and that is where we are. So I agree that that should have a high priority. As far as visiting asteroids, I don't regard that as a good idea, except in connection with a larger plan that does include the use of the Moon. The Moon is unique in being a source of material that is not deep in the Earth's gravity well. It is unique. There is nothing else like it. It is the closest thing, and it provides a stable base. Unlike anything else that is accessible to us, only the Moon provides a stable base for complex operations. And the reason you go to the Moon is not to just repeat the Apollo experience, but because you want to establish operations there that could very well serve the Earth-observing capabilities that we have in a way that reduces the cost of sustaining them. It is conceivable that there could be commercial operations and commercially successful operations on the Moon in the future where it is inconceivable to me, at least within centuries, that you could have similarly commercial viable operations anywhere else. The Moon offers a source, sort of an infrastructure that can be exploited for all other space exploration. So that is what I think. Mr. Mollohan. And this group would disagree with that very premise? Mr. Marburger. This group disagrees with that, and I think---- Mr. Mollohan. I am not going to mention all the folks. Mr. Marburger. I know about that conference. But I think they are wrong, just to make it clear. I think they have some good ideas, but on that one I think that that is a mistake. Mr. Mollohan. Is there debate within the administration on that issue---- Mr. Marburger. Not particularly. You know, the administration does listen to outside advice. Mr. Mollohan. Are you sure? Mr. Marburger. And there is a debate within that community. There is one sector that thinks the Moon is the thing, and the reasons that many people think the Moon is important are somewhat different. In other words, people have different reasons for going to the Moon. Other people favor building a big infrastructure in something called the Lagrange point, which is a gravitationally stable place where things don't float away if you drop them. Once again, there are serious disadvantages with that and so on. There are a number of factions out there that have their--and some people think that we should just go right to Mars and not worry about building all of this infrastructure in between. All of these things have to be analyzed seriously and continually. Mr. Mollohan. Are these either/or visions? Mr. Marburger. Not necessarily. Once again, it depends how much you want to spend. You know, the more money you put on the table, the more different things you can do. But to my mind, looking at that time from a dispassionate point of view, my responsibility, I looked at all of these things and listened to all of these people, and it seemed to me that there are certain things that you would want to do whatever else you did. One of those things is exploiting whatever resources you can find on the Moon. Whatever else you do, that is the big thing that is up there that has mass that--it is very expensive to get mass out of the Earth's gravity. Mr. Mollohan. Is there momentum out there for a change in the vision that we just described, and are those who are proposing, are they credible? Are these proposals and these---- Mr. Marburger. We have a very aggressive, capable, as I said before, capable community of space scientists, many of which have their own ideas about how to do things and what to do. There are organizations, clubs, Web sites that have formed around different approaches to this so that you can probably find momentum in almost any direction. The trick here is to try to be responsible about it; what are the criteria that you would use to select among these things and prioritize them. In my view, it is pretty obvious that the Moon has got to be a major objective for any space vision, and, number two, that we have to get away from this notion that we are just there to impress other countries and plant flags and so forth. That is not why we are there. There are other really pragmatic reasons, including science. Science is one of the functions that should be served by space exploration, and very important science can be done on any of these missions, but they can all be sustained by a development of complex operations on the Moon. Mr. Mollohan. Have you spoken on this topic before this hearing? Mr. Marburger. Yes, I have. Yes. A number of times. Mr. Mollohan. Is it available? Mr. Marburger. Yes. I will provide---- Mr. Mollohan. We can go online probably and find it. Mr. Marburger. I will make sure that you get it. I gave a talk, an actually quite well-received talk, to an annual symposium, the Goddard Space Flight Center, on this 2 years ago, and it is on my Web site. And, in fact, in about 2 weeks, I will give another one of these talks. Mr. Mollohan. On this topic? Mr. Marburger. On a similar topic, yes, exactly. And I will make sure that once I get it written---- Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Doctor. SCIENCE EDUCATION Mr. Frelinghuysen. Very briefly, I would just like to get back to planet Earth for a few minutes here and get back into the issue of science education. You are involved in the Academic Competitiveness Council. Are you familiar with their work and their recommendations? Mr. Marburger. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Obviously their job is to examine, see where things are working, where they are not, whether there are efficiencies. You are familiar with their recommendations? Mr. Marburger. Yes, I am. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Do you have any reaction to their recommendations? And you are aware that the council found a general lack of evidence, effective practices and activities in STEM education? You are familiar with all of those, correct? Mr. Marburger. Yes, I am. Mr. Frelinghuysen. What is your feeling on those recommendations? Mr. Marburger. My feeling is that they are in the right direction, and that they need to be articulated and carried out. The Academic Competitiveness Council has charged my office with coming up with methodologies for further guidance for carrying out some of these suggestions. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD Mr. Frelinghuysen. And tell me, didn't the National Science Board make some recommendations to your office? Mr. Marburger. Also the National Science Board also made recommendations that are separate from the Academic Competitiveness Council. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Where do those recommendations stand? This is the whole issue of better coordination for STEM education and the National Science Board. Has that been done? Mr. Marburger. The recommendations of the National Science Board--or the National Science Board is an external advisory or oversight group for the National Science Foundation, and the Academic Competitiveness Council is an internal administration executive branch organization that is---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. So you are reviewing the American Academic Competitiveness Council recommendations? Mr. Marburger. Yes. So we have a specific task under the Academic Competitiveness Council recommendation, and we are considering what to do with the recommendations of the National Science Board that have recommended a number of things. They go in very different directions. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, just out of my curiosity, are you creating a standing committee on the National Science Board recommendation? Mr. Marburger. We are going to respond to the National Science Board recommendation with a committee that is probably a little bit different from the committee that they actually recommend. I don't know whether they were familiar with our structure or not, but we have a structure in which that function would fit very well that we plan to use in the National Science and Technology Council. So we are prepared to be responsive to the National Science Board recommendation fitted within the framework that we have to operate. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, I assume the National Science Board is pretty familiar with the Academic Competitive Council and their recommendations. Mr. Marburger. I hope so. I hope so. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I know that the National Science Foundation is increasing, I think, by 32 percent their graduate fellowships. I am sure that is admirable, they do great work. Why is there a flat funding for the National Math and Science Partnership and what they call the NOYCE scholarships? Mr. Marburger. Those are two different programs. The NOYCE scholarships will, in fact, increase in the President's 2009 budget request. The Math and Science Partnership program will not increase, that being funded primarily in the Department of Education. Did I get that wrong? I do believe that the NOYCE scholarships will increase. Mr. Mollohan. I am not sure that is right. Mr. Frelinghuysen. The increases are pretty small, and if you compare them to the graduate fellowships. Mr. Marburger. Okay. My budget expert says that there was an increase of about 5 percent in the NOYCE scholarships. It is a matter of fact, we can straighten it out among ourselves, but the intention was for that to go up. Once again, it would go up more if there were more money on the table and the priorities were different. Mr. Frelinghuysen. The priorities, not to go argumentative, 32 percent for graduate NSF fellowships, obviously, is a priority, you have to measure that against what we might be doing on the math and science partnerships, which are pretty important as well. Mr. Marburger. Right. The math and science partnership program is being funded by this administration primarily in the Department of Education. So there is no---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Again, you are part of that science hierarchy, and we hope that the resources will be--I won't say evenly divided---- Mr. Marburger. The Department of Education does science, too, but they particularly run these big programs for schools. The Department of Education has a somewhat different function than the National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation does research, and it is focused on graduate education much more than K through 12. The math and science partnerships are more of a K-through-12 function that is, that we would like to see expanded in a program that is suitable for the Department of Education. So I accept all of the Federal agencies as appropriate domains for carrying out the signed education mission. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for what you do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. ICE BREAKING Doctor, last year, it was some interest to the committee that the National Science Foundation expressed concern about their ice-breaking capability. There are some studies underway, interagency discussions were underway then, I don't know what the status of those are now. I would like to ask you what the status of those are now. I would like you to talk to the committee about the problem we face with regard to ice breaking capability, what the interagency studies are coming up with, with regard to solutions and what your personal feelings about it might be and how you would suggest that the committee approach that, it involves a lot of money, you are not asking for it. How do we address this problem? Mr. Marburger. So my office has been working to understand the problem and to make sure that the National Science Foundation had the ability to gain access to the important science facilities in Antarctica, the South Pole particularly. And we participated in a solution to their problem, which was to make sure that they had money in their budget to arrange for ice-breaking services---- Mr. Mollohan. You participated in a solution, I am sorry? Mr. Marburger. Yes, in the current situation, that is working, which is that there is money in the National Science Foundation budget for them to procure ice-breaking services so that they can have access to their South Pole stations. Their arrangement includes providing a relatively steady stream of funding to the Coast Guard for backup services, but as I understand it, they are using their funds for primary services to rent or lease ice-breaking capabilities from other countries to serve the South Pole station. So that is the least expensive way for them to carry out their science mission. Now the issue of future ice-breaking capabilities for the South Pole is--well, for both poles actually, is an issue that is larger than just science. The National Science Foundation-- the missions of the National Science Foundation are not the primary drivers for ice breaking capabilities. And so, consequently, there are policy level processes going on currently to try to get all the actors together, the State Department, the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce and all the other actors who have a stake in this, to work together to develop a policy for going into the future. I do not regard the ice breaker issue as primarily a science issue. It is a broader issue and needs to be addressed in a broader context. So what is driving this, there are two things. One is that the current ice-breaker capabilities of the Coast Guard are aging, need to be renovated or replaced, number one. And number two, the polar regions are increasingly interesting, particularly the north polar region, the arctic region, where the ice is melting rapidly, and there is a great deal of rapidly growing interest in commerce and natural resource exploitation, extraction and so forth that go way beyond the science interest. So those agencies that have those aspects in their portfolios need to come together and agree on the path forward, and that, such a path is being explored currently at the policy level. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Frelinghuysen has a question. SOUTH POLE TRIP Mr. Frelinghuysen. In the interest of full disclosure, I had a chance to travel with Dr. Bement and two of his predecessors, Rita Colwell and Neal Lane, a trip to remember, to the South Pole. It was fascinating to me, the partnership between the National Science Foundation, all those countries and how the military provides access. While I am certainly a red-blooded American, it did bother me that they had to use a foreign ice breaker. It was considerably cheaper, quite honestly, than if we would had perhaps our own Coast Guard there. But I would agree with you from what I can gather. There is a larger picture. I was hugely impressed, so that is why I am somewhat wearing my NOAA watch today. So when you don't include them in the American Competitive Initiative, given all the good things they are doing down there, I was a little bit-- but I would agree. The research down there is absolutely fascinating, and we need to get in there. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Sure. Well, it is my understanding--and I would be interested in hearing about Mr. Frelinghuysen and what he has learned on his trip down there--but that the NSF polar research actually has become the primary use of our ice breakers. And this year, NSF's budget eliminates funding to continue the caretaker status of the Polar Star since NSF does not envision current or future use of this vessel in support of its mission. If that is true, how do you think--well, let me ask you specifically, is a report planned on this? You have got an interagency study going on? Mr. Marburger. I am not aware of a report in preparation. There is an early policy process that is occurring. Mr. Mollohan. It can't be too early, Doctor, this has been going on for I can't tell you how many years. Mr. Marburger. Well, the policy process that I am referring to is one that includes all, appropriates the recent developments in the Arctic and the rapidly increasing interest there; brings in these considerations, brings in the geopolitical considerations that make it mandatory, I would say, for other agencies to participate. I do not regard this as primarily an NSF problem or a science problem. This is, the issue of ice breakers is one that has to be solved in a much broader context. Mr. Mollohan. Well, are you involved in that solution, because if it is not only an NSF or a sciences issue, it is in part an NSF and a science issue. Mr. Marburger. That is correct. My interest is in making sure that the National Science Foundation has access to their polar station. How they get that access is less interesting to me. Now as a member of the administration, as a U.S. citizen, I care a lot about the ability of the U.S. to be able to operate in the polar regions, but my specific interest as a director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy is to make sure that the National Science Foundation has access to their operations in the South Pole. And I don't want to see the National Science Foundation budget burdened with a national ice breaker program. That doesn't make any sense to me. That is not their mission. And their budget would be artificially inflated if the money to build new ice breakers would be put into it. So that is why I have been insisting that there be a larger process, and I think we need that. Mr. Mollohan. Well, last year, we had testimony from NSF that the conditions in the Arctic actually were contributing to the necessity of more ice-breaking capability. Which prompts us to ask how are we solving that problem, but you have given us the benefit of your thinking here today at the hearing. Let me ask you if you would step back and provide a full discussion of this issue and submit it to---- Mr. Marburger. Yes. Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. The committee and give us some direction on where you think the needs are, to what extent the science community has needs, to what extent they are going to be met and how, so that we can stop worrying about how we are going to fund ice breakers if indeed that is not going to be something that this committee is going to have to look at. Mr. Marburger. Good. Mr. Mollohan. Should we go to the Defense Committee and ask them to come up with some money here? I'll let you submit that for the record. CLIMATE CHANGE DATA AND ITS AVAILABILITY A number of changes have been made that the conduct of climate change science and expression of findings have suffered from political interference, and I know you are familiar with that. We are familiar with that. I would like for you, Doctor, if you would, talk a little bit about that issue and what role you envision playing or what role have you been playing to ensure that the integrity of scientific work with regard to climate change is there and that the administration is focused on ensuring it and assuring the public that the science with regard to climate change is being conducted in a scientific way and that the information that comes out of those efforts are available without filtering to the public and the scientific community generally. If you would give us your thoughts on that, please. Mr. Marburger. I think the easiest, most efficient way for me to answer that question is to recall that the--what bill was it, the--a bill was passed last year that required my office to--what was it? Oh, it was the COMPETES Act. I'm sorry, my staff tells me that it was in the COMPETES Act that a requirement was transmitted to my office to issue a guidance to all the agencies that provided for a complete and open transmittal of scientific information. I am sure that one of the contributing factors for that language was the concern that you have expressed about possible interference with scientists who have attempted to express themselves, particularly about climate change. And so we have worded our response to that requirement in a way that takes that into account. And so, consequently, and I don't know if this has gone out yet. It is still in the interagency review. The process that we have for these official transmissions of guidance to agencies is that we first consult with the agencies to make sure that the wording is something that they can actually carry out. And then we rely on the Office of Management and Budget to go through a process of vetting this, and it is in that process right now. The memorandum that we are sending out, that I am sending out to agencies is basically in process now, and it includes a description of best practices, that there needs to be guidance to scientists as well as other employees that emphasizes the importance of complete, timely and accurate disclosure of scientific information, makes it possible for scientists to interact with media or the public in a free way. And we include the reference to best practices that already exists in some agencies. So I take this very seriously. I have been--I have resisted sweeping statements about the causes or the reasons or so forth, but I do acknowledge that there have been incidents where guidance was needed and think that it is important for us to be responsive in this way to those concerns, and we have done it. We are in the process of getting it out. It should be out within the next month I would say. Mr. Mollohan. Just thinking about this, I have no doubt about what you understand the importance of credibility in this area. You are a scientist. But you also have a policy role here, certainly. You probably want to get that out as soon as you can. I mean, that is a part---- Mr. Marburger. Yes. Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Of what you did. Mr. Marburger. Yes, I want it to be out. Mr. Mollohan. Sure, you do, but I think it is in your personal interest, given the responsibility that you have, to make sure that that gets out for you and make sure it is clear and unambiguous and that it is followed, but time is marching by. So I just encourage you to--you know, part of legacy. I have some questions with regard to climate change that I would like to submit for the record, give you an opportunity to respond thoughtfully and completely. We are very interested in that. We have established, last year in the bill, a review, group of that with the academy. I might even want to talk with you about that some time, chat with you about it. Mr. Marburger. Sure. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Frelinghuysen, do you have anything else? Mr. Frelinghuysen. Nothing else. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Again, I am extremely pleased that you are here today and appreciate your thoughts on all these issues. We will follow up in areas that we need to follow up on. And as I said, we will submit these climate change questions. If you have any other thoughts after the hearing that you would like to submit for the record on any of these topics we have covered, we would certainly welcome them, we would value them. You have scarce resources, and we have scarce resources, and we want to apply them certainly with your thinking, and as all of our hearings and input would suggest that your thoughts are very important to us. Thank you very much for your testimony here today, Doctor. Mr. Marburger. And thank you for the opportunity to appear. It has been good, thank you. Mr. Mollohan. I thought it was excellent testimony. We appreciate it. [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Wednesday, February 27, 2008. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD/NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION WITNESSES DR. STEVEN BEERING, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Congressman Mollohan's Opening Remarks Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order. Welcome. Glad to see everybody was able to get in and get settled. We appreciate your attendance. Welcome to Dr. Beering and to Dr. Bement. This Subcommittee looks forward to your testimony here today on the budget request for the National Science Foundation and our nation's strategic direction in the area of science research. The budget request for the National Science Foundation is a mixed bag. On the one hand, it is an exciting day for the Foundation. The budget request from the President proposes a total of over $6.8 billion, an increase of over 13 percent from the enacted level. The budget request puts the Foundation back on the doubling path outlined in the American Competitiveness Initiative. That sounds good on the one hand. However, on the other, the budget request falls far short of the levels authorized for the Foundation and the American COMPETES Act, some $472 million below the authorized level in fiscal year '09. The Congress approved this funding level in response to the findings contained in the report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.'' The report noted that the scientific and technological underpinnings, critical to the United State's economic leadership, are being weakened at a time when our international competitors, led by China's emergence, are enjoying large and sustained increases in GDP. COMPETES response to that threat. Dr. Beering, your recent companion piece to the Digest of Key Scientific and--of science and engineering indicators notes these trends. Some have expressed concerns about the priorities that the Foundation is setting. Funding requested for research and related activities grows by 16 percent. While the major research, equipment, and facilities construction account is cut over 33 percent, deleting funding for many ongoing projects and denying any new construction starts. Similarly, while education and human resources is slated to get an increase of almost nine percent, the Foundation's budget for education is some $200 million below the authorized levels. Critical to respond to the challenges of educating qualified math and science professional and K through 12 programs, they are slated for cuts in real terms, programs like STEM Talent Expansion Program, the Advanced Technology Program, and the Noyce Teachers Scholarships. In keeping with the Administration's emphasis on the mathematical and physical sciences, engineering and computer sciences, each see an approximate 20 percent increase over fiscal year 2008, while the biological sciences receive a 10 percent increase. Social and behavioral and economic sciences see an 8.5 percent increase. Although the COMPETES Act does not assume that all fields receive equal increases each year, the law does call on the Foundation not to disinvest in the biological and social sciences over the longer term. So there is some anxiety about this. And we look forward to hearing about the research priorities presented to the Committee this year by the Board and the Foundation. For EPSCoR, the budget proposes $113.5 million for fiscal year 2009. We look forward to talking with you, Dr. Bement, about EPSCoR about why the Foundation has chosen to disregard the Congressional direction to fund the EPSCoR program and the Noyce Scholarship Program at the levels specified in the conference report accompanying 2008. And we look forward to your testimony and that explanation and working with you on that as we go forward, not on this appropriation but with the implementation of the 2008 bill. Thank you both for appearing today. We look forward to your testimony. And before we proceed further, I call on Mr. Frelinghuysen. Congressman Frelinghuysen's Opening Remarks Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to all of you. Please to join the Chairman in welcoming you, Dr. Beering, Dr. Bement to the hearing today. You are here today to testify in your fiscal year 2009 budget request for the National Science Foundation. As I mentioned to Dr. Marburger, the President's Science Advisor, yesterday, it is clear that science is at the very top of the Administration's budget priorities. The National Science Foundation request for fiscal year 2009 totals $6.85 billion, an increase of 13 percent from the enacted 2008 level. I am very pleased to see this level of commitment to funding basic scientific research and to maintaining our leadership in science and technology. It will be very difficult to provide increases of that magnitude given the many competing priorities and limited resources. But it is reassuring that you are being aggressive in requesting the resources. Let me say that I also associate myself with the Chairman in terms of the Augustine report, The Gathering Storm. That should never remain on the shelf. That should be always a goal for us to shoot towards. I look forward to your testimony today. And I will have a number of questions. And may I associate myself with just about all the remarks of the Chairman about the American Competitiveness Initiative and your efforts to improve science and technology education. Let me just take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, I know that you have been to Antarctica, to express my thanks to Dr. Bement and the National Science Foundation for including me as part of the group that was involved in the opening of the new South Pole Station. I wouldn't call the trip a life-altering trip. But in reality it did alter my view of the world. And gave me an incredible respect for the work that is being done there. And I know it is being done. Other types of scientific research is being done in other parts of the world. I had a very, very positive impression. And what impressed me the most is the number of young people, maybe because I am over 60. But the dedication. And you have seen it. The dedication of the men and women there and in other parts of the world. This is obviously one of the most inhospitable, yet most interesting places. The dedication--the true dedication of the workforce there, which is enlarged during the summer and shrinks during the winter. But I want to thank you and your staff for making that trip a remarkable trip. And I came away with a huge respect, a much greater respect, for the work of those who work with you. So thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Gentlemen, again, welcome to the hearing. Your written statements will be made a part of the record. And if you would proceed with your oral statements and summarize in any order that you wish. Thank you. Dr. Bement. Would you like to---- Mr. Mollohan. Do you have a preference, if not, we will call on Dr. Beering. Dr. Beering's Opening Remarks Dr. Beering. Okay. Thank you. Good morning. Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member Frelinghuysen and members of this Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to address you today. I am Steven Beering. And I am the Chairman of the National Science Board. I am honored to represent the 24 members of our Board before you today. I would like to thank the members of this Subcommittee for your long-term commitment and support of the National Science Foundation and our investments in the portfolio of research and education. We also applaud your strong bipartisan support for legislation over the past year that will bolster the U.S. leadership in science and technology, including the American COMPETES Act. The National Science Board and the broader science and engineering community are disappointed, however, by the actual appropriations in the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Bill, which erased most of the anticipated increases in support of research. In such an uncertain funding climate, we are concerned with the signal it sends to our potential partners in the National Science Foundation, but also the message to international and American students who may be deterred from pursuing science and engineering careers in this country. As many other countries invest heavily in science and engineering research, graduate a record number of scientists and engineers, and increase incentives to attract outstanding international students and scholars, it is a dangerous time for the United States to neglect our science and engineering enterprise. The National Science Board is committed to helping this country maintain our leadership in science and technology. In addition to its policy and oversight role at NSF, the Board has also addressed a number of significant policy issues for U.S. science and engineering. Let me cite a few. We are working with NSF to implement recommendations in several recent research and education reports, including the national action plan for addressing the critical needs of U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education system, our STEM report. Moving forward to improve engineering education. Hurricane warning, the critical need for a national hurricane research initiative. Enhancing support for transformative research at the National Science Foundation and science and engineering indicators, which includes the digest of key science and engineering indicators. And a companion piece policy statement entitled ``Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy.'' We will be introducing an additional report in March entitled ``International Science and Engineering Partnerships: A Priority for U.S. Foreign Policy and our Nation's Innovation Enterprise.'' And we just a few weeks ago began an in-depth study of renewable energy issues, which will be ongoing this year. In response to the American COMPETES Act, the Board has undertaken a number of actions. We recently sent reports to Congress to make recommendations on NSF policies regarding cost sharing and on preconstruction and management and operation cost coverage under the major research equipment and facilities construction account. And we will be preparing a final report for Congress on this subject later this year. The report is also--the Board is also reviewing the impacts of NSF policies on interdisciplinary research and on limiting the number of proposals for institution of high education for some awards. The Board will report back to Congress on both of these issues by August 2008. Finally, the Board will evaluate a pilot program for grants for new investigators at NSF and report these findings to Congress by August 10. For fiscal year 2009, the request for the National Science Board is $4.03 million, an increase of 1.5 percent over the fiscal year 2008 budget. Next year's budget will allow the Board to strengthen its oversight and policy duties for NSF and to provide independent scientific advice for the President and Congress. In addition, the Board will continue to increase communication and outreach with all of its stakeholders. For example, we continue to engage with numerous stakeholders to implement recommendations from our STEM education action plan. The National Science Board supports the fiscal year 2009 budget for NSF and for basic science research in other agencies of the President's request, so that we can begin to make up for the opportunities that we will miss this year under the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. You have my pledge on behalf of the Board that we will continue to work closely with the NSF Director to ensure that funding decisions continue to provide maximum returns on the taxpayers' investment in our Nation's future. Thank you very much. [The written statement of Dr. Steven Beering, Chairman, National Science Board follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Dr. Bement's Opening Remarks Dr. Bement. Yes, thank you. Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member Frelinghuysen, and members of this Subcommittee, I am pleased to present the National Science Foundation's budget for the 2009 fiscal year. NSF proposes an investment of $6.85 billion to advance the frontiers of science and engineering research in education. Our budget request includes an increase of $789 million or 13 percent over fiscal year 2008. This increase is necessary to put NSF back on the course that was charted by the American COMPETES Act and the President's American Competitiveness Initiative. This budget reflects the Administration's continued resolve to double overall funding for the NSF within ten years. Let me begin by expressing by sincere appreciation of this Subcommittee's support of the American COMPETES Act. I would also like to thank you for recognizing the importance of our agency operations and award management account in the 2008 Omnibus Appropriation. Our stewardship activities allow us to serve award recipients with tools such as the new grants management website, research.gov. The timing of this testimony coincides with a period of economic uncertainty in our country. I have come here today to tell you that an investment in the National Science Foundation is an investment in America's economic security. NSF provides the two essential ingredients of a healthy, high-tech economy: Basic research discoveries and a highly trained workforce. For over 50 years, NSF has been the foundation of innovation, fostering great ideas and the great minds who discover them. NSF discoveries have led to many of the technological innovations you and I take for granted today. And yet for fiscal year 2008, NSF's budget increase fails to keep up with inflation. By contrast, other nations of the world are steadily increasing their investments in STEM education and basic research and development. I assure you that multi-national companies will have no problem relocating their operations to the countries where they can find the best trained workforce and the latest research ideas. The world is changing. Lead times for new products are shrinking. Now more than ever, basic research discoveries are essential to keeping the wheels of innovation turning in America's high-tech companies. It is not merely enough to maintain the federal R&D investment status quo. It is our solemn obligation to keep up with corporate America's demand for innovative people and ideas. At NSF, we are responsive to emerging potentially transformative ideas of research. I would like to highlight some of our new cost cutting multi-disciplinary initiatives. We created these initiatives in response to inputs we received from the research communities we serve. We request $100 million to continue cyber-enabled discovery and innovation. Our bold two-year initiative, to apply revolutionary computational tools and concepts to all fields of science engineering and education. Our request includes $20 million for Science and Engineering Beyond Moore's Law. This initiative aims to position the United States at the forefront of communications and computation. Moving us beyond the limitations of current systems. We are requesting $15 million to fund Adaptive Systems Technology. Our new effort aimed at using all aspects of biological science to inspire transformative new technologies. Our request of $10 million for the Dynamics of Water Processes in the Environment initiative, will bring together researchers from various disciplines to enhance our ability to understand the complexities of fresh water systems at regional and local levels. In addition to our ongoing efforts in transformative research, we believe that a truly competitive workforce is one that reflects the full potential and diversity of the American people themselves. Our efforts to broaden participation in science and technology target students at all educational levels and from all geographic areas. We train the Nation's skilled workforce by providing research opportunities for undergraduates, graduate students, and post-docs. We research and evaluate effective STEM curricula for the Nation's K to 12 classrooms. And provide opportunities for teacher education. And we develop innovative programs for informal science and technology learning for students young and old in museums, through the mass media, and through other outreach activities that touch the imaginations of millions of Americans. Mr. Chairman, time does not permit me to describe the other numerous activities NSF sponsors to strengthen and support our Nation's science and technology research and education. NSF's relatively small size relies on its catalytic impact on all sectors of the economy. I am hard pressed to think of another example in which the taxpayers derive such a tremendous return on investment. Thank you for extending me the invitation to speak with this Subcommittee today. And I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. [The written statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AND NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD RELATIONSHIP Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Dr. Bement. I thank both of you for your testimony. You have an unusual relationship, unusual for a federal agency. The governing board has oversight responsibilities, program direction responsibilities, and the Foundation has implementation responsibilities. That balance between autonomy and working cooperatively must present such challenges. The Committee would appreciate the benefit of your discussion of those challenges as they exist, and how you work them out, and how that relationship is today. I would like both of you to speak of that. Dr. Bement. If I could lead off? Mr. Mollohan. Please. Dr. Bement. Being a member of the Board and also being a former member of the Board, I feel that the relationship depends very much on leadership and also on the congenial relationship between the Director and the members of the Board. We have very good leadership in Dr. Beering. And the relationship is better than I have known it for quite a long time. Obviously, there are issues that arise. Those need to be negotiated. And we do negotiate. They take continuing discussion with individual members of the Board. But I would say that those discussions are going quite well. Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Beering. Dr. Beering. Let me add that I have profound admiration and respect, not only for our Director and his deputy, but for all of the remarkable staff members that comprise the NSF group. We meet regularly, not only in connection with the Board, but also before and after and on occasions like this. And there is complete agreement on our objectives and on how we can work together to further the objectives of the Foundation. We are there to help the Foundation realize its goals and to serve the public in the best way we can. And I must say in my almost six years now, I have enjoyed this assignment very much. And look forward to continuing a very productive relationship. Mr. Mollohan. Are there any challenges before you today that pit the Board and the Foundation? Dr. Beering. I am unaware of that. Mr. Mollohan. How effective is oversight? Dr. Beering, do you feel like you are on top of oversight of the Foundation? Is the Foundation appreciative of that relationship? Dr. Beering. Well I think it is a collegial relationship. We are not an IG board. We work together as colleagues. And we understand each other's roles very well. We are really one common entity. And I have total confidence in what Dr. Bement and his associates are doing. Dr. Bement. I would like to add that the Board serves as a very important and effective interface, as well as a communication channel with the community at large. They represent the community. In some cases, they also provide the support for the Foundation in dealing with the community in setting budget priorities and in dealing with some of the hard policy decisions that we have to govern ourselves by. So I think that the Board, and the structure that we have, is very positive. U.S. LEADERSHIP IN SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION Mr. Mollohan. The Committee appreciates the work of the Board in developing the report, ``Science and Engineering Indicators of 2008.'' It makes clear that we are at a critical time for the nation in science and engineering. The report shows that the U.S. remains the world leader in scientific and technological innovation. But our leadership is being challenged in many areas. What trends most concern you, Dr. Beering? Dr. Beering. Well, I guess it is the beginning of the enterprise that most concerns me. And that is the subject of the STEM report. If we don't improve our STEM education enterprise, we are not going to have the manpower to compete effectively in the world of science globally. And that keeps being documented in our indicators report. We have fallen behind many other countries. And we would like to see us regain the advantage that we enjoyed at one point. And I think we can. But it is going to take a concerted effort by all of us. And there is no magic wand that we can wave. It is going to take a great deal of help by parents, by communities, by schools to get the underpinnings of our educational enterprise back in order. And I am looking forward to an early implementation of our recommendations, in particular the Non-federal Coordinating Council that would assist the 95,000 school board members around the nation in their work. NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR STEM EDUCATION Mr. Mollohan. You mentioned in your opening remarks a STEM action plan. Dr. Beering. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. Talk to us about that a bit please. Dr. Beering. Well the main thing is that we are recommending horizontal and vertical alignment of curricula efforts and a national non-federal coordinating council that would serve all of us. And then secondly, another main recommendation---- Mr. Mollohan. Excuse me, what does ``horizontal'' and ``vertical'' mean? Dr. Beering. This has to do with the flow of curricula opportunities for students. Right now when a student moves from one school district to another, he may miss the sequence of offerings that he would have had had he stayed in the same school district. And there just isn't any crosstalk among the school boards and school systems right now that would be desirable to make a smooth transition possible for the students. And the other big thing is that teachers are not paid in keeping with the marketplace value that they have. A math teacher, for example, can be employed by industry at a much higher salary than this individual would get in the school system. And that is why we see a great many of them bailing out after two to five years and going into the private workforce and leaving the school system. Mr. Mollohan. Okay, thank you. We have a number of members here today. And we are going to proceed on a five-minute rule in first round. And ten minutes in the second round to assure that everybody gets an opportunity to ask questions. And we will see how many members remain after that. But sticking to the five-minute rule, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Beering, you are responding to the Chairman's questions relative to what is called the National Education Plan; isn't that right? Dr. Beering. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You know, you mention 95,000 school board members. I mean, it is a thankless job. Dr. Beering. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And I just wonder, how are you going to shake things up? Maybe that is not the politically correct way to say it. You have got obviously 50 states, each with a history of doing somewhat whatever they have always done. There is always a question of how much an impact federal policy has. I mean, they are still arguing about the consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act. How do you and others that you are working with plan to insert yourselves into a situation, which is sort of traditionally hidebound, stove-piped. All those things that may be appropriate to other parts of the government. How are we going to get some success here? We can't sit around and argue philosophical things here. How are you going to insert yourself here? Dr. Beering. We are not proposing to have the National Science Foundation or Board manage individual school districts. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I wasn't suggesting that. I am just suggesting if we are going to vertical and horizontal. Dr. Beering. We are hoping that this National Coordinating Council will assist the individual school jurisdiction to structure a voluntary set of standards that everyone would subscribe to. And to also have a better flow of curricula events so that there is some coordination across the state lines and also up and down the system. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So this is what you have somewhat charged Dr. Marburger with; is that right? Dr. Beering. Yes indeed. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And his response to my question on that yesterday was a little cloudy and unclear. Dr. Beering. Okay. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Where do you think the situation stands? I mean---- Dr. Beering. Well, I think---- Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. You charged him and his office to create a standing committee within the National Science and Technology Council with the responsibility to coordinate all federal---- Dr. Beering. Right. Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. STEM education. How would you characterize where that might stand? Dr. Beering. Well I don't know how he feels about doing that. I hope that he is positively inclined, because so many federal initiatives right now that are not coordinated either. That was the intent of that particular committee to bring together the federal efforts. And to coordinate them. And then the National Coordinating Council, non-federal, would assist the individual states and school jurisdictions to coordinate the rest of it around the nation. It is going to take---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, I am all for it. Dr. Beering. Okay. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Quite honestly, I have always felt that between our Department of Energy labs, our military installations, and the resource of the National Science Foundation, we ought to be turning the eyes and brains of a lot of fantastic federal employees and for those in university- based research, more towards K through 12. And I assume this is something, which is happening. So maybe to Dr. Bement. His Board recommended create a roadmap for STEM education, K through 12 and then to college and beyond. Could you comment as to where you think we are? Dr. Bement. Yes. I think we are doing quite well. Our Education and Human Resources Directorate has not only taken that charge seriously, but has spent a lot of time this past year developing partnerships with our research directorates in order to facilitate the implementation of the plan. They identified five cross cutting themes, which will add impact and improve the outcomes of our education investments. One of those themes is really to do institutional integration, the vertical part of what Dr. Beering called attention to. Namely being sure that at critical junctures in the education process, there is a seamless transition, so that expectations for performance match requirements for higher level education. We call that our two plus two plus two approach. The first two is the last two years of secondary education, the junior and senior years in high school, including advanced placement and international baccalaureate programs. The second two are the first two years of undergraduate education, which brings in the community colleges as well. And then the third two-year period is the second two years of undergraduate education, which also includes matriculation of students from community colleges into four-year colleges and universities. Being able to stimulate and to guide students through those critical decision periods is part of the vertical integration I am talking about. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, you certainly gave some of my people in New Jersey a pretty clear path. I appreciate that. Dr. Bement. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I hope we are doing as well around the rest around the country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Mr. Latham. LEVEL OF INVESTMENT: U.S. VS. OTHER NATIONS Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome both of you. I'd like to step back in kind of a broader picture. Where are we compared to the other advanced nations as far as our level of investment? Can you give us kind of an overview? A lot of people think we are falling way behind. Is that, in fact, the case? What do we need to do? And how do we rank? Dr. Bement. Well, I will give you my impression. But Dr. Beering could talk more about the science and engineering indicator results. I think in terms of high-tech manufacturing and development of innovative products, we are still a world leader in terms of percent of global market share of wealth generated by that type of industry. On the other hand, we have to look ahead and look at the rate of change. And the rate of change is a little disturbing, not only because of the increasing rate of investment in China, where they vow that they are going to triple their investment over the next 20 years, but also because of their heavy investment in higher education, especially in graduate education, masters and PhD programs, which will greatly reduce the incentive of Chinese students to come to the United States and other countries for graduate education. Projections indicate that China will close the gap with the United States over the next 20 years, in terms of not only innovation potential but also market share for high-tech products. In order to address that challenge, we have got to keep our innovation system strong. But we even have to make it stronger. And so that is where my concern is. CHINA'S INVESTMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION Mr. Latham. Give me a comparison. I mean, you state there is a heavy investment in higher education, and advanced training in China. What does that mean? I mean, compared to what? How do they range? Dr. Bement. It is the founding of whole new universities and whole new graduate programs in China. A huge increase in investment. I can get you numbers for the record. But I don't have them off hand. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Latham. Okay, if you would. We hear about this all the time. I hear it. And I have Iowa State University in my district. We have difficulty getting top international students anymore to come in. A lot of them are going to stay in Europe or some are staying in Asia. Dr. Bement. The cost of education is a big factor. We are a very expensive country when it comes to the cost of education for international students, especially coming---- INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: U.S. VS. CHINA Mr. Latham. Do we know how much they are increasing, you know, percentagewise, their research--I mean, we have been reasonably steady. Dr. Bement. Well if you look at the increase in research investment, at the present time China is investing at the rate of one percent of their gross domestic product in research and development. Their intent is, by year 2020, to increase that to three percent of gross domestic---- Mr. Latham. Where is the U.S.? Dr. Bement. At present, we are at about 2.6 to 2.7 percent of GDP. And about two thirds of that is private sector investment; one third is federal investment or public sector. On the other hand, the public investment has been skewed very much more strongly toward development and away from basic and applied research. And so it tends to be much more short- term oriented than it had been in the past. And that is a concern, especially for the National Science Foundation. Mr. Latham. Dr. Beering, do you have any comments or---- Dr. Beering. Yeah. I might give you some numbers here. In terms of the U.S. versus China, our indicators show that China is rising rapidly, investing in capabilities associated with high-growth, high-technology industries. They have captured a growing export share of high technology and manufacturing, reaching 20 percent share in 2005, while our share declined from 23 to 12 percent. Japan's share declined from 21 to 9 percent, and the European Union from 39 to 28 percent. And we don't know how India is doing. But we suspect they are ramping up as well. So in a global context, we are reducing our efforts. And China is the remarkable tiger in the cage here. They are coming on strong. IMPACT OF FY 2008 APPROPRIATION ON THE NUMBER OF GRANTS FUNDED Mr. Latham. I know the fiscal year 2008 funding set you back. Can you give us any idea of how many fewer grants you were able to fund because of that? Dr. Bement. Yes, I can. The lost opportunity we had in 2008 as a result of the Omnibus Appropriation was the loss of 1,000 grants. Those are 1,000 new ideas that will have to be put on hold. In addition to that, since we educate graduate students through our research grants, that could represent as many as 1,500 graduate students that will not get support as research assistants. It could also represent 300 to 350 young investigators, within five years of their last degree, that will not get funding support this year. And I think that is a very big loss. Mr. Latham. How many grants do you give? You are saying 1,000 less. Dr. Bement. Last year, it was--I can give you the exact numbers. It was about 11,000 grants. Maybe I can. Here we are. Yes, last year we gave 11,500 awards based on 45,000 proposals. And we hope to increase that in the '09 budget by about 1,000 grants. Mr. Latham. Okay, very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will have some more questions later. URGENCY OF ADDRESSING STEM EDUCATION Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Honda. Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Dr. Bement and Dr. Beering, thank you for being here today too. October of last year, the Board released a National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education System. And I was really excited to be at the unveiling here on Capitol Hill. I support a number of your recommendations. Currently I am developing legislation to coordinate the STEM education activities of the state, the federal agencies, institutions of higher education, and business through the Council for STEM Education and for the establishment of STEM education at the Department of Education. And relative to that, my questions to both of you are what sense of urgency do you feel around making this a reality? And what might be the cost of waiting to provide the infrastructure to meet the challenges of what you have identified as a global economy? Dr. Beering. Well, I think it is urgent that we move ahead. But on the other hand, I would like to see us be deliberate. Do it right. So I am not going to set a time frame on it. I hope that everyone will agree that that is an issue that needs to be addressed at all levels. And that we ought to work together to achieve some of these proposals that have now surfaced as part of that STEM report. Mr. Honda. Well let me follow up on your comments. What you say is we should make haste with all deliberate speed. Dr. Beering. Deliberate speed, right. Mr. Honda. Starting when? Dr. Beering. Yesterday. As soon as possible. Mr. Honda. Okay. So it is an urgency that needs to be addressed now. Dr. Beering. Right. Mr. Honda. What you say is we should lay out the roadmap and those things--the components of it, check it off to see if there is concurrence. And then move on. And who would do that? Would that be the council that has been recommended to be put together? Do you have any idea? Dr. Beering. Well it would be multiple efforts. The council would be one. And the committee at Dr. Marburger's level would be another. The Department of Education, if they concur and appoint an organization within their department to address this issue, would be a third. The roadmap development that NSF is working on would be a fourth. And I think there need to be a great many collateral efforts that would all come together at the end. But we all need to work at it. Mr. Honda. Dr. Bement. Dr. Bement. Well you talked about partnerships. And partnerships are very important. We find in our Math and Science Partnership Program that bringing the private sector in, bringing community colleges into the picture, and also local and state governments are critically important in order to make progress. And in that program, we have seen that getting whole communities together, including parents and businessmen, has really made a difference in sustained improvement, continuous improvement, in the education system, because everyone reads the scorecard, everyone keeps track of improvements, and everyone cares. Now the issue is how do we do that at a larger scale? How do we do it at the stage of scaling up new initiatives, new interventions, new and best practices? And then how do we transfer that across the whole Nation? That is a higher order of partnership that we really need to work on. And that is where the state governments and the federal government have to be willing to come together on developing new standards, guidelines, and curricula improvements. Mr. Honda. So with respect to the action plan and developments of the council and the Office of STEM Education, were they not part of the thinking of the Board when they put the action plan together? Dr. Beering. That was part of it. Mr. Honda. Okay. Dr. Bement. We directly participated in the report of the Board. I would like to add, and I think it is very important to bring this before the Committee, that we have very close working relationships with the Department of Education at every level. And while we are doing the research and developing new best practices, we work closely with the Department of Education to link those to state efforts through their formula grant program in order to do just what I was talking about, in order to scale these efforts up, and also to transfer them broadly. I think that type of a partnership has been effective. And it would certainly be prominently represented in our roadmap. Mr. Honda. If there was a vision that was put together to coordinate all these things together, and if you have a statute that allows you to do that, an enabling act, it would seem to me that there would be some initiative on someone's part there to create at least the first step in participation of that. And if we look at our current curricula and the way it's established, it is pretty much disjointed, we don't coordinate our instruction of math, physics, chemistry. And the way science is going now with their nanoscale, there is an obvious convergence of biological life science and natural science. If we don't start talking about that and preparing our teachers and our students to think like that, the industry's going to be continuously pulling people together, creating that team, and creating that mind set. It seems to me that this is something that we should be looking at. Dr. Bement. Yes. I---- Mr. Honda. I am concerned about the sense of urgency. Dr. Bement. I fully agree with you. Right from the beginning of our nanotechnology initiative, we set aside funding to support education in the schools. And that is a very active program at the present time. In almost all of our advanced technology programs, we pay a lot of attention to upgrading curriculum and inserting new knowledge, contemporary knowledge. Mr. Honda. Right. Dr. Bement. That is critically important. Mr. Honda. Okay. And then in line---- Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Honda, we will get you next round. Mr. Price, please. Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome both of you to the Subcommittee. Dr. Bement, as time permits, I would like to take up two matters with you. The first being the funding for the Advanced Technological Education Program, the only NSF program focused primarily on community colleges. And I would like to ask you to tell us what the implications are of the President's proposed flat funding for that program in terms of the number of meritorious applications you will be able to fund. I may have to do some of that for the record. Dr. Bement. Yes. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING BEYOND MOORE'S LAW Mr. Price. Because I first want to turn to your Moore's law initiative. The international technology roadmap for semiconductors produced by the SIA and the Semiconductor Research Corporation, located by the way in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, projects that Moore's law will reach its limits around 2020. Dr. Bement. That is correct. Mr. Price. Now, my understanding is if we are going to be producing commercially-viable technology that goes beyond Moore's law by 2020, the key seminal papers conceptualizing that technology need to be published now or very soon. Others appear to be moving on the issue. A press release last week announced that the European Union plans to invest 3 billion euros. That is about $4.5 billion over the next ten years in nano-electronics. So it would appear your inclusion of funding explicitly targeted at taking science and engineering beyond Moore's law is very well conceived. With this situation in mind, including the competition we are facing, I wonder if that $20 million is a sufficient figure? It is not clear to me how that figure was arrived at. Nor is it clear how new this focus is. Is this $20 million new money newly focused on Moore's law? Or has a roughly equivalent amount been directed toward this problem in the past and this is more of an attempt at improved coordination? Dr. Bement. Well let me answer the question two ways. First of all, we have a working relationship with the Semiconductor Research Corporation. We both put a million dollars to supplement ongoing grants in order to look at particular issues that are on their roadmap. And that has been a very good working relationship. With regard to your second question, we see opportunities looking ahead to molecular electronics, which would bring in the biological sciences, looking at quantum dot devices and quantum electronics, which would bring in math and physical sciences as well as engineering. So what we are trying to do is to integrate across the Foundation initiatives that have been supported in each of the directorates and offices in the Foundation. So this is just the beginning, the first year of a growing effort to do that interdisciplinary integration and to call for proposals that will offer transformative ideas on how best to get beyond current CMOS technology on silicon. Mr. Price. That integration and improved coordination is worthwhile in and of itself. Do you have any estimate, though, of how much in the way of new investment or investment beyond past levels that $20 million represents? Dr. Bement. I'm sorry. I didn't understand. Mr. Price. How much of this is new money so to speak, or how much of it is just mainly pulling together existing projects and the funding streams? Dr. Bement. It is part of the increased funding we are requesting in 2009. So it is over and above the funding that we have been investing in this area. If you look at our overall initiative in communications or what we call the NITRD program, which is working in information technology research and development, it is well over a billion dollars all together. So this is the beginning of a new funding wedge that will deal with the cross integration through the Foundation. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION PROGRAM Mr. Price. As I said, I commend you for that. I think it is an important initiative. And hope that we can support it fully. As time permits, now let me turn to the ATE Program. I should acknowledge and commend both the Administration and the Committee for the increase in the current fiscal year that ATE has enjoyed, something like 11 percent, much needed. However, we are back now to the old pattern of flat funding. And I wonder what you would say about that. And explicitly what you would say about the kind of proposals you are receiving that have merit. And how many of them you are able to fund. Do you have figures or can you furnish figures about the---- Dr. Bement. Well, I can---- Mr. Price [continuing]. Number of ATE proposals submitted for 2007, what percentage of those were funded, and how many you anticipate funding for 2008. Dr. Bement. In fiscal year 2007, we received 185 proposals and made 53 awards for a funding rate of 29 percent. In 2009, we expect to make 70 new awards with the available funding. And the percentage of the budget that will be available for new awards will be 60 percent of the budget. Forty percent will be used to continue ongoing awards. And I can get the numbers for 2008 if you would like. Mr. Price. Well on the face of it I don't see how the funding we are talking about translates into that level of awards or that percentage of awards. What would you say in general about the merit of the proposals you are receiving in these areas and what in the best of all worlds we would be funding? Dr. Bement. Well this program enjoys a much higher funding rate than the Foundation in average. Our average funding rate is about 21 percent. So I would say that the awards that we are getting are very fundable. In terms of award size, that is variable. The Center awards range from about $375,000 to $1.25 million per year. But we also give awards for individual projects---- Mr. Price. Yes. Dr. Bement [continuing]. In addition to the Centers. And those range from $25,000 to $300,000 per year. So the total number of awards is a combination of those two categories. Mr. Price. Well, I would appreciate it. I know my time has expired. I would appreciate you presenting, if you will, for the record in tabular form the full account of the awards granted versus the applications for these three years we are talking about. And any other information you think would be relevant to help us assess where we are going with this program and where we need to go. Dr. Bement. Well we have that information. We would be pleased to provide it. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Price. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Mr. Schiff. Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just at the outset want to comment that the work being done at the Research Triangle is incredibly valuable and important. Although I think we all have to acknowledge that it pales in significance next to Advanced LIGO, which I think is done, oh, actually in my district. Mr. Price. I am shocked, Mr. Schiff, that you would even broach the subject. NSF FUNDING TRAJECTORY Mr. Schiff. I want to ask you about a couple of things. And if there is time, get back to Advanced LIGO. In terms of the overall budget for NSF, had you not been dinged by the Omnibus last year and gotten an increase last year that would have put you on track to double your funding, does the 13 percent increase this year make you whole in terms of where you would be on that trajectory? Or is it still short of that? If it is short of that, when you submitted the budget request or the proposal to OMB did you ask for more? That is my first question. Why don't you go ahead, either one of you. And I have a follow-up question. Dr. Bement. Well let me say that we are delighted, considering the amount of funding available for non-defense, discretionary spending, that the President has put us in a position where we can stay in the doubling track. So the 13 percent would keep us on that track. Mr. Schiff. So if you had gotten the increase last year, you wouldn't be any further ahead if you get the full 13 percent this year? Dr. Bement. Well if we had gotten the request last year, that would have been part of the 13 percent. So that would have made up about 7 percent of the 13 percent. Mr. Schiff. Okay. Dr. Bement. So this would be a continuation. Mr. Schiff. And I realize that your grantees would be further along---- Dr. Bement. Yes. Mr. Schiff [continuing]. If that happened. I am glad to see that the funding trajectory in the proposed budget has been restored. Dr. Bement. Well, there were a large number of programs that had to be put on hold. And there were a number of other programs that had to be flat funded. And quite frankly, there are certain facilities where there may have to be reductions in force as a result of that. POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE Mr. Schiff. Dr. Beering, let me ask you as an independent advisor to the Congress and the Administration, over the last several years there have been concerns raised in different fields within science and the Administration of politization of science. This was most notable in areas like global warming. From time to time large groups of scientists would write to raise this issue--that they considered that science was being put aside. Is there anything going on now in any of the areas of science that our government is involved in? Do you think that the scientific conclusions are being either ignored, changed, altered, diminished for reasons that are separate and apart from good science? Dr. Beering. Well in general I would say no. But there are some indications, for example, off and on that stem cell research has major promise for the treatment of diabetes, particularly juvenile diabetes and Parkinson's disease to cite two. And there is more interest on the part of the private sector than on the part of the public sector to support that. That is more on the NIH side than it is on NSF. That is the only one I cite right now. Mr. Schiff. I don't know if you have anything you would like to add on that question as well. Dr. Bement. Well we do have a robust program in determining the rate of climate change. And, of course, that is different in different parts of the world. So we study it in the polar regions especially, because that is where the change is most dramatic. We make all of our results publicly available. But we---- Mr. Schiff. Are either of you in a position where scientists who work within the Administration come to you and say, look, the work that I am doing and the conclusions that I am reaching are being misrepresented or are not being given the kind of public scrutiny that they deserve for reasons that I don't think are appropriate and are undercutting our work? Are you the kind of positions that people would go to if they had those concerns? Have you heard those concerns? Dr. Bement. As a matter of policy, we don't try to represent the research results of our grantees. We expect that they will present that type of information and full disclosure of their data in the open literature or other open formats on the Internet. So we look to the community itself to develop their own conclusions. Now just to give you a snapshot of where I think the community is at the present time, there is absolutely no doubt that we are entering a period of global warming. I think that issue has a clear consensus. There is also a clear consensus within the community that there is an anthropogenic forcing effect. That human beings are part of the problem. Where there is a lack of consensus is the degree to which that forcing function is driving our current climate change. How much is cyclical and how much of it is due to anthropogenic effect. And so there is a wide range of opinion. And it will take time, I believe, for the community, through further research, to narrow that range of variability on that issue. So I think that is pretty much where things are at the present time. Mr. Schiff. Am I out of time? Thank you. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Mr. Culberson. Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is I think the most satisfying part of my job is being able to help this wonderful Subcommittee, where there are no partisan distinctions when it comes to investing in the sciences and in NASA and in protecting the future of this country by investing in basic R&D. It is the one area I know that we can invest our dollars and know that it is truly going to improve the quality of life for our kids and our grandchildren. And it is--I mean it sincerely, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Frelinghuysen, and all of you. It is just a joy to work with you, because we are all on the same page. And it is a lot of fun knowing that we have got these wonderful--this wonderful, friendly competition going between North Carolina and California. And Rice University, with nanotechnology research, the work being done at the Texas Medical Center, where they are using gold nanoshells where they appear to have essentially cured cancer in soft tissue cancers using these gold nanoshells. And work that is being done with single wall carbon nanotubes at Rice University to improve the semiconductor, making Moore's law. Chairman Price, perhaps you are right. Absolutely using nanotechnology to make Moore's law obsolete is--it is just exciting stuff. My hero, Thomas Jefferson, always said he liked the dreams of the future better than the memories of the past. And this is the one area where we can make the dreams of the future come true. So I am thrilled to be a part of this Subcommittee and to help with it. And certainly to see the 13 percent increase. And Mr. Schiff's question is right on target. I am sorry you got dinged by the Omnibus but that the 13 percent gets you back on track. And thinking about the strategic importance of the National Science Foundation to the future of the Nation. And the need to keep you on a path to doubling and sort of insulated process, reminds me of the--if you think about the Congress over the years has insulated the Federal Reserve Board from the pressures of politics by setting them out to serve as an independent agency. The Congress has over the years protected the Government Accountability Office from the pressures of politics. And set them up as sort of an independent agency. The Congress has sort of insulated the Pentagon as essential to our strategic survival as immune from politics largely. And sort of set them and given them some special protections against the currents and winds of politics. And I really hope--I would really love to work with the members of this Subcommittee and think of a way, for example, for the--following up on what Mr. Honda is talking about when it comes to strategic planning for education. Why don't we think about long-term legislation? I would love to see the National Science Board for example be given the authority to give us a yearly budget. Just completely take science out of the President and the Executive Branch budgeting process. And let the National Science Board give the Appropriations Committee essentially a recommendation on what they think the funding level should be that is immune from politics and completely separate. I think we owe that to our kids and grandkids. NASA frankly ought to be in the same boat. I just threw it out, because I think it is important we think outside the box. We are facing challenges that this Nation has never really encountered before. And it is deeply disturbing. You are exactly right, Dr. Bement, to point out Norman Augustine's comment that unless we make substantial investments in basic scientific research, that the next generation of kids and our children and grandchildren may be the first in our Nation's history to see a lower standard of living. And I couple that with the fact that the GAO--and I don't know if many of us have focused on this or seen it, because it is not--may be not widely known. But David Walker, the Comptroller of the United States, has calculated that the existing financial obligations of the United States are about $54 trillion. It works out to $175,000 a person. We would all have to write a check for $175,000 to pay off the existing obligations of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the other federal government programs. And the only way we are going to dig out of that hole is by not only strict fiscal discipline here, and not just on this Committee, but on Ways on Means, all the authorizing committees for the big social programs. But investing in science. I mean, you truly, throughout the Nation's history it has always been the investments in science that have made the--helped it--you know, increases in productivity, increases in scientific advancement. We even have the possibility, Mr. Chairman and members, I-- in talking to the scientists at the Texas Medical Center, not only have they--I don't have a question here, because I am totally committed to you guys. I just wanted to share this with the Committee. They have literally almost cured cancer. They have literally been using gold nanoshells that they-- two female chemists at Rice University have developed. They can create a batch of gold nanoshells that will stick to only a particular type of cancer. And they inject them in your body. They will after 72 hours shine an infrared light on your body that travels through your body like our body is as transparent as glass. And the gold nanoshells then heat up under the infrared light killing the cancer cell they are sticking to. And without drugs, without surgery, without side effects, without chemotherapy, it kills every cancer cell in your body. And you are cured. And it works. Appears to be 100 percent effective. They are testing it now in head, neck, and throat cancers. That research is also leading to the--and this is being done in California as well. I am not sure about North Carolina or elsewhere. But I hope it is, because we all need to work together on this. But they can also take this a step further. Just to throw this out to you all. This is why this is so important what we do here and also at the National Institutes of Health, which by the way also needs to be pulled out of politics, because it is absurd that they have a flat funding this year. It is ridiculous. But very quickly, just let me share this with you. They cannot only with gold nanoshells cure cancer, but now technology they are developing nanosponges that they can--when a child is in the womb, with the amniocentesis not only determine if the child has birth defects, but identify genetically based diseases such as--Lou Gehrig's disease or polio or diabetes, et cetera. And this is literally being worked on right now in the Texas Medical Center using nanotechnology and research grants coming from the NIH and National Science Foundation. If the child is genetically predisposed to a particular disease, whip up a batch of nanosponges. And with a protein fix they can fix the genetic defect by reinjecting that back into the amniotic fluid. Which the child will then take up and cure the child's diseases before she is born. Just extraordinary. And that is all there within our reach. But every year you guys have to go from pillar to post, and fight the bean counters at OMB, and make the case to them that you need this funding. I mean, it is just absurd. And there are no party labels in this Committee. It is one of my--the whole Committee has been wonderful about it, but particularly this Subcommittee. And on Homeland Security, I mean, we are focused on the needs of the nation. I just want to tell you how proud I am of the work you are doing. How I am of this Subcommittee and how devoted I am. As conservative as I am, this is the one area where the answer is always yes. And I am just very proud of you. And look forward to working with you Mr. Chair, Mr. Frelinghuysen, and the Subcommittee members to make the dreams of the future come true. Dr. Bement. It only amplifies very elegantly the importance of one transformative idea. And that is where we are focused: at the frontier and supporting transformative research. STEM EDUCATION RESEARCH Ms. Melvin. Thank you, John. Mr. Culberson states the sentiment of the Committee. And you have to look on that--just compelled to say right now is you have to look to the Committees mark as it came out of Committee to appreciate the-- this Subcommittee's sentiment with regard to the National Science Foundation. And there is chagrin shared by every member of the Committee in the ding that you experienced in the Omnibus. We regret that. But we are glad to see your request put you back on track. There is a lot of interesting STEM research in education. What we do, what we model, how we model it, how you scale it up. I would like to give both of you an opportunity just to kind of summarize your feelings about what we ought to be doing in order to meet the challenge that is presented by--every year report to the Committee that we are falling behind or we are not catching up with regard to producing enough scientists and engineers. And what we need to do in our educational system in order to solve that problem. And every year we talk about it. And this does not seem to be a solution. But what are we doing? What is NSF's role? And is there adequate funding? Dr. Bement. I would like to focus for a moment on a very important element of education, which really deals with the goals of the America COMPETES Act and also the American Competitiveness Initiative, to stimulate innovation in the country. If you look at the growth of the STEM workforce, there are some problematic issues. The growth in the demand for stem scientists and engineers is growing at the rate of about five percent a year in high-tech industries especially. However, the growth in degree production is only going up at the rate of 1\1/2\ percent a year. Mr. Mollohan. I'm sorry, the growth in what? Dr. Bement. Degree production is about 1\1/2\ percent a year in science and engineering in STEM areas. The serious factor on top of that is that we are beginning to retire significant numbers of baby boomers. And that retirement rate will also begin to increase over the next five to ten years. So we are going to see very high level talent hollowed out from some of our laboratories, both defense and non-defense, and also from some of our industry laboratories. So the budget request for 2009 addresses that. And I should say that we don't prioritize separately science from education, because they are integrated. Research and education are totally integrated along with broadening participation in the Foundation. So they are all equally important. And as an illustration of that, we support the education and training of our graduate students through the research grants that we provide. And 95 percent of our total budget goes out the door in the form of grants. Now in 2009, we will be able to support the education and training just through our research grants of 40,775 graduate students, which will be an increase from 2008 to 2009 of 5,000 graduate students. Through our fellowships and traineeships, we will be able to provide fellowship and traineeship support to 5,450 graduate students. Those are the students in the next three to four years, five years perhaps at the outset, that are going to provide a stimulus to keeping our innovation system strong, and help offset some of the losses that we are likely to see over the next five years due to retirements and other factors. Mr. Mollohan. Does this solve our problem? Dr. Bement. It would certainly be a step in the right direction. It is pretty hard to know what would totally solve the problem. I don't think the numbers are adequate. But I think they are going to be helpful. GRADUATE RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS Mr. Mollohan. The graduate research fellowships you are talking about, is that what you are talking about---- Dr. Bement. Yes, the graduate research fellowships. Mr. Mollohan. A 32 percent increase in---- Dr. Bement. There is a 32 percent increase, which will increase the number of graduate research fellowships by 700, which is a significant increase. And it will make up for some of the losses in 2008 for that matter. I should point out that in our graduate research fellowships, our flagship fellowship program, about 73 percent of those who get these fellowships go on and complete their PhD. And over the history of this fellowship program, we have supported the work of 29 Nobel Laureates. Furthermore, Sergey Brin, who is the founder of Google, started his research with a graduate research fellowship at Stanford in ranking websites. And, of course, what we see is a return on that investment in a relatively short period of time, in ten years or less. So these are the types of returns we are getting from this fellowship program. And it is also a way of providing talent directly to both universities and industry. As they graduate, they take with them their knowledge, their skills, their understanding of where the frontier is, what new ideas are viable, commercially viable, that can make a difference. And, of course, it is not just in industrial settings. It is also in medicine and many other settings as well. Mr. Mollohan. Well, that part of your answer focuses at the graduate level. Dr. Bement. Yes. PRE-K TO 12 EDUCATION Mr. Mollohan. Should we be doing something at the earlier? Dr. Bement. Absolutely. It has to be along the entire pipeline. And it is for that reason that the Foundation starts even before kindergarten, pre-K all the way to postdocs. Mr. Mollohan. I know you do, but what should we be doing at pre-K and K through 12? And are we doing it? And is there adequate funding for it? Dr. Bement. We should be, to start with, starting earlier in exposing young minds to hands-on activity related to science and engineering technology. Mr. Mollohan. Are you looking at how you do that? Dr. Bement. Yes. It is a very important part of our program. Mr. Mollohan. And when do you---- Dr. Bement. It is not just in doing research on how early that can be effective, but what else should be taught in the earlier grades. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well---- Dr. Bement. But also how to prepare teachers to provide that type of education. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well, just focusing on that very early age, what are you doing, and I'm not saying you alone? What are we doing as a Nation? And I am very interested in the NSF's role. With regard to pre-K, the group you are talking about right now, what should we be doing? What are we doing? Is there adequate funding? It is one thing to do it in the laboratory, but how do you communicate this to the educational community and implement it? And is it possible to implement it? Dr. Bement. I think you are getting in an area where I should have Dr. Ward respond. Mr. Mollohan. Sure. Dr. Bement. Dr. Ward is Deputy Assistant to the Director of our EHR Directorate. Mr. Mollohan. Because honestly every year we say this. We have this discussion. But the products maybe aren't developed. But they are not implemented. They don't become a part of the educational system. So---- Dr. Ward. May I speak loudly? Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Dr. Ward. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. You certainly may. Yes. MATH AND SCIENCE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM Dr. Ward. I would follow along what Director Bement mentioned earlier. Just one example is the Math and Science Partnership. And that is a program that focuses very heavily on teacher education, most particularly professional development of existing teachers. But some aspects of pre-service also, trying to make the connection before students actually become teachers. We have evidence based on some of the tools that have been developed with the Math and Science Partnership, working in close collaboration with the Department of Education. That even early in this program, which began around 2000 or so, we are seeing significant improvement in student test scores, which is one indicator. Not the only indicator. But in both science and math, at the elementary through the high school level, through the math and science program, they work very--in a very engaged fashion as Dr.---- Mr. Mollohan. So you are employing this program on a trial basis in some areas---- Dr. Ward. Well MSP is---- Mr. Mollohan. Is that---- Dr. Ward [continuing]. Nationwide. And it has almost 52 partnerships in existence now. And we have evidence of the effectiveness of this large teacher education program. And it results in the students---- Mr. Mollohan. So it is still a trial. How would you characterize the effort? Is it a trial? Dr. Ward. It is trial in the sense of the development of research and development of assessment tools of curriculum practices, of master/teacher strategies, and the like. Mr. Mollohan. What is it called? Dr. Ward. Math and Science Partnership. Mr. Mollohan. Math and Science Partnership. Dr. Ward. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. And when do you draw conclusions about the success of the program and make recommendations based upon that success? Dr. Ward. That is part of the scale up and transfer---- Mr. Mollohan. When does that happen? Dr. Ward. After adequate assessment. Mr. Mollohan. Well, I mean, I was looking for kind of a period, a time. Two thousand ten or two thousand nine. Dr. Ward. Well recently some of the evidence that we have as recently as 2006 is convincing enough. It is early data. But it is convincing enough that it is being adopted by some of the state education MSPs. Policies are being implemented statewide in places like Georgia. Other locations as well on the basis of convincing evidence that is resulting from assessments underway by some of the best experts in the field. And, again, this is from elementary through high school. It is encouraging. It is still early. But it is encouraging. It is impressive enough to be picked up by the state level. Mr. Mollohan. Do you anticipate it being--I don't know how you would characterize it, but a product that can be taken by a school system at different grade levels and implemented in their system and---- Dr. Ward. We have many examples of that. Mr. Mollohan. Yeah. Well, that's exciting. Dr. Ward. We are working with the University of Michigan. Statewide work in Georgia now adopted from those kinds of assessments. Mr. Mollohan. And it is still ongoing. I would be interested in following up. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Would the Chair yield? Mr. Mollohan. Since he is finished, I will yield to you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You might just remain standing for a minute if you don't mind. Thank you. On the Math and Science Partnerships, I want to get a little more specific. Most of the money goes to the U.S. Department of Education, is that right, about $179 million. The National Science Foundation portion is $51 million. Is that flat, or has there been a reduction? And if there has been a reduction, was there some sort of method to that? Dr. Ward. A few years ago there was a very steep reduction to the NSF investment in the Math and Science Partnership. We are very encouraged that we are seeing a reversal of that. Even last year, there was a significant reinfusion of funds back into the Math and Science Partnership. And even now there is about--I believe about a five percent, five and a half percent, growth rate. And as was mentioned earlier, as existing awards come to completion, we can fund up to 15 to 20 new Math and Science Partnerships over several categories of this program. So we are pleased about that. We are pleased about the impact that we can make, not only in the return of our budget. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Dr. Ward. But, again, in terms of being able to transfer and disseminate the findings of these tools at the research throughout all of the Math and Science Partnership. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for the good work you are doing. Dr. Bement. I can augment that just a moment. And Dr. Ward hopefully will correct me if my numbers wrong. But I think at the present time we have Math and Science Partnerships in about 30 states; is that correct? Dr. Ward. That is correct. Dr. Bement. And about two thirds of the states are participating in implementation of some of the methods that are developed out of our Math and Science Partnership. And that is through full participation of the Department of Education, which has responsibility for scaling these programs up. So I see our respective roles of the National Science Foundation doing the research and development to determine what works and can be shown to work through effective evaluation and the Department of Education working with the states and with the National Science Foundation to make what works work more broadly in our education systems. Now at present, we only touch about 5 percent of all the school districts in the country. There are roughly 15,000 to 16,000 school districts. So it is a daunting task to carry on that transformation throughout the country. But that is what we have to do. That is the challenge that we have. And that is where the---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. I don't mean to be solicitous. You have huge credibility. Dr. Bement. We have a large footprint. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes, you do. And not to say that the Department of Education doesn't. But when your stamp of approval goes on there, a lot of thought, and time, and effort goes into it. I commend you for your involvement. And at every opportunity, we need to promote. Dr. Bement. And I see the good work of the Board in developing their action plan is addressing that issue. INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR Mr. Frelinghuysen. I wasn't leaving the Board out. But I appreciate their support. Dr. Bement, I want to shift somewhat dramatically, but not because of the absence of the Chairman. Your involvement as the lead agency for the International Polar Year---- Dr. Bement. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I sort of wear my heart on my sleeve. I would like you to talk about your leadership in that arena. Where are we working with our international partners? And why these polar missions, and particularly our work at the South Pole, is so important in the overall scheme of things, relative to scientific exploration, pushing that envelope in those unique harsh regions. Dr. Bement. Well I think our leadership has existed on several fronts. One is we were the lead agency for the interagency program of the U.S. and our being involved in the International Polar Year. But we have also worked with international organizations as well, ICSU and some of the other international organizations that started this whole initiative, the International Polar Year. But also we have taken a multi-national approach and both in the Arctic and the Antarctic we have multi-national initiatives. Not only to study climate change, but also ice sheet stability and other global issues that are before us. For example, in the Antarctic, you saw the Andrill Coring Operation. That was an international partnership. Some of the coring that is going throughout the ice sheet in the Antarctic involves cooperation with several nations. In the Arctic, we are working with a number of nations now to set up an Arctic Observing Network. So it is not just what is occurring in the International Polar Year, which will end this year. It is the legacy that we will leave behind that will be ongoing activities involving international participation. But also in capturing all the data that is coming out of this two-year effort and mining it in the future to get a better understanding. Mr. Frelinghuysen. It has been a while since we have had an International Polar Year. Dr. Bement. That is right. They come every 50 years. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. It has been a while. The effort is something which I quite honestly was not totally aware of. Dr. Bement. Well we are putting infrastructure in place that didn't exist before the International Polar Year. And that new infrastructure will support science going forward over the next---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Your Office of Polar Programs has an 11 percent increase. And I assume you are going to put that to good purposes. Dr. Bement. Absolutely. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I just had a comment. As I said earlier, I was impressed by the dedication and relative youth of those that are involved with the research on behalf of the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies. And the university connections, and obviously people are very proud of their own university-based research, and I think we had a brief discussion. I think that the National Science Foundation ought to be somewhat--I won't say selfishly more identified with some of those projects, because were it not for your--you know, the reviews that you make in a very--some of those university-based projects would perhaps never see the light of day. I do hope and I know that each of these sites that I visited has a Web site. And in reality we need to put a human face, even though it may be difficult for me to explain exactly what--although I did see certain things in the sediment. To think that you could actually transmit that scientist, that man or woman, the work that they are doing, right into an American classroom, that speaks of why we--why we are doing so much in terms of STEM education. I just wondered if you would speak to that issue briefly. Dr. Bement. I am glad that you brought that up, because it is a very important part or our International Polar Year. Apart from the publications that each of the individual scientists put into the public domain, we have, as part of our leadership, established an IPY Web site that brings together all the work of all the agencies that have been involved in this program, and makes that information available to the public. In addition to that, through our public outreach activities, and our Office of Public and Legislative Affairs, we have any number of initiatives, more than I could recite briefly, but we can submit this for the record, where we are informing the public not only through museums but by other means. And I would like to have the opportunity to provide that information. [The information follows:] National Science Foundation Public Outreach Activities The National Science Foundation's Office of Legislative and Public Affairs has formed a variety of partnerships to communicate science broadly through print, broadcast and multimedia outlets, including the Internet, newspapers, magazines, public forums, television, and radio. Below are a few examples. national media partnerships NSF has partnered with the ResearchChannel to provide 150 hours of programming a year. The programming includes a series of scientific lectures, panel discussions, and new and archived video from research and educational communities. ResearchChannel is available in more than 26 million U.S. households. Another recent partnership is with U.S. News & World Report. NSF provides weekly content for the newsmagazine's science section on http://www.usnews.com/sections/science/index.html. In addition, NSF works with universities and colleges around the Nation to publish weekly articles and daily images or video to Live Science (http://www.livescience.com/index2.html), an online community news resource that attracts more than 4 million visitors each month. new online tools NSF is collaborating with the AAAS Center for Public Engagement with Science and Technology to offer online communication webinars, how-to tips for media interviews, strategies for identifying public outreach opportunities, and more via ``Communicating Science: Tools for Scientists and Engineers'' (http://communicatingscience.aaas.org/Pages/ newmain.aspx). And, in order to better illustrate the outcomes of NSF- funded research, NSF is developing a Science and Innovation Web site that highlights research by state, region, and Congressional district. This site is under development and will be launched in fall 2008. collaborative efforts NSF's public affairs office has established two-day workshops with public information officers at American colleges, universities, and research institutions to foster stronger collaborative communications efforts. A related Web site--the Public Information Officer Resource Center--offers a forum to share ideas and learn more about how NSF can help reach diverse audiences: http://www.nsf.gov/news/nsfpio//. POLAR ICEBREAKING Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well thank you. And lastly, we had some discussion with Dr. Marburger. I am not sure we caught him off guard on the fact that our Antarctic stations are dependent on ice breaking capability. I am not sure he was prepared for that question. Could you sort of talk about that issue just for the record? Obviously, we have been able to count on a far and assist. But the Committee had some interest yesterday. Maybe that was reported to you, where we should be making investments. And we certainly don't want to do it at the expense of your budget. Dr. Bement. Our primary interest is, of course, to support science in these extreme environments. So the ice breaking we support. It is primarily for that mission only. Recognizing that there are other missions for ice breakers. With regard to that responsibility, we are also required under executive directive that we do it in a most cost effective way. And we have benefitted from the availability of the Oden to break through the ice to McMurdo. Primarily because they bring their own fuel, they are not dependent on McMurdo. They have berthing space and laboratory space to support scientists. So it is really a research vessel as well. And that is an added benefit. But getting beyond ice breakers per se, we are also trying to invest in our infrastructure to use renewable energy, instead of using fuel to reduce the fuel loading. But also to find alternate ways to transport fuel from McMurdo to the South Pole. And improve our storage capacity, so it may not in the future be necessary that we break through the ice each and every year. We will have enough storage capability to perhaps skip a year from time to time. Those are the economies that we constantly look at with regard to logistics support. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Honda. Mr. Honda. Thank you. If I could direct the question to the Assistant Secretary. Mr. Mollohan. Deputy. PRE-K TO 12 PROGRAMMING Mr. Honda. I am sorry, I didn't know your name. But just to pick up the conversation on what the Chair had asked about. The question really was towards pre-kindergarten I believe. And you were addressing kindergarten and on. What are the kind of activities that are being geared towards pre-K and those from K-12 on? My sense of what is going on in the field is that what you are describing is not really out there as of yet. You said there are 20 states, two third of the 30, which is 20 states, that are actively involved. Do you have a written report on this kind of activity? Dr. Ward. I certainly can provide that. We can provide ample detail to that. Mr. Honda. By when? Dr. Ward. But thank you also for the follow up. In addition to that program, and I will--you are correct. The emphasis is on elementary through high school. There is some involvement through significant outreach through parental involvement and the like, even at the pre-K before they actually get to kindergarten. But another very important avenue for us at NSF is through our Informal Science Education program. We can provide that information to you as well. There is significant outreach through exhibits, through the media, Bill Nye the Science Guy, through our teacher proposals. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Honda. Okay. So that you will have that in writing. And the mechanism by which you extend this information. Dr. Ward. Absolutely. STEM POLICY NATIONWIDE Mr. Honda. But this is not in a formal manner. It is what you are doing as a matter of course at this point in time. The issue about the council and the office of STEM education, the office of education, as a person from that department, is there a need for this focus in order for us to be able to move forward and accomplish what we are asking about the coordination of the different disciplines? And the disciplines are only in the science areas. It is not in ethics or any other humanities, which I think it should be part of the full educational process. So that we have citizens who understand, who are exposed to science as well as the humanities. But the Office of Education and establishing the Office of STEM Education, is that something that you see as necessary to accomplish the goals that have been laid out? I know it is a loaded question. Dr. Bement. That is a question for the Administration. I can't really speak for the Administration on that issue. Mr. Honda. Well, we are putting together a bill. And that was part of your action plan. It was part of your recommendation. Dr. Bement. Yes. But the report put out by the Board was not just for the NSF. It was for the federal government at large. So it was policy advice to the Administration for the most part. In other words, it is a report for the nation more than anything else. Would you---- Dr. Beering. I think the problems that we are confronting today as a world, which is a small world, a flat world, we can communicate instantly around the globe, are really issues of humanity and society that affect everybody. And it is not just while the manifestations may be local, it isn't just an American problem or a Japanese or Chinese problem. It is a global problem. And so I look forward to presenting to you the ideas that come from our international task force, which we will get to you in a matter of weeks. And the key word there is partnerships around the globe. And we would like to foster an environment where we work together on commonly recognized issues that affect all of us. And I guess what is the biggest challenge is going back to Plato and Aristotle and Socrates is how can we frame the best questions to address all of these issues that would be understood and subscribed to by the people around the world? We need to take the lead in that, because we have the resources, we have the background. We have the fundamental ability to make a huge difference for everybody. And I look forward to that. Mr. Honda. Through the Chair again. Intellectually I understand what you said. Practically in terms of taking action, we know what we have to do. You laid it out there as recommendations of a plan of action. You know, to be partners and full partners, we have to be prepared to do that. And part of that preparation it seems like we are not preparing our systems to do that. We know what we have to do. We know how to extend Moore's law to 2010-2020. The nano initiative says that. We can accomplish income that exceeds a trillion dollars. And also extend Moore's law. I think it is up to 50 years in this arena. The more I know these factors, it seems to me somehow there should be a sense of urgency to have our departments work together, come out with a plan, and lay it out in front of us so that we can say ``yea'' or ``nay'' and fund it appropriately, teacher education, student preparation, and parent participation. Maybe I am missing something. Dr. Beering. I think you are right on. And I love the attitude that you have all displayed here. And I would like to take up Mr. Culberson's charge to be nonpolitical and nonpartisan. And not be constrained by arbitrary budget restrictions. It would be exciting. GRADUATE RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. And Dr. Bement, when I left we were talking about education funding. And I wanted to give you an opportunity to speak to the graduate resource fellows program. We understand how important they are and how important they are to you. Your request in 2009 is for $117 million. That is--if this is accurate, this is a 32 percent increase. But it is actually a request above the authorization. So do you know you are asking for a request above the authorization? I mean, it is fine that you do that. But I want to give you an opportunity to---- Dr. Bement. I wasn't aware of that. Mr. Mollohan. Yes. I just want to give you an opportunity to talk about how important that program is to you, because that is a big increase you are asking. Dr. Bement. I think it is the most important investment we can make in our graduate education program and in our fellowship program. I think I expressed myself a little bit earlier about the impact of that program, potential impact, and why we consider it so important. The more top talent that we can put out into our innovation system in the short term, in the next four or five years, the better. I believe this is one of the best investments we can make. And I would give that very high priority. EPSCOR FUNDING Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Thank you. You in your op plan, and we just received it last night, I had a chance to see it. I knew you were the high-tech agency. When it came across, we couldn't open it last night. Maybe it was our fault. Your justification would suggest that you are going to recommend funding EPSCoR at $111 million. Dr. Bement. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. We included $115 million in the conference agreement. So you have nicked that. And then your 2009 request is $114 million. Dr. Bement. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. So how do you--what is your reason? Dr. Bement. Well, first of all, we consider the EPSCoR a major program as far as the American Competitiveness Initiative. We can't meet the Nation's goals to be internationally competitive without full participation of the EPSCoR states. In structuring the budget, however, we pay attention to the number of commitments we have in terms of continuing grants, renewal grants, and also new proposals for all of the 27 states that are part of the initiative and the two districts. And as we look at the 2009 budget year, we feel that we put enough funding in for all the expected RII grants and also the track 2 grants. So we feel we not only are prepared to meet those commitments, but we might even have a little extra money left over, which is often the case. And it means carrying over funding from year to year. And, of course, that funding got rescinded as part of the Omnibus Bill. The problem we have is lack of flexibility, because there is a partition of what we can put into the RII program and what we can put into the co-pay program. And I consider that unfortunate, because we have now increased the leveraging of the co-pay program over time. It used to be a dollar for dollar. Now it is two dollars for a dollar. So we get much more bang for the buck in order to leverage the funding in the EPSCoR account by funding provided by the other directorates. And it would be very helpful to us if we had the flexibility of taking money that we may not use for the RII grants and put that into co-pay in order to use all the funding effectively. So the short answer to your question is I think I believe we have put enough money in the 2009 budget to meet all of our requirements. EPSCOR PROGRESS Mr. Mollohan. Okay. How are the states doing in the EPSCoR program? How do you measure how they are doing? Dr. Bement. Well one way we intend to measure it-- first of all, I brought the program up to the office of the Director in order to try and make it more strategic and to put more of a planning component into the program. That has been embraced by each of the EPSCoR states. And they are now developing strategic plans, which not only deal with how they are going to invest the resources, but also how they are going to graduate over time. So it is a much more proactive stance than we have had in the program for some years. We haven't seen those plans yet, but they will be forthcoming with new proposals. At the present time, looking at the states that are in the EPSCoR program, there is only one state that is close to graduating under the current criteria for graduation. And that state is just a little bit below the mark, which is .75 percent of the NSF budget. They are .7477 percent, which is getting awfully close, even out to the third decimal point. But that generally has to be sustained and demonstrated over a three-year period. Going beyond that one state, the numbers trail off very rapidly. So many of the states are not going to be ready to graduate for many years to come. Through our outreach activity, we hope we can continue to improve the effectiveness of the program, but also improve the competitiveness of these states for getting grants in our base program through all of our directorates. And, of course, that will be the measure of success; how successful they are going to be in order to get normal grants and compete with other scientists throughout the community. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Oh, Mr. Latham. PLANT GENOME RESEARCH PROGRAM Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I understand in your budget proposals, you proposed to move the National Plant Genome Research Program from one program to another. And there is great concern that this will effectively reduce the funding for that type of research by about 25 percent. Clearly, that would have a very negative impact as far as plant biology, as far as current/future crops. I just wondered if you could give me any assurance that type of reduction will not occur. The Chairman may remember we had a great witness at the end of last year that spoke about the importance of this project. If you could give me any kind of information. Dr. Bement. I can assure you that that program will not be reduced. It is one of our most important programs. In fact, it is more important now than it has been. We are making good progress in completing the understanding of Arabidopsis as a standard. We are now into a ten-year program to understand the expression of all the genes in the genome. That is critically important as a reference. We have a very active program in completing genomes for rice, maize, and other crops of economic importance. And now we are on the threshold of dealing with biomass for energy conversion. And so the science that we are doing on plants is also dealing with the recalcitrance of extracting sugars from these plants and also advanced processing. And perhaps even eventually getting to green gasoline, converting biomass directly to gasoline. That is quite possible. BIOFUEL RESEARCH Mr. Latham. Yeah. Well and that is exactly my next question, talking about ``green gasoline.'' Could you maybe elaborate on that? And what other types of research projects are you funding in that biofuels, and you know, green gasoline area? And what impact? Dr. Bement. I can give you three or four examples. But I welcome being able to present a more complete---- Mr. Latham. Right. Dr. Bement [continuing]. Listing for the record. Investigators at the University of Wisconsin, in collaboration with the Danish Technical University and the Max Planck Institute in Munich, have explored the use of using inorganic catalysts to take the sugars that come out of the early extraction process, converting them directly to what is called furfurals, which is a precursor to gasoline. Now that process has been brought to a demonstration stage. In fact, it is a truck-mounted demonstration we want to bring to the Hill one of these days to show you how this works. But we still have to get through that first stage of extracting the sugars from the biomass. Part of the research really has to do with how can you, by bioengineering, design plants that are more amendable to processing so that recalcitrance can be overcome? Some of this work is being done jointly with the Department of Energy as well. We have another program that deals with the biocatalysts, which are poisoned by the alcohol. And so there is a dilution factor. It has to be sufficiently dilute, so you don't destroy the biocatalyst. Researchers at MIT are using genetic engineering to actually come up with biocatalysts that are much more resistant to alcohol poison. And we will be able to work with much more concentrated liquids, and get much higher yields. Finally, the third example would be work at UCLA, I believe, in looking at production of isobutanol, which is a much more effective fuel, insomuch as it has the same energy content as gasoline. It has a much lower vapor pressure than ethanol. And you don't have to take range penalty as far as mileage in the blending of gasoline with alcohol. And there are many other advantages that have to do with compatibility in storage containers and so forth, because it doesn't take up water as ethanol does. So those are just a few examples. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Latham. What we do in this area is absolutely critical. We passed the energy bill last year with substantial renewable fuel standards. And a great deal coming from cellulose production of fuels. And we are not there. With current technology, there is no way we are going to meet that standard. And that is why I think your research is absolutely critical. Dr. Bement. Cellulose is about the only pathway forward. So we have to crack that. Mr. Latham. I guess I have a few other questions I would submit for the record. Is Culberson really with you on this stuff? Dr. Bement. We would welcome any of you to come to NSF and spend some time with us. AGENCY STEWARDSHIP Mr. Latham. In your brochure here with your budget request--I understand the pie chart here and the discovery learning, research infrastructure, etc., and the $404 million of stewardship. From the description, I don't know exactly what this is, ``Support excellence in science and engineering research and education through a capable and responsive organization.'' I am not sure what that is. Maybe it is---- Dr. Bement. That---- Mr. Latham. Maybe it is me. But what is ``a capable and responsive organization''? Dr. Bement. Almost the bulk of that is for agency operation and award management expenses. That includes salary and space. But it also includes our management of the whole grant processing cycle and also our pre-award and post-award auditing of performance under those grants. So it is something that involves the whole agency. In addition to that, it also includes support for physical security, as well as our information systems within the agency: Systems like FastLane, which is how proposals come to the Foundation, but also systems within the Foundation for processing those proposals. It deals with many other administrative systems that we have. And it also helps support upgrading some of our technology systems within the Foundation, which because of shortfalls in this account over the last two or three years, have gotten pretty seedy and really need to be replaced or refurbished. Mr. Latham. Maybe if you just point administrative costs, ongoing expenses to run---- Dr. Bement. This is within the five---- Mr. Latham. It may be a little clearer to me anyway. Dr. Bement. This is within our five percent overhead that makes the other 95 percent worthwhile. Mr. Latham. Thank you very much. And keep up the great work. Appreciate it. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Frelinghuysen. INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS Mr. Frelinghuysen. I just have a few sort of general comments. You know, as I read this report, and I know this is a distillation of a much larger report, Dr. Beering, there is some level of optimism. Dr. Beering. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. But then there is a sort of an onset of somewhat pessimistic projections. You know, we are three years into the American Competitiveness Initiative. And I am not quite sure how we judge our success to date, how you would. How do we define and measure how we are doing in the competitiveness arena? And I don't want to have this a play on words. But, you know, when you talk about the American Competitiveness Initiative, and I don't mean to be Chinese centric here, but let us say that there is a countervailing for us in the Pacific known as Chinese competitive initiative. They have quite a different system of government. And they can make things happen. We have our own stove pipes. We have our structure. We have our own, these days, architecture, all this. You know, I sort of would like to have a better handle as to how we are doing relative to what appears to be in your own words here, ``their acceleration on a lot of fronts.'' I serve on the Defense Appropriations Committee. I get the view that they are doing things in their education system, obviously, dealing with a massive population. But they are teaching English starting in the second or third grade. I mean, we would have to have one major transformation in our country to meet the Chinese competitive initiative, if there is one. I sort of was sharing somewhat anecdotally when I should have been paying attention. I was so enthused by Congressman Culberson. We look towards the next budget cycle. And, you know, that the fact that 1,000 young people might not get their scholarship grants. But our Chinese competitors, and I am not picking on the Chinese, I am hugely admiring, they are looking towards 10 or 15 or 20 years. Here we are on the edge of a recession. They are not immune to the things that are out there. They may, in fact, in some ways contribute to it. Some say they might provide stability by owning our paper. They maybe even own some of our subprimes. Somebody's got to own them. I want to sort of get your take on where we are going. I am not an alarmist. There is a little bit of sugarcoating here. Would you react to my statement? I know I have been all over the map. But I think we are dealing with a major power here that really has got its act together. Dr. Beering. I guess a good summary would be that we are not falling further behind in this particular set of indicators, as compared to previous two-year reviews of that. And we admire what they are doing in the Far East. And certainly there are cultural differences that are profound. The individual initiative that is exhibited by Koreans and the Chinese students is extraordinary. We see that in our own universities when they come here. They work day and night. They don't seem to need to sleep or eat. They are just constantly engaged. And it is tough for our students when they see an Asian student in their midst to try to out compete that person. So they just give up. They say, ``Well, we know they are smart. They wouldn't be here otherwise. They work harder. And so we will just let them do their thing.'' And when you go over there, which I have done, and you see what happens there, it is astounding. They bring their mats to the office and to the laboratory. They don't even go home. And they are just there. They work. That is a cultural thing that I don't think we can bring about here. I see some of this in Ireland by the way where I have also visited. And the parent involvement there is profound in their K-12 system. And it is not acceptable to drop out of school like we have a huge problem here with school drop outs all over the country. It is just not done. And the parents see to it that the kids do their homework. They actually come to school with them. And they help the teachers in the classroom. And it is a kind of a community effort. Well it is not a community effort in the United States unfortunately. And we hope that we can focus ourselves on these challenges and do better. Mr. Frelinghuysen. To some extent, you know, obviously we don't want to denigrate our own system. Obviously, part of what we want here is to have the workforce of the future. Dr. Beering. Yeah. Mr. Frelinghuysen. We know where their workforce is. They are pretty demonstrative now. They are not waiting. A lot of countries are not waiting. And then, we ring our hands obviously at the loss of our industrial base, which is pretty difficult to ever recapture. Dr. Beering. Right. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I obviously congratulate you for all your public service. But I worry that this report doesn't dramatize the situation enough. Dr. Beering. Well I think you are quite accurate in this characterization, because we tend to react to crisis in America. And unless we see a desperate situation, we don't rise up as a group to meet it. And this situation hasn't been characterized as desperate by individual school districts or states by any means. SUPPORT BY SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, I think we need a little bit of shock treatment here. I am not sure who is going to perform it. Certainly, politicians being respectful of institutions and the way things are done, I am not sure we are the best administrators. But, obviously, we have some responsibility. I am not unhappy with your response. I am that we can't do more. The cornerstone of our American Competitiveness Initiative is the national science basic research, a pretty healthy increase of 13.6 percent. The biggest increases are for physical and computer sciences and engineering. We have somewhat talked about this. Why are we specifically prioritizing these disciplines? And are they matched? Are they somewhat related to what I am talking about in a more general sense as to what may be happening in the Pacific or for that matter let us say within EU countries? Dr. Bement. I think the reason for that is primarily the reason why it was recognized in the American Competitiveness Initiative. This really deals with our innovation system and where the critical needs are at the present time to support that system. Unfortunately, the physical sciences and engineering, which are key drivers, have not been given adequate attention over the years. In fact, overall funding in costs and dollars is almost halved in the last couple decades. And so that needs a shot in the arm. That doesn't in any way say that other disciplines are any less important. The one thing I would caution, however, is don't just look at the organization chart and assume that that is where all the work is being done. Biosciences, for example, has an increase of about 10 percent, which is the largest increase they have had in about eight years. But the point is that everyone in the Foundation recognizes that we are in the biocentury. So you are going to find in math and physical sciences significant programs in biophysics, biochemistry, biomaterials. And our CISE directorate, computer directorate, you are going to find significant work in bioinformatics. And in our engineering directorate, you are going to see significant work in bioengineering. So it is threaded throughout the Foundation. And our polar programs, a good part of our polar program, as you saw in Antarctica, is biorelated. But it is important that we do support the biosciences, because that is where the fundamental work is being done. That is where the basic concepts are being developed all the way from the molecular scale up to the organismic scale and the ecological scale. So that has to be supported well. And it has to be the backbone of all the other Foundation efforts that we have. Social behavioral sciences are also interconnected with almost all of our advanced technology programs, because all those programs have a human dimension. They have a human element that has to be attended to. And that is especially important in human machine interactions. How do you adapt humans to machines, and how do you adapt machines to humans? How do you develop virtual organizations? That is a symbiotic relationship, because advanced computer technology enables virtual organizations. But if you don't have the social component of virtual organizations, it is not going to be very effective. But in setting our budgets, we not only wanted to increase and strengthen all of our disciplines, but we also wanted to pay attention to alignment with the American COMPETES Act and also the American Competitiveness Initiative. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I appreciate your view. I must say, one of the things that Chairman Mollohan and I heard quite a lot of yesterday from Dr. Marburger is the whole issue of imbalances. That is pretty worrisome here. He somewhat is a gatekeeper, overseer, as I suppose you are, Mr. Chairman. I know you are doing your level best to educate us to fill the gaps. But I must say there was a sort of unease we had. Dr. Bement. Well, as an interdisciplinary agency, we can't serve our community, and we can't serve the Nation unless we keep all of our disciplines strong. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Culberson. NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND PARTICLE PHYSICS Mr. Culberson. Mr. Chairman, I will be as brief as I can. But I wanted to ask in particular about nanotechnology research that you see being done around the country and what NSF is doing in particular, because while I am passionate about the sciences, the nanotechnology is something I am particularly enthusiastic about. I am convinced it will revolutionize the 21st century and the future in ways we can't even imagine. And certainly affect our future in this century in much the same way that oil and electricity affected the 20th century. And I just wanted to ask you to talk to us about what NSF is doing in supporting and funding nanotechnology. And then secondly I noticed also you have specified that you are paying particular attention to particle physics. And I assume that is because the Department of Energy for whatever reason has decided we don't need particle accelerators in the United States, which I think is appalling. I understand most of the research money is going to Europe. And I think in the very near future we could be in a situation where there will be no particle accelerators in the U.S. So I want to ask you about nanotechnology and particle physics. Dr. Bement. The facilities that we support in particle physics are pretty much accelerators and light sources that are used as tools to study materials, study other substances. We are not trying to delve into that kind of work. Although we are part of the Large Hadron Collider. So we are doing some theoretical work. But---- Mr. Culberson. Individual research---- Dr. Bement [continuing]. I want to keep this--I am sorry, go ahead. Mr. Culberson. Individual research--do you more focus on individual research projects---- Dr. Bement. Well---- Mr. Culberson [continuing]. And the Department of Energy is investing in infrastructure to build the---- Dr. Bement. Yeah. Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Particle? Dr. Bement. You are absolutely correct. The Department of Energy at their national laboratories build user facilities. And we support the users. At least we support a large fraction of users. Mr. Culberson. Is it accurate to say DOE is, you know, shrinking our investment in particle physics? I have been a subscriber to journals Nature and Science for years. And it is my impressions from reading those articles that there is a real alarm among scientists that all the particle accelerators are going to wind up being in Europe. And we are just simply not replacing, or enhancing, or building new facilities in the U.S. Is that correct? Dr. Bement. From my vantage point, the Department of Energy has been a champion for particle physics. And they--it is not just particle physics but nuclear science in general. And I don't think anyone in the Department of Energy is happy with the 2008 appropriation. Mr. Culberson. Right. Dr. Bement. That really cut nuclear science and particle physics, which really put on the brakes where they wanted to go. NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH Mr. Culberson. Well if I could then in the brief time we have got, because I know that everybody needs to wrap up. But talk to us a little bit about the nano research and where you see that. Dr. Bement. The nano research is robust. It covers every field of nano science from engineering, to nanoparticles to device technologies to nano manufacturing. Mr. Culberson. I am sorry, sir. Can you expand? Dr. Bement. But, again, this is another example. We not only have our own nanocenters, which serve the interests of the academic community, but we also support researchers that use the Department of Energy facilities and other nano facilities as well, which gives us tremendous leverage. The one area that we have increased funding for in the 2009 budget is in the area of environmental health and safety of engineered nanoparticles. And we are working with NIST, with the Department of Energy, and other agencies, especially the regulatory agencies, EPA and so forth, in trying to understand fundamentally what risks there may be in these particles being in the environment, being ingested in---- Mr. Culberson. It is particularly important, because we don't want the country to react as the Europeans did to the bioengineered--like corn and other products. Dr. Bement. Right. Mr. Culberson. But specifically if I could ask you, because I am also convinced nanotechnology will--from what I have seen at Rice University with the single-wall carbon nanotubes, allow the country to become energy independent. Dr. Richard Smalley was a friend who passed away about a year and a half ago. He actually developed and had on the drawing board a device about the size of a washing machine that would store enough electricity. You could buy electricity off the grid at night when it was cheap. And then use it during the day to run your entire house, charge your automobile. And if you invest in this technology and this was distributed out throughout the country, I think he told me that if as few as 30 maybe 40 percent of the households in America had this washing machine sized device to store electricity, that we would then be completely free of foreign oil. And it would just completely revolutionize the electrical grid. A single wire of carbon nanotubes is smaller than your little finger and will carry ten times the electricity carried to one of the giant overhead towers from Los Angeles to New York with zero loss of electrons due to either radiation or heat, because they don't conduct. It is ballistic transmission of electrons, because it is a tube like this. So it also has the promise not only of allowing us to identify and cure human diseases, but making the United States completely energy independent, correct? Dr. Bement. When we lost Dr. Smalley we lost one of our great visionaries in nanotechnology. And NSF takes pride in supporting the research that he did. And there is a great deal that can be done with nanotechnology. We have only scratched the surface. Mr. Culberson. These are competitive review grants, Mr. Chairman, and I just in conclusion want to point out that the NSF has been magnificent in supporting this type of work. I wanted you and Mr. Frelinghuysen to know both that, for example, NASA, which we will also hear from later actually had a signed contract. Well I am, you know, NASA does great work but is an example of the difference between the way NSF, which is driven by science, and NASA, which is driven both by bean counters and bureaucrats, is that NASA actually has a signed contract with Rice University for $6 million to invest in infrastructure at Rice to develop the quantum wire, which I just described, which would have revolutionized the electricity conduction, every device that we use. Anyway, signed contract, Rice went out and hired physicists, brought in graduate students, was building the facilities. And then the new NASA Director came in and said, ``No,'' and tore the contract up. It is just maddening. And you just do a magnificent job at NSF. We just need to find a way to further insulate you, I think, from politics and do what we can to help NASA limp along. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be on this Subcommittee with you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Frelinghuysen, and thank you for what you do. Dr. Bement. Thank you. FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Mr. Mollohan. Well, it is good to have you on the Subcommittee, sincerely. You talk a lot about accountability in your justification. You talk about reviewing projects. You talk about delaying funding for projects. And that suggests to me that you have some issues in that account. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to talk about it at the hearing. Dr. Bement. Yes, thank you. Almost from the time I came to the Foundation there was activity underway to address concerns of the Congress in the management of our facilities account, which led to a study by the National Research Council, which I was fortunate enough to begin implementing with a Deputy. So that led to a lot of internal activity within the Foundation to develop a facilities manual in managing these facilities, which we wanted to be the very best in government. And that facilities manual has been in place. We have been actually operating against it. It has been presented to the Board. The Board has approved it. But we were left with a lot of legacy facilities, because these are multiyear projects. So we just could not go back and redo all the projects to force fit them into the manual. But now that the manual has issued we do have new projects in the wings, and we want those projects to comply with the manual. And one of the---- Mr. Mollohan. How many projects? Dr. Bement. We have one, plus three. Advanced LIGO will start in 2009, and then we have three in the wings. The Ocean Observatories Initiative, the Alaska Region Research Vessel, and NEON, the National Ecological Observing Network. And ATST as well. Now for those projects going forward, we want to employ the rigor that we built into our policies and our practices in managing these projects. And one of the requirements is that they meet a rigorous final design review before we submit the proposal to the Board for approval to put funding in our budget. Because without that final design review there are risks, there are issues that carry over. We are constantly redoing the base lining of our budget. We are changing the contingencies. And in many cases, if we cannot fit within the assigned budget we have to descope the project, which detracts from meeting the scientific requirements that the facility was designed for in the first place. I am convinced we can do a lot better, and that is what we are proposing to do. Mr. Mollohan. Do you have some troubled projects right now? Dr. Bement. No, I would not say that we do. I think all of our projects, the one area where we have some difficulty is in ship building because of the fact that shipyards are full. We have hyperinflation in commodities, steel, and so forth. If you lose time then, of course, the price of these commodities goes up. And in just keeping projects on schedule, we are pretty much at the mercy of the shipyard because our projects are not of a scale that they want to divert all that much engineering and high skilled technical labor away from other, more lucrative projects. So we are always fighting with shipyards to pay attention to their contract. Mr. Mollohan. So all of your projects are within budget and on time? Dr. Bement. All of our projects are within budget. They are not all on time. The one where we have slipped is in the Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel, and that is one of the shipyard problems I was talking about. That will be delayed about six months. But it will be ready for shakedown testing this summer, and we expect to have it in operation this coming fall. Mr. Mollohan. Are you familiar with all the specifics of these projects? You may not be able to answer all of them. Dr. Bement. I would say yes. I get reports every month and I read them. Mr. Mollohan. Well that is good. NEON, is it within budget and within schedule? Dr. Bement. NEON, we are not asking for additional funding until, again, it complies with our manual. That will have its final design review this summer and any issues from that design review will have to be resolved before we come forward with any more funding requests. But NEON has come a long way. It is really a very attractive project right now. It will be transformational. BENEFICIARIES OF LARGE FACILITY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Mr. Mollohan. Typically, who are the beneficiaries for these projects? Dr. Bement. The science community at large. These projects are proposed by the science community. They are initially funded under the Research and Related Account in order to develop the concept, to be sure that the design of the facilities meets all the scientific requirements. And those scientific requirements are set by numerous workshops with the community in order to be sure that, first of all, they are feasible, and secondly that they are affordable. So there is a lot of give and take in changing the scope of the project in order to be sure that the funding that we ask for is, first of all, adequate, but not unreasonable. So that is pretty much how the process starts. Mr. Mollohan. And it would be an academic institution? A federal laboratory? Dr. Bement. Usually they come from academic institutions or from community organizations representing the community. Mr. Mollohan. Is there a matching requirement for these projects? Dr. Bement. No. FUNDING FOR FACILITIES PLANNING Mr. Mollohan. No? There is a difference of opinion, or a consideration and reconsideration, among the Board and the Foundation, you, about how the initial planning, the funding, might be achieved. Could you talk with us about that and where that issue is? And ask Dr. Beering to address that as well. Dr. Bement. Let me dispel that notion. I asked the Board, actually, to get involved earlier in the development of our projects as they come through the horizon stage and before they go into our readiness stage. Mr. Mollohan. Mm-hmm. Dr. Bement. So we are actually welcoming their recommendations and we want to work more closely with them so that we get their---- Mr. Mollohan. Well you know, honestly, my point is not that there is a disagreement. My point is just understanding, letting you talk about how the planning should be funded and what you think about that. And just share your ideas, and have you reach a consensus on that. Dr. Bement. All right. Let me address that. Up to the point where we satisfy all the scientific requirements we feel that that type of planning and design should be carried under the Research and Related Account, because it really deals with science issues. Mr. Mollohan. It ought to come out of the Directorate? Dr. Bement. And that comes out of the Directorates. Mr. Mollohan. And why is that? Is that because they are closer to the substantive need? Dr. Bement. Some of these projects are very complex. Some of them require research and development, in some cases a lot of development. And they deal with very complex science issues, which are better dealt with by the science community. Mr. Mollohan. This question of whether this project is more important scientifically than another project? Dr. Bement. Well, this is where the prioritization comes through the Board, and this is why we would like to get the Board involved earlier in the process so that the prioritization starts earlier. But there are special circumstances as the project matures. Once it has passed a preliminary design, it pretty much has satisfied all the scientific requirements. Then you start getting into a preconstruction phase, which deals with things that have nothing to do with science, like site preparation. Mr. Mollohan. Mm-hmm. Dr. Bement. Like meeting changes in regulations---- Mr. Mollohan. Mm-hmm. Dr. Bement [continuing]. Which requires some reconstruction. Those types of burdens, we feel, should really be assigned to the MREFC account, under construction, rather than under science in the R&RA account. Mr. Mollohan. And right now it is with science? Dr. Bement. And right now it is with science. And so this is where the Board and the Foundation have been working together in trying to come up with a better approach. Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Beering, do you have thoughts on that? Dr. Beering. Yeah. We want to be and are eager to be helpful in early planning and be involved in the entire scoping of the project. And there has been a misperception on the part of some of the scientists and others involved that the granting of planning funds means that the project is automatically approved at the end of the planning cycle. We want to make sure that that misperception is clarified, that planning is planning. That the project approval comes after that. Mr. Mollohan. Typically or has that always been the case? Dr. Beering. Well, it has been confused. But I think we are together on it now. Mr. Mollohan. No, no. I mean, as a matter of fact has, if someone gets approved at the, I am hoping I am using the right characterization---- Dr. Beering. Yeah, at the planning stage. Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. At the Directorate or the planning stage in the past, did that equate to automatic funding for construction? Dr. Beering. I think most of that time that has been the case. Mr. Mollohan. Have there been any exceptions, just to---- Dr. Beering. I cannot answer that. Mr. Mollohan. Okay, it does not matter. No, no, there must have been exceptions. Dr. Bement. We have stretched some projects out until they were much better defined and until we had a more credible budget. Mr. Mollohan. Is there a difference of opinion here or is there a consensus? You are asking for an authorization here from this Committee, so we have to understand. Dr. Bement. I think all the projects that are in our funding request, asking for authorization, have been approved by the Board and so they have pretty much gone through this process. USE OF MREFC FUNDS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES Mr. Mollohan. But as I understand it, you are asking for an authorization to use the construction money for planning purposes. Dr. Bement. Correct. Mr. Mollohan. And that is something that you are not allowed to do now. Dr. Bement. That is correct. So---- Mr. Mollohan. So the point of my questioning is that we want to feel comfortable. I mean, we are not in the authorization business. It is tough for us to think about even authorizing it. But we do want to feel comfortable that there is a consensus and if there is not, we would like to know. Dr. Beering. No, we are together on it. Dr. Bement. I think there is a consensus. I think there is a meeting of the minds on that. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. And so you are requesting of this Committee with regard to this what? Dr. Bement. What I am requesting is, if there are circumstances beyond the establishment of scientific feasibility for a project that is more related to preconstruction or construction that that be included as part of the MREFC budget for that project. Mr. Mollohan. Is that stated correctly? Okay, thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. MREFC ACCOUNT PROJECTS Mr. Frelinghuysen. We are a little bit past high noon here, so I do not want to keep you here. I am not sure what the Chairman's plans are. I just want a little clarification. Your request for this account is reduced by a third, right? Dr. Bement. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And that is largely due to the fact that these three projects are being deferred---- Dr. Bement. Until they pass final design review. Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. Until they pass? Dr. Bement. It is not only final design review, but they have to have a risk management plan. They have to have a supportable contingency. And so, at the time we start construction all these early issues are pretty well resolved. Mr. Frelinghuysen. But as you defer these, you are moving ahead with a new project? The Advanced Technology Solar Telescope? Dr. Bement. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And that obviously is priority number one. Behind that project is a growing backlog, which obviously you are quite cognizant of. Dr. Bement. Well, actually, what is happening is that over the next year, actually this year and next year, we will be completing three or four of our projects. And so the overall budget in the MREFC account will probably dip and then slowly come back again. But I think we are over the hump at this point. Mr. Frelinghuysen. But at some point in time you are going to have---- Dr. Bement. We are going to have three---- Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. You are potentially going to have three---- Dr. Bement. Three or four new projects, that is correct. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Which would mean that you would have a need for some pretty substantial construction funds. Dr. Bement. Yes. But that would not be unusual with regard to the level of funding we have had in this account in past years. ATACAMA LARGE MILLIMETER ARRAY Mr. Frelinghuysen. Let me just get a little parenthetical in here. We briefly discussed in our time together what was happening in Chile. Is it called the ALMA Project? Dr. Bement. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And of course, the paper underscored the fact that the participants there are anticipating that the National Science Foundation is going to come through for them. Can you maybe shed a little light on that? Dr. Bement. Oh, absolutely. Once you get that far into a project you certainly do not want to disrupt it because then it becomes very expensive. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So how would you characterize the project? That particular project? Dr. Bement. I think it is on schedule. It is on budget. I think it is going along quite well right now. Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is the single largest project, is it not? Dr. Bement. It is the single largest and the most complex. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So just put a dollar figure on it for me? Dr. Bement. Total? Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Dr. Bement. Let me see if I can---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. The man who wears that raincoat over there. I hear half a billion, but it is a whisper behind me. Dr. Bement. It is, it is actually a jointly funded program between NSF and our partners, and the European Southern Observatory and their partners. They are putting out $500 million, we are putting out $500 million. RESEARCH FUNDING RATE Mr. Frelinghuysen. Just a last question. One of the measures of the health of research funding is the funding rate issue, percentage of proposals you are able to fund. I understand that this year you expect to fund 24 percent of the competitive research programs you receive. I understand, and you have added some emphasis to this, with the requested increase you would expect to support approximately 1,370 more research grants in 2008. Will this translate into an increase in the funding rate for research proposals? Dr. Bement. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And where do you match up the whole issue of having a greater increase in the number of grants and the whole issue of the increase in the average award size? Dr. Bement. I think the total number of proppsals has stabilized at around 45,000. It was ramping up earlier, and that is why our success rate was dropping. If you just take the competitive research proposals, the ones that we provide grants for, our success rate on average would be about 21 percent as of today. With the budget that we are requesting for '09, that success rate would go up to 23 percent. And it would also enable us to fund well over 1,000 new grants. Mr. Frelinghuysen. There are those grants and then there are the dollars which focus on the national centers. That is about 5 percent? Dr. Bement. Yes. There are centers, there are contracts. What other categories? Mr. Frelinghuysen. What is the percentage and does it match whatever Dr. Beering and his colleagues---- Dr. Bement. Well, some of those grants are renewal grants. And the reason why the overall success rate looks higher than what I quoted, like 21 percent, is that when you are renewing grants, you are not competing with a lot of other grants. So that the success rate is like 100 percent. So when you average everything in, the overall success rate would be higher than the success rate just for the competitive research grants. And that is why I say today that percentage is 21 percent, and we expect it will go up to 23 percent. AVERAGE AWARD SIZE Mr. Frelinghuysen. On the average award size, could you make any comments on that? Dr. Bement. Yes. I think we have that. We can provide that, we can provide that for the record. But it is going up slightly in 2009. I want to say it is about $160,000. [The information follows:] NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AVERAGE ANNUAL AWARD SIZE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Estimate Estimate Estimate ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NSF all.......................... $146,270 $151,355 158,290 Biological sciences.............. 182,246 191,000 200,600 Computer & information science & 139,000 150,000 180,000 engineering..................... Engineering...................... 115,860 116,000 118,000 Geosciences...................... 153,922 155,000 160,000 Mathematical & physical sciences. 130,459 145,000 145,000 Social, behavioral, & economic 115,337 115,550 117,810 sciences........................ Office of Cyberinfrastructure.... 511,682 440,000 440,000 Office of International Science & 156,673 50,000 175,000 Engineering\1\.................. Office of Polar Programs......... 238,398 245,198 249,398 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ The spikes in average award size in FY 2007 and FY 2009 are related to Partnerships for International Research and Education (PIRE) competitions, which are held every other year. Dr. Olsen. It really depends upon discipline, the average award size, but what we are trying to do---- Dr. Bement. Well, across the Foundation we have those numbers and we will provide those for you, what the average award size is. I thought I had it here but I am not finding it. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you both. Dr. Beering. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. USE OF MREFC FUNDS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES Mr. Mollohan. Okay, thank you Mr. Frelinghuysen. Dr. Beering, I just want to be clear on this whole question of spending planning funds, or using funds out of the major construction fund for planning, is that decided on the Board? Or is that being now considered by the Board or reconsidered by the Board? What is the status of it within the Board? Dr. Beering. Well, we talked about it. And A, we wanted to be involved in the early planning and the total project scoping. And B, we wanted to make certain that the applicants did not confuse planning grants with project grants. There was a two stage process. And I think we are totally in agreement on that. Mr. Mollohan. But this question of funding planning out of the construction account? Dr. Beering. Yeah, we did not really care. The Board did not care which account it came from so long as we all understood how we were doing it and what the administration has proposed is quite acceptable. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. But you represent here that you are in total agreement? Dr. Beering. Yes, we are. Dr. Bement. Mr. Chairman, let me change the wording. It is not really planning. The planning is pretty much done. It is late stage design or redesign as a result of circumstances that are brought about by either changes in construction planning or changes in regulations. And at that point, generally the proposal, or the project, has already gone through a fairly rigorous preliminary design and final design review. But then there are issues that come up after final design that are really preconstruction in nature. OUTSOURCING Mr. Mollohan. A couple of questions about contracting out. How has your contracting out your A-76 initiatives affected the mission of the Foundation? Dr. Bement. We have been operating with many of these operations contracted out for a very long time. As a matter of fact, we reached pretty much the bottom of the barrel. So we have had pretty stable operations for some time now. Mr. Mollohan. Reached the bottom of what barrel? Dr. Bement. Well, in terms of what we can outsource, for contracting out. Mr. Mollohan. You have exhausted the number of functions you can outsource? Dr. Bement. We started well over twenty years ago contracting out administrative functions, security functions, many of our support functions. There is not a lot more to outsource. Mr. Mollohan. My question was how has it affected the mission of the Foundation? Dr. Bement. I do not think it has affected the mission, because the oversight of all of those activities are done by the Foundation, and if we need to correct them we will correct them. But I think our mission is being well fulfilled. Mr. Mollohan. Well, talk to me a little bit more about the quality of the service you get from contracting out and by giving me some examples perhaps of good results that I would be interested in, as well as problems. Dr. Bement. Let me ask my Chief Operating Officer to respond. She is closer to it than I am. Mr. Mollohan. Certainly. Thank you, doctor. Dr. Olsen. We contract out our IT services, the facilities maintenance of our building, those types of activities that are not what we consider essentially governmental. So things like our merit review and that kind of stuff stays within the National Science Foundation. In many cases we have oversight of that and we review the contracts over certain periods to be recompeted. We contract out our cleaning services. And we do not have any issues. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Maybe you could just give your name for the record, please? Dr. Olsen. Kathie Olsen. Mr. Mollohan. Yes, thank you. Dr. Olsen. Oh, and we are red, as you know, in terms of the yellow, red, and green. In terms of competitive outsourcing we are actually red. We have always been red because of the fact that, again, as Dr. Bement indicated under Eric Bloch's leadership, he started looking at things that were not inherently governmental and already contracted them out. So when the President's Management Agenda came aboard, we actually did not really have anything additional that we could consider that we were not already doing to run the Agency effectively. Mr. Mollohan. Do you have any other additional activities that NSF plans to outsource? Dr. Olsen. The only other issues that they had asked me to put on the table is the icebreakers in terms of competitive outsourcing, to say ``This is what we need to enable the science'' and then have everyone compete for that. But that is not anything I think that in reality---- Mr. Mollohan. What table do you put that on? Dr. Olsen. Table in terms of discussions, in terms of internal---- Mr. Mollohan. Who are you discussing it with? Dr. Olsen. Internally. Mr. Mollohan. Who else are you discussing it with? Dr. Olsen. Within the Foundation at this point. Mr. Mollohan. That is all? Dr. Olsen. At this point. Mr. Mollohan. You are not discussing it with OMB? Dr. Olsen. Well, we have had that discussion in terms of competitive outsourcing, researching---- Mr. Mollohan. Well, that was my question. Who are you discussing it with? Dr. Olsen. Well, I have discussed it recently with Clay Johnson. Mr. Mollohan. And who is he? Dr. Olsen. He is the Deputy of OMB. Mr. Mollohan. How is the travel service working out for you? Dr. Olsen. That is a challenge. It is FedTraveler. It is something that every one of us faces. And we have to look at it, we have some very good staff at NSF that are evaluating that. And it is one that could be improved, let us put it that way. Mr. Mollohan. What is the ``that'' you are evaluating. Dr. Olsen. Basically, it is very---- Mr. Mollohan. This is really, this is really easy. Dr. Olsen. Digging down to sort of the level is very time consuming, it is very difficult. Mr. Mollohan. What is very difficult and time consuming? Dr. Olsen. The actually making the system itself. Okay? And it is just, it is a challenge. And so that is one that we have actually looked at, and whether or not we should, we are trying to work with the contractor to improve that system. Mr. Mollohan. Are there any other contracting out situations that you are having difficulty with? Dr. Olsen. I think FedTraveler is our---- Mr. Mollohan. Well, I know it is, I understand that seems to be the most difficult example. But are there any other examples that you have? Dr. Olsen. Not that I am aware of. Mr. Mollohan. Not that you are aware of? Okay. Thank you. Dr. Olsen. You are welcome. Mr. Mollohan. That was easy. I mean, that was not hard. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Nothing for me. Mr. Mollohan. Nothing for you? Would you, gentlemen, like to add to your testimony, or is there anything you think the Committee would appreciate hearing about? Dr. Bement. Well, the one thing that I would have stated at the very beginning was to express my appreciation for the support you gave us in the '08 budget. Mr. Mollohan. In the early budget. Dr. Bement. I am sorry it came out the way it did. Mr. Mollohan. In the early budget. Dr. Bement. In the early budget. Mr. Mollohan. Well, as we said during Mr. Culberson's testimony, the final result was not satisfactory to us and what we want to do was reflect it in our House Bill. And hopefully we will have better opportunities to fund the Foundation at the level that I think everybody on this Committee wants to fund it at in this cycle. Dr. Bement. Thank you. Mr. Mollohan. We certainly want you to, and we are glad that your request, as you have testified, gets you back on the track that you want to be back on. Dr. Beering? Dr. Beering. Thank you. We do not want to be hit by another bus. Mr. Mollohan. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you for the good work of everyone, and everyone attending here today. Dr. Beering. Thank you. Thank you very much. [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Thursday, April 10, 2008. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION WITNESS NAOMI C. EARP, CHAIR, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Congressman Mollohan's Opening Statement Mr. Mollohan. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee would like to welcome Naomi C. Earp, Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to discuss her agency's fiscal year 2009 budget request. We are pleased to see you again, Ms. Earp, and thank you for your time. You have the distinction of being the last regularly scheduled hearing of the season. I am sure we will have other hearings as the year goes on but this is the last regularly scheduled on the President's budget submissions for our Subcommittee. Most people who have not experienced employment discrimination probably do not have a full appreciation for the depth and breadth of this problem. Employment discrimination can and does take place in this country and we rely on the EEOC to help remediate that discrimination, set precedents to deter future violations, and educate employees about their rights. Unfortunately, the administration's budget requests for EEOC over the last five years have not been sufficient to adequately carry out these important responsibilities. Increasing receipts and decreasing staff levels have combined to create a chronic backlog of pending charges that grows bigger every year. That backlog may look like just a column of numbers on a spreadsheet but each one of those pending charges represents an employee and an employer who are waiting for closure on what is no doubt a painful and contentious issue between them. Delaying the closure has real impacts on real people and I think we need to ensure that we do not lose sight of that fact. This year, for the first time in a number of years, the EEOC's budget proposal contains a real increase in basic operations. Specifically, the 2009 budget provides an increase of $12.6 million, or a little less than 4 percent, to slow the growth of the charge backlog and to complete the transition of the now defunct National Contact Center to an in-house capability. We are pleased to see these proposals but we remain concerned that they do not accomplish such essential tasks as actually reducing the charge backlog. The population of the United States is getting bigger, older, and more diverse as the years pass. Ensuring that we have a robust capacity to protect basic civil rights is only going to become more important as vulnerable populations continue to grow. We will be closely examining your request to make sure that the EEOC is well positioned to help you achieve that goal. And before we invite you to offer your oral remarks, and your prepared statement will be made a part of the record, I would like to turn to our Ranking Member, Mr. Frelinghuysen, for his opening statement. Congressman Frelinghuysen's Opening Statement Mr. Frelinghuysen. Ms. Earp, good afternoon, welcome back. I join the Chairman in welcoming you here this afternoon to hear your testimony in regard to your budget submission for 2009. As the Chairman says, you are requesting a total of $341.9 million, which represents an increase of $12.6 million, or 3.8 percent above last year's level. Much of this increase would be devoted to recreating the Commission's customer response function in-house after the cancellation of the contract call center. Also, there is a modest increase toward reducing the significant, and as the Chairman has said, growing backlog of private sector discrimination charges. The EEOC is tasked with preventing and eradicating employment discrimination across the United States. As the Chairman has said, yours is an important and difficult mission and we would like to work with you to find ways to maximize your effectiveness within available budgets. And again, welcome. Thank you for being here. Ms. Earp. Thank you. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Ms. Earp. And again, your written statement will be made a part of the record. You can proceed. Ms. Earp. Thank you. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Chair Earp's Opening Statement Ms. Earp. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request of $341.9 million for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It is indeed a pleasure to appear before you again this year. As always, I thank you for your past and anticipated future support of EEOC. Our mission is to ensure fair and inclusive workplaces so workers can compete on the basis of merit and pursue their individual versions of the American dream. To do this, we are continuously assessing the strategic focus of our enforcement litigation and federal programs. We also educate employees and job seekers from teens to retirees, as well as employers from small business owners to the largest corporations. I have submitted for the record a written statement that highlights specific aspects of the budget. But before answering questions I would like to just take a few minutes to highlight the issues and challenges we have faced since I last appeared before you. First, I want to mention our workload. I note that our dedicated employees are challenged on a daily basis with a workload that is prodigious. In fiscal year 2007 we received almost 83,000 private sector charges, over 13,000 federal sector appeals and hearing requests, we filed 336 lawsuits, and we recovered close to $350 million in benefits for victims of discrimination. However, we still ended the year with an inventory of 54,000 charges. For those accomplishments I thank the dedicated employees at EEOC who have made all of this possible. They are our most valuable resource and I am proud to be a part of their team. Approval of our 2009 budget request, a $12.6 million increase over this year, will greatly assist us in managing our workload. Next I want to call the Committee's attention to staffing. In 2007 we hired 172 new employees but this was just barely enough to match the number of separations. There was no net gain of employees last fiscal year because employees were retiring, transferring, and otherwise leaving as fast as the new employees were coming on board. The news is better for 2008. We have improved our hiring processes and as of today we have a net gain of forty-six new hires over separations. I am committed to backfilling front line positions as they become vacant, and as the budget permits. And I am always looking for dollars to ensure that we put the resources on the front line. For fiscal year 2009, in addition to the backfills, we project 175 new hires, the vast majority of which will be for front line positions. Of the President's budget request, almost 75 percent will go to staffing. This will enable us to retain and hire the investigators, mediators, attorneys, and support staff that we need. The new hires are critical to reducing the rate of the inventory's increase. Finally I want to note, as has been said, that the National Contact Center has met its demise. Having completed the hiring and training of our information intake representatives this past March, the customer response function is officially in- house. The full time trained, permanent, government employees work at fifteen of our district locations and they are now handling roughly 85,000 calls a month. The good news is that the fifty-five employee outsourced center has been abolished and the new internal, sixty-six federal employee customer response system is operational. The bad news is that this internal operation is costlier to operate. In conclusion Mr. Chairman and Committee members, the charges that we receive are increasing nuanced and more complex. This requires refocusing and making a strategic alignment to enable the Commission to continue to be effective in this twenty-first century environment. The President's request for 2009 provides a significant increase and will allow us to continue our mission. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I am happy to answer any questions. [Written statement of Naomi Churchill Earp, Chair, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] BACKLOG REDUCTION Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Ms. Earp. EEOC's charges pending at the end of the year have been increasing consistently over the last few years. The backlog reached nearly 40,000 at the end of 2006, which was a 19 percent increase over the previous year, and the backlog grew in 2007 to 54,970, a 38 percent increase. The backlog is projected to grow to 75,000 in 2009. I understand that according to a presentation that you made to some stakeholders, you think it might go to as much as 100,000 in 2010. Is that correct? Ms. Earp. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. I mean, that is really unacceptable. You are projecting 109 new personnel, and I commend you for having an increased budget request. I do not know how you were able to do that, but there is a lot of people that testified here before you that I am sure are envious. But is that adequate? If 109 new personnel can only slow the growth of the backlog are we doing what we should do? And what would it take to begin erasing this backlog? Ms. Earp. Mr. Chairman, EEOC's financial issues are very, very longstanding. They go across a number of administrations. We are pleased with the President's 2009 budget because it is a beginning to address, in our base, issues that have been so longstanding. We need the front line employees. During the same period of time that you mentioned when charges were increasing anywhere from 19 to 34 percent, investigators were decreasing anywhere from 3 to 10 percent. So we feel very pleased that we are an agency with an increase this year while so many others are actually being cut. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well, I wanted a little more on that. What do you think we would have to do in order to reduce these backlogs and begin a downward trend in real terms? Ms. Earp. We need---- Mr. Mollohan. You are estimating that the percentage of charges you will resolve within 180 days will jump from 56 percent in 2007 to 73 percent in 2008 and to 75 percent in 2009. Are those realistic? Ms. Earp. They are the best projections that we could put together given the number of people that we have and the anticipated workload. Mr. Mollohan. Are they realistic? Ms. Earp. Fairly realistic. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Have you done a mid-year review for 2008? Ms. Earp. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. Are you reducing at the rate of 73 percent for the first six months of 2008? Or however many months we are into 2008? Ms. Earp. Not quite. But at this point in 2008 we have a net gain of forty-five employees, the vast majority of which are front line employees. So there are investigators at the point where charges and receipts come in. Mr. Mollohan. What is your point? Ms. Earp. The point is, last year we did not have a net gain at all. This year up to this point we have---- Mr. Mollohan. You did not have a net gain? Ms. Earp. In employees for 2007. Mr. Mollohan. Oh, oh, okay, sure. Ms. Earp. So we feel we are a bit ahead. Mr. Mollohan. But what I was asking was, what is your mid- year experience? You are estimating that your charges resolved within 180 days will jump to 73 percent in 2008. And this is just one measure, I guess. But my question is, have you done a mid-year review to test that against real experience? Ms. Earp. May I provide the---- Mr. Mollohan. Oh sure. Absolutely. Ms. Earp [continuing]. Written information for the record. Mr. Mollohan. Oh, for the record. Okay. If you have to, yes. Ms. Earp. Yes. I do not have that data at my fingertips. Mr. Mollohan. Well, I have got it here so I am ahead of you. I just cannot interpret it immediately. Well, I guess I would suggest that if the numbers do not prove themselves out that those are rosy projections. I will tell you what the Committee would like to have, but I imagine you will need to spend some time with this and can only submit it for the record. We would like to know not what you have requested but what you would have to request in order to reverse this unacceptable trend line. And obviously you are not going to do that in a year. Ms. Earp. Right. Mr. Mollohan. But in some acceptable period of time, which I leave you to select. Would you do that for the record? Ms. Earp. Yes, sir. [The information follows:] Workload Management The percentage of charges that will be resolved within 180 days is a strategic goal and we are devoting our resources and energies to try to achieve it. At midyear, of the 34,636 resolutions, 17,853 (51.5%) were resolved within 180 days. We also know that the average processing time for resolutions at midyear is 206 days, which would indicate that the inventory continues to be an issue in resolving charges within 180 days. Our budget request for 2009 brings us a step closer towards meeting that strategic goal. Mr. Mollohan. What it would take. What is the number of employees and what positions, and can you associate that with a dollar amount. I am going to yield to Mr. Frelinghuysen at this time. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Why are you anticipating such a dramatic growth in the backlog? Ms. Earp. Primarily it has to do with the attrition of staff. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So staff? Disassemble the backlog for me. How many of these cases have been pending for two years? Three years? Or are there some that have been hanging around the EEOC for years without resolution? Ms. Earp. Yes. I can provide specific data for you for the record. But we know that we have some aged cases. The work that EEOC does is very labor intensive. The backlog, well actually the inventory, does not mean that the case is not being worked. It means it has worked through various phases as it makes its way from intake to whether or not we are going to litigate it. A lack of resources at any point along the continuum slows the process, and we have had a lack of investigators to complete investigations of cases in the inventory. [The information follows:] Age of Pending Inventory EEOC has been vigilant in attempting to ensure that charges are resolved as quickly as possible. EEOC field offices have continued to focus on charges more than one year old to ensure that they are promptly addressed. Of the more than 72,000 charges in our inventory at midyear, 1,636 were two years old or older. Of the 1,636 charges two years old or older, 532 were three years old or older. Our data system tells us that 50% of the charges two or more years old are prioritized under processing as ``A'' charges and are likely in extended investigation or conciliation between EEOC, the employer and the employee. For those charges three years old or older, 70% are prioritized as ``A'' and are in extended processing. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, the backlog seems to be exploding. But I always thought the phrase ``justice delayed is justice denied,'' surely you are working on some of the older ones first? Ms. Earp. Yes. We prioritize the aged cases. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So how many aged cases are there? Do they go back five years? Or? And do some of these parties give up? I mean, what happens? After a while here I would assume a lot of people say, ``Well, you know, we are not getting any resolution here.'' Ms. Earp. The best information that I have today is the average age of our charges is about 209 days. And the short answer to your question is, yes, when we are unable to investigate in a timely manner we lose witnesses, we sometimes lose charging parties. Yes, people do eventually sometimes give up. Mr. Frelinghuysen. The 109 new investigators, attorneys and support staff, is it your intent that all of those new positions will be working on the private sector enforcement? Ms. Earp. The vast majority of the President's increase, roughly 90 percent of those funds, will go to staff and staff related expenses. Mr. Frelinghuysen. The EEOC has been working in these areas for years. Ms. Earp. Yes, sir. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And I do not mean to be insulting, but obviously I assume there is a fair amount of the same sort of charges and issues. Some have a far greater degree of complexity than others. After a while, there must be some recognized ways that in some cases you could expedite some and perhaps because of the complexity, or lack of staff, you could not expedite others. I just wonder whether you had tried to introduce some more efficiencies, either through the use of different or new technologies. I know that your budget document mentions a cost/benefit analysis that shows that the EEOC could achieve efficiency savings of $15 million if you implemented a document management system agency wide. Ms. Earp. We are working on that. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So what exists now? Is it all hard copy or carbon paper? Or is there some degree of, what is it? Are you online? Ms. Earp. Quite a bit of what we do is online. Our document management posture is uneven. Because when you are an agency that is resource intensive, where the majority of the funds go to paying staff salaries, it really leaves very little for the kind of technological advancements and advanced planning that is necessary. But in the last couple of years we have been able to realize efficiencies through the use of the web, the internet, and various technological support, especially to our legal staff. MEDIATION Mr. Frelinghuysen. And lastly, I am not a lawyer but I do have a huge admiration for people who spend a good portion of their lives on mediation. You know, there is a possibility of intervention. Where is that in the overall scheme of things? Ms. Earp. Mediation remains a centerpiece of what we do and is one of the truly good news success stories that EEOC has to tell. Mr. Frelinghuysen. But as I look at some of your budget materials, the number of charges being resolved through mediation apparently is dropping. Is that accurate? Ms. Earp. It is. It has to do with the fact that we have both mediators who are federal employees on our staff, as well as contract mediators in various places around the country. And we have not had contract dollars. We also have not had as many pro bono mediators as in the past. Mr. Frelinghuysen. We have through the doors here the Legal Services Corporation. And they promote the idea, which I think we are enormously sympathetic for, that members of the Bar ought to be doing more. Certainly in my neck of the woods there are more law firms, maybe it is just a great place to practice law. But you would like to see a few more law firms stepping up to the plate in terms of participating. I do not mean to get off track here. I think mediation is a good thing in a lot of different legal arenas. Ms. Earp. I agree. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Okay, thank you. Let me follow up on that line of questioning that I had before. I think I understand these numbers a little bit better, partially based on your testimony just a moment ago. Let us help you in this process by your identifying what I would like to get at the end, identifying the responsibilities, the jobs, that need to be increased and where they are, if you will cite them in light of this information. These statistics would suggest that you had pending at the end of February 2007, 45,671 charges. At the end of February 2008 you had pending 70,209 charges. If that is correct, in one year you would have a 53.7 percent increase in pending charges. Are those statistics accurate? Ms. Earp. Those statistics sound somewhat flawed. The largest single increase that I am aware of is somewhere between about 25 and 30 percent. And that would not have been between 2006 and 2007 where we realized---- Mr. Mollohan. No, between 2007 and 2008. Did I say 2006 and 2007? I meant February of 2007 and February of 2008. This would be a mid-year snapshot. Would you be able to turn around and answer this question by consulting with your staff? And if so, would you please do it? Ms. Earp. My Program Director says she believes that data is accurate. But that by the end of the year that number will have dropped significantly as we close cases by the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well I hope that is true. But right now those are accurate. We want to help you achieve that goal. That is why we are going through this exercise, for no other reason. The average age of the charges in days was 189 days in February of 2007. February of 2008, the average age of those charges is 211 days, a 22-day increase. So it is taking you longer this year rather than shorter compared to 2007. You had received, in February 2007, 30,775 charge receipts. In February of 2008, 40,328, a 31-percent increase. So you are receiving more charges. Something is going on out there. Your resolutions, in February of 2007 were 27,433. In February of 2008 you had 27,516 resolutions, a .3-percent increase. But it is taking you 18 days longer. I just cite those last statistics to round this out. This is not a good picture. So we need to address this. Since 2001 you have lost over one-quarter of your employees and your charges are increasing. So it is no wonder that you are having this very unfortunate trend line. You are about 200 FTE below your ceiling right now. The Inspector General has declared ``it is imperative that senior level management place greater emphasis on the human capital condition at EEOC.'' Do you agree with that? Ms. Earp. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. Are you doing that? Ms. Earp. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. How are you doing that? Ms. Earp. We are working on a Human Capital Plan. We need to make sure we have the right positions at the right grade with the right skills. Mr. Mollohan. And the right number. Ms. Earp. And the right number. BUDGET REQUEST Mr. Mollohan. Well, does your budget request provide sufficient funding to hire those 200 already short FTEs in the fiscal year 2008 staffing ceiling, in addition to the 175 new FTEs you are requesting? Ms. Earp. No, sir. It does not. The gap between---- Mr. Mollohan. What does your funding request allow you to do then? Just hire the 175? Ms. Earp. The 175. Mr. Mollohan. So you are still going to be short 25 for this fiscal year. So how many employees and in what positions would you have to hire to reduce this trend line? Ms. Earp. That is the information that I am going to be very happy to provide to you? IN-HOUSE CALL CENTER Mr. Mollohan. For the record, all right. Now, let me ask you one other question. I am going to get deeper into this but I want to go to Mr. Honda here in a second. What relationship is there between the quality and quantity of the intake personnel that you are in the process of hiring because you are taking the call center in-house and a resolution of these cases? My thinking is that if you had a capability at that initial contact point, that you might be able to resolve cases at that point, or shortly thereafter. That may be all wrong. It just seems logical to me that you could because I have heard, I must tell you, that the folks being hired at those positions are pretty entry level, minimally credentialed people. So I am just wondering if it would be possible to resolve some of these cases with higher credentialed people at the contact point, and help in that way to reduce this backlog? Ms. Earp. Theoretically, I think so. In an ideal world, if we had intake being performed by attorneys or highly skilled investigators, sure. Because they understand the law and they more quickly would be able to apply the law to the set of facts that the charging party is explaining. But that is a very, very expensive proposition. For the people that we are currently hiring, I think over time they can be trained to add additional value. Right now we are just making sure that we get the charge in and that we understand what is being alleged. After the employees have been with us for a while and better understand the process that they are helping to administer, I think we will get more value. Mr. Mollohan. Well, that suggests a number of other questions to me which I will ask in another round. Thank you. Mr. Honda. SUCCESSION AND TRANSITION PLANNING Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome. I understand that a question has already been asked regarding the workload and shrinking workforce. But I was wondering whether there has been any planning on succession on those slots that have been vacated or within the Department, whether there is a succession planning that you have created or implemented? And if so, what does it look like in terms of demographics and language abilities? Ms. Earp. We do not have at this point what I would describe as a fully fleshed out succession planning system. We have a strategic human capital plan that we are working on which will include provisions for succession planning. And it is anticipated that the succession planning will take into account how diverse America has become, and the changes that we see in our charge receipts. Mr. Honda. And with the changes that have occurred, the increasing diversity what would you consider some of the characteristics of an employee that should be embedded in that person in order to reflect or deal with the change in the population? Ms. Earp. Well, clearly employees who are multilingual would be an important skill to have. But also employees who are more analytical, who have some understanding of statistics. There are a number of skills that we would consider for the 21st century that perhaps were less important in our old case work. Mr. Honda. Would you submit for the record a list of the permanent hires made since 2006, including the date of hire, the position for which they were hired, and the position they currently hold, and a description of their positions, and the office to which they were assigned? I have a question, Mr. Chairman, and I am not sure if it is pertinent for this hearing but since it is EEOC and it is a question that probably applies to general practices across the board during the time of change, and if I may ask the question. During this time of change, there may be some shifting of personnel across the board in the capital. And I have always had a concern that some folks may be placed in one position over another in another position over someone who has been waiting for a promotion. Coming from another department, if they are favored by the person who has more control over personnel. Is that something that one watches out for and monitors or looks at when new hires, what positions will be moved around? That kind of, for lack of a better word, cronyism is avoided? Ms. Earp. I am not sure I completely understand the question. But I would---- Mr. Honda. I will be more blunt then. Ms. Earp. Okay. Mr. Honda. In a time of change, some people will be placed in positions over other people by a political appointee before they leave. Ms. Earp. We do not have any burrowing going on at EEOC. We do not have, the only political staff at EEOC are the Commissioners, the Legal Counsel, the General Counsel, and the Legislative Director. Those are the only ones. And the Office of Personnel Management has been very clear by directive about positions happening between now and next November, and that they have to be vetted by OPM. So I think that we are pretty vigilant and we are on guard for making sure that our career employees---- Mr. Honda. That is a better word. Ms. Earp. If there are positions to be filled, that they are the ones that get them. Mr. Honda. And I did not mean for the question to be directed towards EEOC. But EEOC's function, I thought, might also extend into other practices in other departments. And there is some sort of watch dog implemented, such as the one you described for your department. Ms. Earp. No. Other than having watch dog responsibilities for diversity and equal opportunity, we do not look specifically at what is transpiring during a transition period. Mr. Honda. Okay. Do you have a suggestion where that might be, that question might be placed? Ms. Earp. Well, both the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Office of Personnel Management have responsibility for non- meritorious promotions or hires. Mr. Honda. Okay. Very good. Thank you very much. Ms. Earp. Thank you. Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Mr. Frelinghuysen? Mr. Frelinghuysen. Could you tell me, of the charges that are brought, obviously a number are resolved but obviously you have not been able to resolve too many because you lack staff. A number are pending and those figures are escalating. What would be your make up of those charges? Let us take age, race, sex discrimination, national origin, issues related to people with disabilities. Could you just give us a general run down? Ms. Earp. Yes. Roughly---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. And is there sort of a history relative to any of those categories? And I do not mean to be saying that those are the only ones you deal with, are historically issues that relate to one of those areas more prevalent in the pending category? Ms. Earp. I think that our inventory is probably pretty consistent with the level of charge receipts on various bases. Historically, race is the number one charge filing that we receive and race normally accounts for somewhere between about 30, 35, 37 percent. Usually the number two category is gender, including sex discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, those kind of things. Number three can fluctuate but most recently it is retaliation. In fact, depending on how you slice the data, retaliation might actually be the number two basis. And then disability and age and national origin typically come in somewhere around 10 to 15 percent or less. But race and gender tend to be number one and number two. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Do you have case managers? Obviously, you have some people with more institutional memory and experience than others. Are people assigned that have a wealth of experience in a certain area to work on those cases? How does it work actually? Do those that work on behalf, on your behalf, do they own these cases until they are resolved? How would you characterize your workforce? Do they own these cases until they are resolved? Ms. Earp. A single individual, I cannot say---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. I know you get input from all sorts of people, obviously, if certain people are doing investigatory work and---- Ms. Earp. Right. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Doing all the things that are necessary. Ms. Earp. Well first of all, we try to pair our staff so that more junior staff gets the benefit of being mentored and trained and monitored by more senior staff. The best example of that is the way we are approaching systemic litigation and investigation where we are teaming those staff that have a lot of experience with the less experienced, more junior staff. But the complaint, the charge is owned on a continuum by the staff assigned to that particular process. In intake the intake staff takes care of it. They own it. They do everything they have to do with it. Then the investigator has it. Then it may go to a mediator. And certainly when it gets to legal, legal owns it, and becomes very passionate about it. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So they own it---- Ms. Earp. On a continuum it is owned by staff with various expertise. Mr. Frelinghuysen. When the National Contact Center ceased operations in December their work was brought in-house. Ms. Earp. Yes, sir. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So these people would be classified as intake? Ms. Earp. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And those intake workers are in the 15 offices around the country, is that right? Ms. Earp. Yes. CALL CENTER Mr. Frelinghuysen. Last year you submitted for the record that bringing the function in-house would involve one time costs, I think you mentioned of $2.3 million, and additional costs of $3.5 million. Do those estimates still hold? Ms. Earp. Pretty much. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Have there been any benefits in terms of overall efficiency and customer satisfaction, not forgetting the fact that there is this enormous backlog? Has there been any positive reaction to the new, to doing things the way that they historically had been done before the National Contact Center was set up? Ms. Earp. Well, we hired the customer intake representatives just last March. So it is still a pretty new function for us. But it is up and running. We will have customer satisfaction surveys in fairly short order to send out so that we can do some comparison. But at this point, I would basically say we are performing the intake function and responding to the public. And we will get better at it. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And how would you define repositioning? Ms. Earp. We basically collapsed our field structure from twenty-three district offices to fifteen. That allowed us to save by not having to hire twenty-three executives, hire fifteen instead. And it also gives better management control. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Has it? Ms. Earp. Yes, I would say so. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. STAFFING ISSUES Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. I would like to follow up a little bit on the staffing issues which really are going to have to be addressed if EEOC is going to do its job. You are going to have to have better staff and they are going to have to be qualified staff. Looking at your pending retirement eligibilities, I note that the IG report found that 42 percent of EEOC employees will be eligible to retire between 2007 and 2012. That includes 46 percent of the investigators, which is a huge number, and 24 percent of the attorneys, which is a large number. So talking a little bit about your succession plan, tell us how you are now thinking and those in your organization who are thinking about this, how are you planning for succession? Ms. Earp. We are working on a human capital plan which will take into account the fact that so many of our employees over the next five years are retirement eligible. The most important thing, especially for attorneys and for investigators, is to make sure we have the right number of people in the right places at the right grade level. Part of our inability to fund all of the positions that we have has to do with unfunded promotions and just structural deficiencies. A big centerpiece of our Human Capital Plan will be position management. Mr. Mollohan. Unfunded promotions means you cannot promote. Or if you do, you tell the people, ``Great you are getting a promotion but we are not able to fund it. Therefore you are not receiving any more salary.'' Is that right? Ms. Earp. Well basically we have professional staff but we just do not have the dollars. If you hire someone at the GS-12 level and the only budget you have is for a GS-12, if there is an across the board cost of living adjustment, increase in benefits, promotion, we have to take that money from somewhere in order to fund it. So usually we would take it from a vacancy. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. So does this year's budget request address those concerns and those short fundings? Ms. Earp. Modestly. But you have already indicated the problem, and the problem is the gap between our ceiling and what we can really afford. Mr. Mollohan. I see. Ms. Earp. The plan that I will give you proposes to close that gap. This is a structural problem that we have lived with probably for twenty years. Mr. Mollohan. When will you be able to get that plan up to this Committee? How long will it take you to do that? Ms. Earp. My Budget Director thinks about a week, maybe two. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Does your Budget Director have that in his head? Okay, but you are going to pull it together and get it up here within a week? All right. Just sharing some ideas. You are hiring x number of people to bring the call center in- house. Ms. Earp. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. How many offices do you have across the country? Ms. Earp. Fifty-three. Mr. Mollohan. Fifty-three. Are you going to hire an intake person, that is a person who will be replacing the responsibilities of the call center, in every one of the fifty- three offices? Ms. Earp. No, fifteen. Mr. Mollohan. Okay, I thought I heard that. So you are only going to have those in fifteen offices? Ms. Earp. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. And how many people will that be in each of the fifteen offices? Ms. Earp. It varies by the size of the district, but we are hiring sixty-six total, which includes sixty-one to actually answer the phone and the rest are either tech support or supervisors. Mr. Mollohan. I see. And the places you think you are saving is on the supervisors and the tech support, I guess? Ms. Earp. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. This is a huge attrition due to retirement. I think it is. I am just wondering if it would not be a good idea to hire, going back to my previous questions, people who are credentialed higher than you would normally think of hiring for an intake person, and look to move those people into investigators and attorneys positions. See, that would be a terrific training ground to move people in. Then you would ask for budgets to support them. Ms. Earp. Well, I would note that while 40 percent of our employees are eligible to retire over the next five years, the fact is EEOC's employees stay on average six to eight years beyond retirement eligibility. So those employees who are eligible to retire, we still believe that for most of them the exit will be a lot slower. Mr. Mollohan. So that is about 20 percent? Ms. Earp. It is about 19 percent a year actually eligible to leave. Mr. Mollohan. All right, well whatever those numbers are I just think that would be a good way to get talent into the entry level of your organization. When they were hired, if they are interested in this kind of work, and people who are interested in it are passionate about it, then they know that, wow, there is an opportunity for advancement. Again this is off the top of my head and I am not doing anything but sharing thoughts with you. But I will say this. This cannot fail. With these backlog rates, and we are going to do our very best to look at funding and be responsive to these numbers you come up with, you cannot fail here. If hiring people at these fifteen offices does not work, that is a bad thing. So you need to be really carefully looking at the successful transition of the call center to the in-house function. I respect totally that you live with this every day. We are going to be making judgments after the fact, which is always easier to do. But because of your expertise you are in a better position to make these judgments prospectively. But you cannot fail in this. We have backlogs here. This is the United States of America and this backlog record from 2001 is abysmal. We have all talked about that and you totally agree with it. We are agreeing together here, and I am sure most people sitting here also agree. This Committee wants to support you. So we need to know what to do. If only putting people in fifteen of these call centers is not good enough then you need to rethink it. If it is, that is great. If bringing people in who are more credentialed into these entry level positions, opportunity made available because you are bringing the call center activity in-house, I think, just off the top of my head that sounds like a great strategy. I think you need to do a cost benefit analysis regarding the various levels of expertise that can handle your intake. In other words, if you bring somebody into these call center positions or these entry level contract positions that is a little higher credentialed, that is a great training ground. They are going to move up and they can resolve cases. But what is the rate, and is there an opportunity to help reduce the backlog and to resolve charges at the entry point if there are people handling those entry level calls that have greater capability? Or greater experience, however you want to say that? That would be kind of a cost benefit. Maybe you pay a little more money for them, but you resolve more cases. I assume even somebody taking a call right now with the entry level people you are hiring can resolve some of these cases---- Ms. Earp. Mm-hmm. Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Probably, just by giving them information, right? So that is more of a speech, but do you have any thoughts to express on that? Ms. Earp. I would just like to underscore how pleased we are to have the $12 million increase and the opportunity to begin to address some of these structural issues. It is absolutely imperative that EEOC have a human capital plan that includes position management. I would agree with you that we need to refine exactly what skill at what level is needed along the continuum. Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Ms. Earp. Maybe for the most complex, the most nuanced charges, having a front line staff doing intake that is highly skilled and therefore expensive in some small number of cases is the way to go. But for 60 percent, perhaps, of the people who call, perhaps we would not want to spend more than what we are already investing. But I am very happy to continue to explore that and to provide for the record some thoughts on how to close the gap in our funding. Mr. Mollohan. Well again, nothing I have said is a judgment about this. I am in a poor position to make those judgments. You are in an excellent position with this good staff behind you to make those judgments. But I do think I am correct in looking at the number of folks that at least are eligible to retire and the fact that you are increasing the number. You can look at all this as an opportunity. You know, you need to do it right. And hopefully you really are and I know you are trying. Mr. Frelinghuysen. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Mr. Frelinghuysen. According to your budget document, and I quote, ``to move towards the vision of knowledge management, EEOC obtained external expert resources to conduct a knowledge management study, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.'' Where is that study? Ms. Earp. Well, we are actually implementing some of it with the in-house call center. To make sure that the people on the front line have the appropriate understanding of civil rights law to be able to vet the questions and respond to callers in an effective way. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, it is more than that though, is it not? Ms. Earp. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And it falls under the title of information technology, employing the latest technology. Ms. Earp. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. The gathering of statistics, of data, and drawing some conclusions from that data. So it is more than reinvigorating or educating the intake workers that are now back in the fifteen different centers. Ms. Earp. Well, in the sense that the technology is used to give the intake workers scripts and scenarios that allow them to immediately look to see is the caller stating a fact pattern, that more easily guides the intake worker to what the answer is. It is putting the knowledge in an easily accessible way through technology. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You completed this analysis in 2007? Ms. Earp. Yes. OUTREACH Mr. Frelinghuysen. My last question. In terms of outreach and education, wherever I go, whatever office I visit, prominently there is usually some poster which has the EEOC. While people may get it, some sort of ignore it because it is on the wall for a long time. However, it is a viable document. How would you characterize your outreach? In other words, some things are so innate and so abominable. But in many ways you are proactive on the prevention side of things here. There is a certain maturity out there, but in some cases, you are reinforcing things which are so basic, so obvious, so human. How are you doing your outreach? How would you characterize your outreach these days? Ms. Earp. We would characterize our outreach as highly effective and a contributing factor in the rising receipts. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Your fiscal year 2009 request contains a reduction in EEOC's support to state and local Fair Employment Practice Agencies and Tribal Employment Rights Organizations. At the requested level you will reimburse the FEPAs and the TEROs about $26 million in 2009, which is $3 million less than you reimbursed them for, or are planning to reimburse, in fiscal year 2008. What is the justification for this reduction in state and local assistance? Ms. Earp. The workload. Mr. Mollohan. Has gone down? Ms. Earp. For the state and local agencies, yes. Mr. Mollohan. Is that demonstratable across the country? Ms. Earp. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. Well, would you give us detail on that please? Ms. Earp. Sure. Mr. Mollohan. I mean right now. Can you do it right now? Talk to us about how the workload has gone down. Ms. Earp. Well, the state and local agencies around the country are somewhat uneven. They have different responsibilities. Some of them can take a charge all the way to an administrative decision. Others merely complete an investigation. But over the last several years, the charge receipts from state and local agencies have trended downward. Mr. Mollohan. And this reduction will not result in an increase of charges being carried forward, or create a backlog at the state and local level? Ms. Earp. We do not think so because the charges are considered dual filed. When they are filed with the state or local agency, or whether they are filed with us, ultimately they are considered filed with EEOC. Mr. Mollohan. Well if that is true I would think almost by definition they would be carrying increased backlogs. Because you are, and if they are dual filed and you are not disposing of them, then why are they not increasing at the state level? Ms. Earp. Well we think that is why our receipts are going up, because they are decreasing at the state and local level. Mr. Mollohan. Well, would it not be to your advantage then to promote the states taking up and disposing of these cases at the state level? And are you doing that? Ms. Earp. We work very, very closely with the FEPAs. We use some of them not just for processing charges but conducting investigations, mediations---- Mr. Mollohan. But are you promoting their taking cases? I guess that is an outreach and education effort and I know that your outreach and education budget is going down. Ms. Earp. Because the front line activities, our priorities are investigations and legal to put---- Mr. Mollohan. Do you think the states are not taking cases, or are assuming a declining responsibility in this area in part because they are not being encouraged or educated or outreached by the national EEOC? Ms. Earp. No, I do not think that. Mr. Mollohan. Really? Ms. Earp. I think that across the country there are complex reasons why some state and local agencies do very well and some do not. On average, their receipts have been trending downward. Mr. Mollohan. No, I know that and that is why we are asking these questions. I am sure it is an uneven experience across the United States. Some states are leaning forward in this area and some states not. But that was not my question. My question was, do you think you could reverse what is an unfortunate trend line? With backlogs going up nationally there is obviously a need out there. So it is unfortunate that the states are not taking it up. But is that possibly in part because the federal government is not being aggressive enough in outreaching and encouraging the states to take on this responsibility? Which if they were to do it would arguably lighten your load. Ms. Earp. I think that we could always improve our support of the FEPAs by advancing them more. Mr. Mollohan. Well, you have a variety of outreach and education programs. I really would like to know an answer to this. You are requesting less and less money all the time for education and outreach. That is going down. I know the focus of your outreach and education is to the companies, it is to the communities, it is telling people what their rights are. But is part of your education and outreach program to the states also? Or not? Ms. Earp. It could be. Typically they are our partners in the various outreach activities. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well these three sources are on the decline and your justification states that, ``We plan to reduce the resources committed to this activity,'' outreach, ``to support our administrative enforcement inventory reduction.'' Well, we are extremely supportive of backlog reduction. But I am not sure I see why that would come at the expense of outreach and education. Why should we treat these two activities as though they were a zero sum game? Ms. Earp. Basically, because everything cannot be a number one priority. Mr. Mollohan. Basically because you have not been given enough money. You would like to have more money in education and outreach? Is that correct? You would like to have more. I am not asking you to disown OMB as much as you would like to. Well, that was presumptuous. I take that back. Don't tell them I said that, will you please, Mr. Frelinghuysen? HEADQUARTERS RESTRUCTURING What is the status of your headquarters restructuring effort? Ms. Earp. It is on hold. We are a commission and we have not been able to reach a consensus, majority point of view, to reorganize headquarters. Mr. Mollohan. What options are being considered by the work group, or by the group of folks that are considering this question? Ms. Earp. Basically, the work group is looking at ways to be more efficient in the service to the field, to eliminate redundancies in headquarters, and there are a few. But at this point we do not see any consensus for moving forward. Mr. Mollohan. Does your budget request take into consideration a headquarter restructuring? Ms. Earp. No, but it does take into consideration about a 20 percent attrition rate of headquarters staff. Mr. Mollohan. Do you think that is realistic? Ms. Earp. It has been borne out more or less, senior people retiring in Washington. Mr. Mollohan. Well, are they not going to be replaced? Ms. Earp. Where we have the opportunity to replace for the most part we are not doing it at headquarters. We are replacing in the field. Mr. Mollohan. How many people do you have working in headquarters? Ms. Earp. 450. Mr. Mollohan. And as they retire? What explains the attrition? Ms. Earp. Mostly retirements, but also promotions and just other opportunities. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. And you are not replacing these people? Ms. Earp. For the most part, no. Mr. Mollohan. Does the fact that you are not replacing them partly explain your growing backlogs? Ms. Earp. No. Washington has less effect on helping to process the inventory than the field does. Mr. Mollohan. Have you done an assessment of what is needed in headquarters in terms of employment recently? Because it sounds like you do not need this number of people, if you are not replacing them when they leave. Ms. Earp. We hoped to accomplish just that with the headquarters working group but, again, we were not able to reach consensus so we have not had an opportunity to fully review where efficiencies could be gained in headquarters. Mr. Mollohan. Well, we need a little more information on this. I mean, most agencies can tell you how many people they need operating in the various offices that are under their jurisdiction. So I guess the question is, how many people do you need working at headquarters? Can you tell us that? Ms. Earp. That is a question that I had hoped the working group would answer. Mr. Mollohan. Well of course you are answering it as a matter of practice every day when you are not replacing people who are leaving. You are saying, ``Well, we do not need that person.'' Ms. Earp. Well, what I am doing is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Essentially, if I have a GS-14 who retires in Washington, D.C. but I need an investigator in Tupelo, Mississippi I am going to try to make sure I put that investigator close to the field, to where that person is needed in the field. It is prioritizing. Mr. Mollohan. Have you had an outside entity, GAO or the IG, look at your staffing needs from headquarters down to the field offices recently? Ms. Earp. The working group that looked at headquarters repositioning essentially recommended that we have an outside firm with organizational development expertise look at headquarters. Mr. Mollohan. When was that recommendation made? Ms. Earp. Last fall. Mr. Mollohan. And what has happened to that recommendation? Ms. Earp. We have not acted on it because to spend the money we need a consensus from our commissioners to do it. And there is no consensus. Mr. Mollohan. How much money would be involved? Do you have an estimate? Ms. Earp. Quarter of a million dollars. Mr. Mollohan. In other words, some of the commissioners want to have the study and some commissioners do not? Ms. Earp. Yes. And for some of the commissioners timing is important. HEADQUARTERS RELOCATION Mr. Mollohan. Okay, I feel like we just got into a political quagmire here and I do not know where to go exactly with this so we will follow up in different ways. You are planning on relocating your headquarters from L Street to M Street. Where are you on L Street? Ms. Earp. Right now we are at 1801 L, Northwest. Mr. Mollohan. 1801 L Street, just off Connecticut Avenue? Ms. Earp. Yes, a block up. Mr. Mollohan. How long have you been there? Ms. Earp. Almost twenty years. Mr. Mollohan. So you are one block north? M? H, I, J, K, L, M? Ms. Earp. We are moving to NOMA in Northeast. Mr. Mollohan. Well, everybody wants to get in on this. Are we excited about this move? So southeast? Ms. Earp. Northeast. Mr. Mollohan. Oh, northeast. Northeast, okay. Well, your security costs are supposed to go up by $1 million? Somebody has done a study here and came up with that estimate, is that correct? Ms. Earp. Well, basically the Department of Homeland Security tells us what our security costs will be. Mr. Mollohan. Oh, really. It is in their building or something? Ms. Earp. Well, they control how many cameras---- Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Ms. Earp [continuing]. How many guards we have to have. Mr. Mollohan. Okay, how are you going to pay for that? Ms. Earp. Some of it is absorbed in the cost of the move because we have been planning for the move for a number or years, and GSA has built it into this total move package. Mr. Mollohan. Because you have not requested anything for the extra security. Ms. Earp. No. Mr. Mollohan. Well, that is an annualized item, is it not? Ms. Earp. Yes. ENGLISH ONLY IN THE WORK PLACE Mr. Mollohan. Okay. I have to ask a question about English- only workplace rules. As you are certainly aware, there has been considerable congressional interest in the EEOC's pursuit of discrimination charges relating to English-only workplace rules. I would like to give you an opportunity to explain EEOC's legal reasoning on these cases and to put them into perspective compared to EEOC's overall employment discrimination workload. It is my understanding that the EEOC supports an employer's right to promulgate an English-only rule, but only in certain circumstances. So can you explain to us those circumstances where English-only rules are necessary and those where they are discriminatory? Ms. Earp. Very briefly, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does not believe that employers should have proxies for race or national origin, or any other unlawful basis. And sometimes requiring English can be a proxy for discrimination based on national origin. If the job involves health, safety, those kind of things, we believe that an employer should be able to make a rational justification to require English within the context of the job. Not, however, when a person is on a lunch break or a bathroom break, or coming or going to work. It is a thirty-year policy of EEOC. Mr. Mollohan. You sounded like you really got into your---- Ms. Earp. That is my comfort zone. Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Into your comfort zone right there. Good for you. What portion of your charge receipts allege discrimination based on English-only policies? Ms. Earp. Very, very, very small. Mr. Mollohan. Very few? Ms. Earp. Very few. Mr. Mollohan. Are you familiar with the provision that the Senate tried to put into our bill last year regarding this matter? Ms. Earp. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. Without getting into it, did you oppose or support that initiative? Ms. Earp. I support my agency's thirty-year policy. I believe it is. Mr. Mollohan. Which that would have contradicted. That provision would have contradicted it. It would not have been consistent with the standard you just testified to, am I correct? Ms. Earp. Employers can require that English be spoken when there is a rational, business reason to do that. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. All right. Mr. Frelinghuysen? Okay. We will have some questions for the record. We very much appreciate your testimony here today. We appreciate your good work trying to work with declining scarce resources each and every year during the last eight or so years. We appreciate the good work of all of your staff, those who are here and those who are out in the field working hard to see that the mission of the EEOC is carried out properly and effectively. So thank you again for your testimony. We look forward to working with you and getting some information from you that you have committed to supplying to us in the next short time frame. Ms. Earp. Thank you, sir. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you very much, Ms. Earp. The hearing is adjourned. [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Wednesday, April 2, 2008. LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION WITNESSES HELAINE M. BARNETT, PRESIDENT, LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION FRANK B. STRICKLAND, CHAIRMAN, LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION Opening Statement by Mr. Mollohan Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order. Well, good afternoon. We welcome two witnesses to testify on the fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Legal Services Corporation, Ms. Helaine Barnett and Mr. Frank Strickland, respectively, the LSC's President and Board Chairman. Established in 1974, the Legal Services Corporation's mission is to promote equal access to justice in our nation and to provide high quality, civil legal assistance to low income people. The Legal Service Corporation carries out this mission by awarding grants to legal service providers in more than 900 locations across the nation. The Legal Services Corporation budget request for the fiscal year 2009 is $471,400,000 an increase of $121 million over the current year funding level. In 2005 the LSC issued a Justice Gap report which was a nationwide study which found that half of the eligible people who seek legal help from LSC funded programs are turned away due to lack of resources. Clearly, there is much work to be done to improve America's access to justice. Ms. Barnett and Mr. Strickland, we appreciate your efforts to grant people access to justice. We welcome your testimony. And before you proceed, I would like to call on my Ranking Member, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Opening Statement of Mr. Frelinghuysen Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join the Chairman in welcoming you both to testify about your 2009 budget request. The Act that created the Legal Services Corporation in 1974 provided you with pass through budget authority and therefore you can provide the Appropriations Committee with an independent assessment of your funding without OMB approval. We know those amounts. I think we are aware that the President's budget requested a lower amount, $311 million which is $39.5 million below the fiscal year 2008 level. Also, you have had two recent GAO reports that contain many recommendations on governance, oversight, and grants management. I will have some questions about the follow up work you are doing in that regard. And like the Chairman, I welcome you. Thank you for the good job you are doing. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Both your written statements will be made a part of the record and Chairman Strickland would you like to proceed? Opening Statement Mr. Strickland. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Mollohan and Congressman Frelinghuysen and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today on the work of the Legal Services Corporation. And on behalf of our Board of Directors, I want to thank you for the continued support that you have shown for this program. It means a great deal to the lives of our clients and fulfills our obligation as citizens to support equal access to justice. We have a dedicated and committed team of directors, each of whom take their obligations very seriously. The Board fully supports our appropriations request for fiscal year 2009 and feels that it is based on a necessary assessment of where we need to be on the road to closing the justice gap in America. The Legal Services Corporation is the largest single source of funding for civil legal aid for low income individuals and families. We fund 137 programs with more than 900 offices serving every congressional district. More than 95 percent of LSC appropriations are distributed to these programs. The Corporation provides guidance, training and oversight to ensure that programs provide high quality legal services and comply with congressional restrictions, LSC rules and regulations. In that regard, I would like to address at the outset the issue of two GAO reports on LSC. As you know, GAO published reports in 2007 and early 2008 on our Corporation's governance and grants management. We appreciated both of these reviews and accepted all of the recommendations. With regard to the governance and accountability report, the Board has approved a code of ethics and conduct for directors, officers, and employees of the Corporation; established a separate audit committee of the Board; and approved a charter for that Committee, and approved the continued use of the Government Accounting Standards Board guidelines for LSC's financial reports. LSC management has completed the first phase of a continuity of operations plan for the Corporation, which has been disseminated to all LSC staff. In addition, we have begun an intensive review of the elements of a risk management program so that we can adopt a best practices program commensurate with the size and budget of LSC. With respect to the GAO report on LSC's grants management and oversight, the Board of Directors at its January 2008 meeting appointed an ad hoc committee consisting of three board members, one of whom I designated as board liaison. We assigned them to work directly with LSC management and its Office of Compliance and Enforcement, the Office of Program Performance, and the Office of Inspector General to implement the recommendations of the GAO reports. The Board liaison held two day long meetings at which representatives of these offices identified each aspect of fiscal oversight, areas where improvement could be made, and areas where greater communication and organization would improve fiscal oversight and help achieve the LSC mission. Importantly, management and the OIG identified in detail the oversight roles and responsibilities of each relevant organization within LSC, and in so doing specifically addressed oversight of the independent public accountant process. The Ad Hoc Committee has briefed the Board and the Board is expected to act on the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations regarding a delineation of roles and responsibilities during its meeting at the end of April. As you know, the report on grants management contained troubling references to alleged improper use of grant funds by nine LSC funded programs. Eight of the nine cases were referred to the then acting assistant inspector general on November 20, 2007 by President Barnett. The compliance review of the ninth program, Nevada Legal Services, had begun prior to the GAO report and was retained for a follow up by the Office of Compliance and Enforcement. That report is near completion and further action will result. In addition, in an advisory to all LSC funded programs dated March 20, 2008, President Barnett reminded executive directors of the need for appropriate documentation of expenditures of LSC funds, of the regulations regarding unallowable costs, and specifically stressed the prohibition of expenditures for alcohol and lobbying, the need for written policies governing salary advances, and a reminder of the regulation governing derivative income. The OIG has visited three grantees and is scheduled to visit the other five over the next two months. The OIG has reported to us that for the three sites already reviewed and based on the OIG's preliminary analysis, management at the grantees has taken corrective actions based on the GAO recommendations and has implemented or is implementing additional controls to prevent those issues from recurring. And speaking of the OIG, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Jeffrey E. Schanz as the Corporation's Inspector General effective March 3, 2008. Mr. Schanz is in the audience today. Mr. Schanz comes to LSC from the U.S. Department of Justice where he served for the past 17 years as Director of the Office of Policy and Planning in the Audit Division at the Office of the Inspector General at the Justice Department. Mr. Chairman, we are taking these matters very seriously and are giving our highest priority to implement all the recommendations with speed and diligence. All of this effort is in recognition of the fact that stewardship of taxpayer dollars is among our most important responsibilities. Our Board remains proud of this program and the critical role it plays in our nation's justice system. And we will continue to ensure that LSC provides the most effective and efficient representation possible of the civil legal needs of the eligible poor throughout this country. Thank you and I would be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. [Written testimony by Frank B. Strickland Chairman, Legal Services Corporation] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Strickland. President Barnett. Opening Statement Ms. Barnett. Chairman Mollohan, Congressman Frelinghuysen, thank you very much for holding this hearing and giving me the opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 2009 budget request of the Legal Services Corporation. I also want to thank you for the bipartisan support you continue to provide LSC. While I know that you share our disappointment in how the budget process ended last year, our community greatly appreciates your efforts in attempting to help close the justice gap. At the outset, I wish to echo the sentiments of Chairman Strickland regarding the reports of the Government Accountability Office. I want to assure you that I am sincere when I say that we truly embrace those reviews, take them with the utmost seriousness, and welcome the opportunity they afford us to do our job even better. Oversight of the use of scarce resources is necessary and appropriate. And as Chairman Strickland said, we are responding aggressively to the concerns and recommendations made by GAO. Our job is important and it is vitally important that we carry it out with energy and the proper level of stewardship. And why is it important? As you know, my entire career has been devoted to providing legal aid to low income persons. I am honored to be the first legal aid attorney to hold the position of President of the Corporation in its 34 year history. I know firsthand what our mission means to the lives of our clients. In fact, civil legal assistance to the poor literally saves lives. When we assisted a young family in Wheeling from being evicted and falling into homelessness, when we saved a battered wife in Memphis from a violent and abusive marriage, when we helped a young mother in South Jersey maintain custody of her little girl, and when we saved a Baltimore grandmother from losing her home to foreclosure, our programs are literally saving the lives of our clients and giving them a chance to be productive members of society. But legal aid is more than that. In a very direct way it saves money by preventing the downward spiral of the poor into costly public support. Ensuring that our clients are adequately represented in the civil justice system greatly improves their chances of keeping a home rather than moving into a shelter; holding a job rather than going onto public assistance; receiving medical care rather than costly hospitalization; escaping an abusive relationship rather than suffering further injury and even death. In short, civil legal assistance saves both lives and money. Someone asked me the other day what was the hardest thing I ever had to do as a legal aid lawyer. Without a moment's hesitation I said having to tell someone we couldn't help them knowing they had nowhere else to turn was the hardest task I ever had to do. Our Justice Gap report has documented that for every eligible client that we are able to assist, one is turned away due to lack of resources. Recent State legal need studies and reports since the Justice Gap report not only affirmed the earlier findings, but showed that the needs may well have been understated in the report. The Justice Gap report concluded it will take a doubling of the resources from both federal and non-federal sources to fill the Justice Gap. While I am pleased to report a rise in non- federal resources for civil legal aid in 2005 and 2006, in the past year the fiscal problems of many State governments and IOLTA programs have threatened this progress. The $22 million increase that this Subcommittee was able to give LSC in 2007 was our first federal increase in four years and was a good start. But we need to work with you and the Senate to continue that progress this year. With respect to the fiscal year 2009 budget, LSC requests an appropriation of $471 million, an increase of approximately $40 million over our fiscal year 2008 request. Again this year more than 95 percent of the request is for basic field grants to programs that provide essential civil legal assistance to low income Americans and for grants to programs to improve efficiency and effectiveness through the use of technology. Since we testified before this Subcommittee last year, the sub prime mortgage crisis across the country and the rise of foreclosures has overtaken many of our clients and flooded many of our programs with requests for assistance. Renters and senior citizens with fixed incomes are especially vulnerable to be displaced by foreclosure. Our programs across the country are seeing a dramatic increase in calls from people seeking assistance with housing and predatory lending matters. Without additional funding, these programs will be unable to meet this increasing demand for legal services. In addition, LSC funded programs continue to provide civil legal assistance as part of the recovery process to victims of natural disasters such as hurricane Katrina, fires in Southern California, floods in the Midwest, tornados recently in Tennessee and Arkansas. More than two and a half years after hurricane Katrina, LSC grantees continue to help people with the loss of their homes, jobs, and health care. I know from my own experience with 9/11 in New York City that the legal problems of victims of disasters continue for many years to come. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, as you noted at this hearing last year, the appropriation for the Legal Services Corporation amounts to less than half of what was provided in 1981 in inflation adjusted dollars. Fourteen years ago LSC received $400 million from Congress. The LSC Board and I urge you to restore adequate funding for the provision of civil legal aid to the most vulnerable among us. In this effort the federal government must lead the way consistent with its role in fulfilling the promise of our constitution, the promise inscribed on the Supreme Court Building, ``Equal justice under law.'' I can assure you that your support will not only help fulfill the promise, it will literally save more lives. Thank you and I would be happy to answer your questions. [Written testimony of Helaine M. Barnett, President, Legal Services Corporation] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] FUNDING Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Ms. Barnett. You raised the issue of your funding in the past years in comparable dollars what would your request be this year if you were to receive the appropriation you received in 1995, which in your chart here is $400 million? Do you know the answer to that? Ms. Barnett. Probably more than, certainly more than what we are asking for and probably closer to the seven hundreds. Mr. Mollohan. I would guess. Ms. Barnett. I am getting the---- Mr. Mollohan. Well you can get a better number for the record. [The information follows:] Congress appropriated $400 million to LSC for fiscal year 1995. Had LSC's funding kept pace with inflation with its 1995 level, LSC would be receiving $555.6 million today. In addition, if LSC's funding had kept pace with inflation on our FY 1980 funding level of $300 million (high-water mark), our funding level today would be $770.7 million. Ms. Barnett. Certainly. Mr. Mollohan. But I am sure that is right. So your request is considerably lower than what your highest funding level was some---- Ms. Barnett. Fourteen years ago. Mr. Mollohan. Fourteen, thirteen, fourteen years ago. Well Legal Service Corporation has certainly been looked at here. The IG last year, the GAO this year. And you have embraced the recommendations which seems don't know how you could be more responsive. And you are in the process of developing methods and procedures and requesting funding so that you can even expand your oversight capabilities, both financial activities and programmatic activities. Is that correct? Mr. Strickland. Correct. GAO Mr. Mollohan. Chairman Strickland, do you want to speak to that a little more than you did in your testimony? And in regard to the nature of the concerns that GAO has come up with and how you think that defines the Legal Services Corporation today. Mr. Strickland. Well I think the Board has been extraordinarily responsive to the report on governance of the Corporation. As I outlined, we moved very quickly on that at the January meeting here in Washington and we continue to move ahead on that. As I said, we have already adopted a comprehensive code of ethics and conduct. That is already in place. That is for the whole organization, not just for the Board. Another recommendation that the GAO had for us was to develop a continuity of operations plan. That is not in place, but it is well under way in terms of its development. We are also looking at a number of things that are in the category of best practices, best management practices, so that we can adopt a program for LSC that fits us as opposed to some much larger organization. And the most recent thing we did, which was something that the GAO, as I recall it, asked us to consider, and that is whether to have a separate audit committee. We did have that function under our Finance Committee and our Ad Hoc Committee which was appointed in January, brought to us a recommendation that we should have a separate audit committee. And the Board in a conference call meeting within the past couple of weeks accepted that recommendation and approved a charter for the audit committee, and delegated to me as is typical for an appointment of committees, that responsibility. So I have appointed the Audit Committee and the Board also approved a charter for the Audit Committee. So we have taken a number of steps. Mr. Mollohan. What would be the responsibilities of the Audit Committee? Mr. Strickland. The Audit Committee will work in conjunction with the Inspector General relying on the professional side of the equation and looking to the IG to bring recommendations for LSC's outside accounting firm, which performs an annual audit of LSC's books and records. So the IG and the Audit Committee of the Board will work together in that effort to select the auditor, oversee the audit function itself, receive and review the annual report from the accounting firm and then bring that to the Board. Mr. Mollohan. Ms. Barnett, are all of your programs audited across the nation? Ms. Barnett. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Every LSC grantee is required by the LSC Act to have a financial audit each year. And in 1996 Congress and the Appropriations Act actually designated the independent public accountants to be under the supervision of the Office of the Inspector General. And the audits have to be completed on an annual basis. They are given to the Office of the Inspector General who is to refer to management any findings that need followup. Mr. Mollohan. So typically a local program would hire a local accounting firm to conduct an audit of that particular program at that site? Ms. Barnett. That is correct. Mr. Mollohan. And do they have a uniform set of criteria besides what normally the accountants look at in order to judge the program by? Ms. Barnett. Well, the Office of the Inspector General has an audit guide and a compliance supplement that they are given. I think as a result of the GAO recommendations on grants management and oversight, we are working with the Office of the Inspector General and with the Board to clarify the roles and responsibilities of fiscal oversight. And to give guidance, further guidance, to both the auditors and to our grantees in their accounting manual with regard to the financial audits. Mr. Mollohan. So you are tightening up the financial requirements for your local programs? Ms. Barnett. We are certainly looking to give better guidance to the IPA's and to our programs. And as I said where we are working to clarify the roles and responsibilities and to improve our information sharing. So that I think as a result of the GAO report that is what will happen. HIRING Mr. Mollohan. Now you are requesting increased funding to hire additional personnel at the LSC offices. Could you tell us what that increased funding is for and what capabilities you need to be hiring? Ms. Barnett. I will be happy to. At the moment the Corporation has 88 persons in our Washington Headquarters office. Roughly half are devoted to our two offices that do oversight in terms of looking at program quality and compliance with regulations, rules, and the LSC Act. We have asked for an increase from $12.5 million to $17 million. That would basically provide additional staff for those two offices to permit us to do more of the oversight, more visits in the field. The total request, I would point out, is only 3.8 percent of the total request for administration that we are requesting. So I think we are low by any standard. But we do feel we need more staff in order to be able to make more visits in the field. We do have 137 programs with 900 offices throughout the country, and the staff we are asking for, by the way, also includes management support. It is not everybody that can go to the field. But that is the basis for our request for management administration this year. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Again, I welcome both of you. The first GAO report was issued in August, is that right? Mr. Strickland. Correct. Mr. Frelinghuysen. September of last year. And that first report indicated that a properly implemented governance and accountability structure might have prevented questionable expenditures in the incident where pay exceeded statutory caps. As a general question, I understand the notion from Mr. Strickland's testimony, ``We have accepted all the recommendations.'' That is accepting responsibility. And, you know, I am a supporter of the Legal Services Corporation. How many of the recommendations actually have been resolved? Mr. Strickland. Well---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. I understand the exceptions noted, but how many have actually been resolved? Mr. Strickland. Well, for example, it was recommended that we establish a code of ethics and conduct. We have done that. It was recommended we have a continuity of operations plan. We are in the first phase of developing that plan. It is not quite as easy to develop that as it is a code of ethics and conduct. It was recommended that we make a decision on the use of the Government Accounting Standards Board guidelines for our financial statements. We have adopted that. There was a recommendation that we establish a separate audit committee. We have done that. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Lets just focus on that just for a---- Mr. Strickland. On the Audit Committee? Mr. Frelinghuysen. You established a separate Audit Committee of the Board, which I think obviously is beneficial. Can you describe to the Committee what the Committee's charter is? Mr. Strickland. Well the charter is, I don't have it, but it is a fairly detailed charter. It runs on for several pages, but the essence of it is, and by the way, that---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. More importantly, if you know if there is specific responsibilities what are they doing under the charter, the new vehicle, that they weren't doing before maybe in a general sense? Mr. Strickland. The Audit Committee as I mentioned has just been established in the past 30 days. And it has not had its first meeting. It will have its first meeting at the end of April at our Board meeting scheduled for that time. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So has the Committee's charter--is there a charter? Mr. Strickland. Yes, sir. There is a written charter, the charter was adopted. Mr. Frelinghuysen. The charter I assume embodies certain principles? Mr. Strickland. Yes. And I outlined---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. And are they remarkably different than what you have been operating under in your prior life or? Mr. Strickland. I think they are considerably more detailed. What we had been operating under for a number of years were the typical corporate bylaws for LSC as a Corporation. The more current thing to do both in publicly traded corporations and non-profits is to have charters, that is a much more detailed outline of the responsibilities of Board Committees. So as I mentioned, we now have a much more detailed charter for our Audit Committee, which I think will enable that Committee to give much sharper focus to the oversight of LSC's financial statements and its own audit. The entire focus of the Board's Audit Committee is it doesn't really have anything to do with our grantees. It has to do with---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. But the grantees themselves are audited. Mr. Strickland. Oh, yes. But they are not---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. So under the purview of the Audit Committee surely would come the audits which would, I assume, be annually submitted by all of those programs under your area of responsibility? Mr. Strickland. Correct. But the responsibility for overseeing the independent audits of our grantee programs rests in the Office of Inspector General. Mr. Frelinghuysen. What does the new Committee do then? Mr. Strickland. The new Committee's function is the oversight of LSC's own books and records, its internal functions. Overseeing its own independent public accounting. The selection of that accounting firm working with the auditor on LSC's audit. And receiving that report and presenting it to the Board. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Is this new Committee different? Well how is it different from what you had before? Mr. Strickland. Well before it was combined with our Finance Committee, which is primarily on the budget side of the equation. And as an adjunct it had a general responsibility for the audit. But it was almost entirely delegated, in fact it was entirely delegated to the Office of Inspector General to select the auditor, to oversee the audit, and to bring the auditor to the Board. So the---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. So now the Board members take---- Mr. Strickland. Now the Board members are right in the thick of it. Mr. Frelinghuysen. In the thick of it. Mr. Strickland. Right in the thick of it. That is the big distinction. NEW CODE OF ETHICS Mr. Frelinghuysen. Your testimony describes a new code of ethics, new orientations and evaluation for Board members and the adoption of charters for each Board Committee. How many Board members are there? How regularly do they meet? And what is the time commitment that each of them makes in order to serve? Mr. Strickland. The Board as a matter of law has 11 members. It is a bipartisan Board, also by law. We currently have ten members. One of our client Board members died and we have not brought on a replacement or the President has not appointed a replacement to the Board. So we have ten members. And we are, again, required by law to meet no less than four times per year. And in my tenure on the Board, which is just this month ending or actually--or yes, five years, we have met I would say on the average of seven to nine times each year. Four times in person and the balance in extended conference call meetings. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I think that is hugely admirable. In your testimony you described the new code of ethics. Is every member been run through that process and do they familiarize themselves with should we say the new posts? Mr. Strickland. It as you can tell from the discussion here the GAO report was issued last September. And between then and now, which is roughly six months, we have adopted some charters. They are all new to the Board. And the Board, I would say it is a fair statement that it is just getting acquainted with the essence of each of these charters. Now all the charters are not done yet. We have now with the Audit Committee, four standing committees of the Board. So the Audit Committee has its charter. The other charters are works in progress and are not yet in place. NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well I am not sure I fully understand it, but will all the new requirements for Board members be in place by the end of the year? Mr. Strickland. Oh, absolutely. Mr. Frelinghuysen. They will be? Mr. Strickland. No question. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And, lastly, the GAO also made some recommendations to Congress to consider making changes in law to Legal Services Corporation governance and accountability requirements, you are familiar with some of those recommendations? Mr. Strickland. I don't know that I--are you inquiring about the governance or a change in structure? Mr. Frelinghuysen. Governance and accountability requirements. Mr. Strickland. Some that are different from those in the GAO report? Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am not sure that you need to ask me the question. Mr. Strickland. I am trying to---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am trying to figure out whether---- Mr. Strickland. I am trying to clarify. Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. If you are familiar with what the GAO has recommended. Ms. Barnett. Congressman Frelinghuysen? Mr. Frelinghuysen. And do you agree that the changes they have recommended are necessary to ensure proper oversight? Mr. Strickland. As we have said, we have accepted all the recommendations and we are working diligently to implement our responses to those and many of those are already in place. And we fully embrace them and intend to comply with all of them. Ms. Barnett. Congressman Frelinghuysen, if I could offer to please, as part of the record, we would send you the charter that was newly adopted for the Audit Committee and the code of ethics and conduct. And, yes, I would say every Board member is completely familiar with that code. We are in the process of ensuring that all our employees are familiar with it. They are going to have to acknowledge receipt and agree to abide by it. So I think that surely I would have answered by the end of the April Board meeting, I think, the Board is going to have acted on that. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am on your side, but I think these are the sort of questions that certainly are within the purview of our Committee. Ms. Barnett. Absolutely. Mr. Frelinghuysen. If there are some doubts about what you are doing, and I have no doubt about the mission of the Legal Services Corporation, certainly from the New Jersey experience, it would be good to address them head on. This is a pretty good venue to give us some pretty good assurances. So I think you have done that, Madam President. Mr. Strickland. I will say Mr. Frelinghuysen that having worked with this Board for five years I am absolutely convinced that every member of the Board is dedicated to what they are doing. And they demonstrate that every time I have the occasion to work directly with them at Board meetings and otherwise. And there has never been any doubt of that. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am sure it is true dedication, but the GAO has found some weaknesses and obviously even despite that dedication there have been some identifiable weaknesses and I think we have a right to sort of---- Mr. Strickland. I agree with you completely. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Mr. Fattah. Mr. Fattah. I just really want to complement what you have done by responding to the concerns that have been raised. Obviously, this is a very important agency to Philadelphia that has a done a great deal of service for thousands of my constituents. So, Mr. Chairman, I yield for any other questions at this time. OVERSIGHT Mr. Mollohan. Well, I am impressed after reviews by the IG last year and by the GAO last year and this year that LSC is first of all being responsive to the governance issues raised by both of these entities, leaning really forward and reorganizing in such a way as that you are going to have better oversight. And I look at these issues that have been raised as being solvable by reorganizations and better communication with your grantees as to what is expected from them in their annual audits. Whatever weaknesses occurred in the internal controls over the grants management and oversight, it seems that you have taken immediate action. That is all to your credit, and is not at all surprising. I am comforted by the fact that in all that oversight I don't see any bombshells here. So it sounds like you are, number one, being responsive and number two, being responsive. FUNDING LEVEL Mr. Mollohan. Now, you are requesting $471.4 million and that is $121 million over the current year funding level. In my first round I tried to get some sense of what would be the comparable dollars today if you were being funded at the 1995 level. And you are estimating you are going to supply for the record a better number it would be over $700 million. You aren't nearly approaching the real number that you had back then and therefore you are not able to provide the services at the same level you were previously. Thus, the gap that we talk about. And I would like to give you an opportunity to talk about the gap to give the Committee an appreciation for what you are trying to say about it and how it translates into the needs of the country with regard to providing legal services for those who can't provide them for themselves. Ms. Barnett. The Justice Gap Report which was the first nationwide study as to eligible people who come to LSC funded offices throughout the country indicated how many were helped and how many we were not able to help. And as a result of surveying all of our programs it was uniformly reported that for every one person that was eligible and did receive service, we were unable to serve one because of lack of program resources. So we were meeting less than 50 percent of the need. Since the Justice Gap Report came out, there have been at least ten State legal need studies and reports that have documented far greater needs and indicate that our report understated the actual need, ranging anywhere up as high as 80 to 85 percent not being met. In addition---- Mr. Mollohan. Good point. Ms. Barnett. Yes. UNMET NEEDS Mr. Mollohan. You measured unmet need by the percentage of people who came into your office that you had to turn away. How is this unmet need that you didn't identify, how is that being measured? Ms. Barnett. With the State studies? Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Ms. Barnett. Each State study did it in a different way. Some were engaged academics. Some had consultants. I think in our written testimony we indicate and give the cites to all the State recent need studies. I would be happy to elaborate further on the way in which they use them. They were published reports by different entities in the States that document the needs as being far greater than the 50 percent that we documented by the request we made of our programs during a two month period in 2005. NUMBER OF CLIENTS SERVED Mr. Mollohan. Are you able to relate the appropriations that you have received in the past and the number of clients that you have served compared to how many clients you could serve if you were to receive your request? And maybe you can do it for the record if you can't do it here today. [The information follows:] LSC grantees have been closing nearly a million a cases a year collectively. In 2006, with an appropriations of $326.5 million ($4.5 million less than previous year), LSC-funded programs closed a total of 895,000 cases. In 2007, LSC received its first funding increase of $22 million, for a total appropriation of $348.5 million. LSC-funded programs closed an additional 11,000 cases than the previous year. While that number is substantial, since it was the first funding increase in four years, infrastructure and salary improvements are also being addressed. We would expect any funding increase in the future to result in an increase at least commensurate with the 2007 increase. Ms. Barnett. I would be happy to elaborate for the record. I can share with you that in 2007 when we got a $22 million increase in our funding we were able to close 11,000 additional cases and they are eligible cases regardless of the source of funding. Now that is a substantial number, but it would have been even more but for the fact it was the first federal increase we have had in four years. And our programs have infrastructure needs, their operating costs have gone up. They have salary needs. As you know, legal aid lawyers are the lowest paid lawyers in the public sector. And so in spite of that I would indicate that we would be able to increase the number of cases commensurate with the increase we did with the 2007 increase. But closed cases are not the sole measure of the services that Legal Services programs perform. They do an extensive array of non-case work that is preventative. They do community legal education. They do legal brochures. They do pro se assistance. They do self help materials. And in fact last year we handled 500,000 or close to somewhere between 500,000 and a million more of these additional services which would bring that up to 16,000 people being helped by them. Mr. Mollohan. Well if you were here asking for an appropriation that would close the gap as you defined it, what amount would you be asking for a federal appropriation? Ms. Barnett. Our Justice Gap Report said we needed a doubling of both the federal and the non-federal sources to close the justice gap at that time. And I think our Board recognizing political realities decided that they would ask for a 20 percent increase of basic field grant over five years. Well, clearly, we are not going to close the gap in five years. But that was the principled approach in trying to ask for an appropriation that would eventually help close the justice gap. But the justice gap is in fact a moving target. And it has increased by the needs of the sub prime loan mortgage crisis. And it has increased by the needs of victims from natural disasters. So in one point of time when we said what was the justice gap, the justice gap keeps increasing as the economy and these different disasters of one kind or another increase the number of poor people who are in need of and are eligible for free legal services. And today there are 50 million people that would qualify for eligibility for civil legal assistance. TURNING AWAY CLIENTS Mr. Mollohan. Okay. So it is your testimony that for one of the one out of two people that you have to turn away that walk in your office and ask for help, that the person you have to turn away or that 50 percent, they would otherwise be eligible except you just do not have the capacity to provide service to them? Ms. Barnett. That is correct. Mr. Mollohan. They are turned away because you don't have enough resources to provide service to them. Otherwise, they are eligible. They are not excluded by any of the restrictions and---- Ms. Barnett. That is correct. They are turned away solely because our programs don't have the resources to be able to assist them. Mr. Mollohan. Well that must be difficult to turn these people away. Do you simply turn them away? Do you refer them to other resources? You put them on a waiting list? How do you deal with the people you turn away? Ms. Barnett. Well as I indicated in my oral testimony, I found that to be the hardest part of the job of being a legal aid lawyer, because when you turn them away many, many if not most times there is nowhere else to go. Mr. Mollohan. Really? You don't have any place to refer them to? Ms. Barnett. I don't. Mr. Mollohan. You are often just saying, ``Sorry, we can't help you.'' Ms. Barnett. That is right. Mr. Mollohan. Wow. Ms. Barnett. That is why we are increasing the amount of work we do for self help material and community legal education to know your rights to try to empower people to help themselves when we are not able to help them ourselves. Mr. Mollohan. Are you developing strategies for these alternative ways to assist people? Ms. Barnett. Oh, we are doing that through our technology grants. We are doing that through the other services that we provide. We are trying to better capture those services from our programs in order that we can be able to have available to people we are not able to provide legal representation the means by which they can help themselves. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Fattah. Mr. Fattah. On the Chairman's---- Mr. Mollohan. You will just yield to---- RESTRICTIONS Mr. Fattah. On the Chairman's line of questioning, some of these people you are turning away as individuals could be assisted if you were able to proceed and focus on groups of individuals, class action and other types of more broad-based strategies and there are restrictions now, right, on what you can and can't do in that regard. Could you talk about how that impacts your work, you know, for instance on the foreclosure crisis that the nation is facing now. I would imagine that thousands and thousands of families who have been victimized to predatory lending or the like, you know, could conceivably be helped through aggressive legal work, but there are restrictions on how far you can go now in terms of working with groups or classes of individual Americans, right? Ms. Barnett. That is correct. The Corporation believes that it is our duty and obligation to see that the will of Congress is followed. And as long as the restrictions are a part of our appropriations we vigorously enforce them and support them through our regulations. In fact, there are two cases pending. I can't talk about the substance of the cases, but I can just report on the status, one in Oregon and one in New York where we are vigorously defending the regulations. The Oregon case was brought in 2005 and motions for summary judgement were argued February 8 and a court decision is awaited. In New York the case was filed in, I believe, 2001. It has gone all the way up to the Supreme Court who denied cert and it is now back in the Eastern district of New York waiting for the judge's decision applying the appropriate standard that was determined by the Second Circuit. So there is litigation on these matters. We are defending them and we await the court's decision. And of course we look to enforce the will of Congress in this area. Mr. Fattah. Let me yield to the Ranking Member. Are you going to go vote? Mr. Frelinghuysen. I have voted. Mr. Fattah. Oh, you have. The floor is yours. GAO REPORT Mr. Frelinghuysen [presiding]. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to get a little bit of clarification since Mr. Strickland made the centerpiece of his testimony, you know, a reaction to the GAO reports. I just want to understand here. The GAO actually made recommendations to Congress about possibly making changes in law about your governance. And I think we discussed in my office that there might be some potential down sides. So I would just like to know does the Legal Services Corporation think, that is necessary, or are things should we say on the road to fiscal stability and accountability such that maybe Congress doesn't need to open this issue? Ms. Barnett. If I could respond, Congressman Frelinghuysen. There was one recommendation by GAO to Congress that you have rightly referred to. And I think it is the Corporation's view at this point having been looked at extensively by the Office of Inspector General, having being looked at extensively by GAO with regard to our governance and accountability, having been looked at extensively by GAO as to our relationship with our grantees and our oversight, that we have been looked at from top to bottom, inside and out. And I think we have come out of it stronger and I do not believe that the Corporation feels there is any further need to do that. And I guess we would agree with the wisdom of Congress when they established the Corporation as an independent corporation and kept it somewhat free from political decisions in its operations. NEW INSPECTOR GENERAL Mr. Frelinghuysen. You have a new Inspector General who was introduced. Are you reviewing these cases maybe through your President and Chairman? Just for the record, if you would just identify yourself for the transcriber. Mr. Schanz. Yes. Jeffrey E. Schanz. Last name S C H A N Z. I was selected as the Inspector General for Legal Services Corporation on March 3 of this year. I bring a lot of energy and experience to the position. And I plan on conducting both internal of the Corporation and external reviews, audits and investigations of the 137 grantees and corporate governance. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well God speed to you. [Laughter.] ALLEGED INAPPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES The alleged inappropriate expenditures, I assume there is going to be a report coming at some point in time? Mr. Schanz. Correct. We have already visited three of the eight sites. We have teams out at the other sites and including Chicago and Casper, Wyoming. And I am used to traveling so I believe my staff will be traveling. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. You have three offices that deal in some ways with grants oversight unless there have been any more created, let me know. The Office of Program Performance, the Office of Compliance and Enforcement, and the Office of the IG, Inspector General. You both testified that the responsibilities of these offices are under review, but can you describe in general the differences in the roles of these three entities? Ms. Barnett. Well, I will start with explaining our Office of Program Performance, which really looks to ensure that the service delivery system that is being provided is of high quality and efficient and effective, meeting the legal needs of the service area. And their guiding principle is our revised performance criteria. And it is based on the criteria which reflects LSC's sense of current best practices to ensure high quality legal services, that they do office visits, they do their reports based on that. We do the competitive grants process based on the performance criteria. Our Office of Compliance and enforcement looks to ensure that our programs comply with LSC regulations, rules and the LSC Act. And they go out and also make program visits. They look at such things as the intake and case management system to see that the clients are financially eligible, to see that the clients are citizens or lawful aliens. To see that the cases are within program priorities. To see that there are retainer agreements. They look to see that the programs comply with our case service reporting system. They look to see that their PAI is done in conformity with both fiscal and programmatic needs. They look at limited fiscal areas at this point. They look at timekeeping. They look to see if there are fee generating cases. But they don't look more broadly. It is a very limited fiscal component. And then, of course, they look to see that the activities don't violate the regulations. So they look at the cases and pleadings to see there are no class actions, there are no attorneys fee cases, there are no solicitations. In addition, they give prior approvals as required for any expenditure over $10,000. And all the programs have to report to LSC on either an annual basis or a semi-annual basis regarding many of their activities. So those are basically the oversight functions of the Office of Program Performance and the Office of Compliance and Enforcement. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You don't anticipate any reorganization or consolidation of any of those areas? Ms. Barnett. I don't anticipate reorganization and consolidation. What I do anticipate and what we are clearly working on the sharing of information, better coordination not only between our two offices, but the Office of the Inspector General as well, and the clarification of the roles. So I don't anticipate an actual restructuring, but I see a much closer relationship. I see a much closer sharing of information and coordination so that we all know what the other one is doing to ensure the best oversight we can provide. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I think Mr. Schanz is showing his eagerness to make sure that all of those oversight responsibilities allow us to draw as much information from them as possible. Your testimony mentions, we touched on this earlier, that you are reviewing your oversight of the IPA process, the Independent Public Accountant process. Correct me if I am wrong, this is the process whereby each grantee has an annual independent audit. What improvements do you have in mind for this process and how proactive are you in reaching out to grantees and their IPAs to comply with the underlying new procedures? Ms. Barnett. Well, I think as I indicated, the IPAs are supervised by the Office of the Inspector General. And we are working with that Office together to try to come up with some guidance. For instance, guidance that when IPAs go to a program and they ask if the program does entertaining, they look to the expenses to see whether or not perhaps alcohol was mischarged to LSC funds. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for your response. I have to vote. [Laughter.] FUNDING LEVEL Mr. Mollohan [presiding]. The Bush Administration has requested $311 million for fiscal year 2009 which is $40 million below the current year's funding level. Aren't you glad you don't have to go through them? What would be the effect of this cut on the clients served by LSC grants? Ms. Barnett. Three hundred and eleven million dollar budget would be close to a $40 million cut or a 13 percent decrease, not counting the four percent of inflation. It would be devastating on our programs, offices would have to close, staff would have to be laid off. But the most significant would be fewer deserving low income persons who require legal assistance to keep a roof over their head or to get out of a battered relationship or to get necessary health care or to protect elderly who are subject to predatory lending would not be able to be assisted. Mr. Mollohan. You know information that I am supplied and I ask you to verify this is that if the Committee were to adopt the President's request, again which is $40 million below the current year's funding level, that Legal Aid of West Virginia would be cut by $315,000 below its current funding level of $2.8 million. And by contrast the Legal Service Corporation's 2009 request of $471 million would provide an additional million dollars for West Virginia. Are you prepared to verify numbers? Ms. Barnett. I believe they would have less than $350,000-- -- Mr. Mollohan. Uh huh. Ms. Barnett [continuing]. Under the President's budget. Mr. Mollohan. What did I say? Ms. Barnett. Three fifteen. Mr. Mollohan. Three fifteen. Thank you. Ms. Barnett. Right. Yes, we would be happy to verify that. [The information follows:] At the request of Chairman Mollohan, I want to confirm that that the President's funding request of $311 million for LSC could cut the funding level for the Legal Aid of West Virginia (LAWV) by more than $350,000. The program's current budget is $2.8 million. With LSC's FY 2009 budget request of $471 million, LAWV would receive a total of $3.8 million or $1 million increase, funds that are desperately needed to provide legal assistance. MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Great. Thank you. How has the wave of mortgage foreclosures across the country affected demand on LSC services? And you touched on this a bit, but if you could elaborate. Ms. Barnett. The sub prime mortgages are disproportionately, I think, impacting low income renters and elderly on fixed incomes. And the sub prime loans are recent phenomena, that they are tainted with fraud and other unlawful acts, and I think we believe this requires legal representation in order to preserve the homes. The programs, we don't have national statistics, but we are hearing from programs. Some programs are getting four or five calls a day. Some programs are doubling the amount of requests that they have had. There is no question that programs have set up special projects to try to deal with the increased demand. These loans have been targeted for low income and minority communities. And they prey on the elderly and the uninformed and those with limited English proficiency. And we are just getting case by case stories, actually that at least the provision of legal aid has helped them negotiate the terms of their loan, challenge their notice in court, challenge the underlying proceeding in court and preserve the homes for these people. But without additional resources I don't believe that our programs will be able to meet this increased demand. Mr. Mollohan. Uh huh. LSC's Loan Repayment Assistance Program, will you tell us what that is? Ms. Barnett. We are in the third year, we were appropriated one million dollars to operate a Loan Repayment Assistance Program. We began initially by reaching out to our programs that had particular difficulty in recruiting and retaining attorneys. And in our first year I think we had 71 attorneys both who we recruited and retained. We paid $5,000 for each of three years. Our preliminary assessment and evaluation of the first year clearly demonstrated that this Loan Repayment Assistance Program, even as small as it was, was making a meaningful difference to young lawyers who graduate with over $80,000 worth of debt and have an average starting salary of $37,000 but want to do public service and legal aid work were able to come to the programs and it was able to keep experienced staff that were already in the programs. So it not only helped the young attorneys for joining the programs, it enhanced the ability of the programs to be able to recruit and retain staff. This year we raised the amount to $5,600 and we have 58 participants. We are very pleased that the Higher Education Act of 2007 included a provision for loan repayment for legal aid lawyers, but we believe until it gets funded and implemented, it is more than a year away. We have asked for additional funding to increase the pool so then when we report back to Congress, finally we have a larger pool to be able to make the case that this has not only helped attorneys come to legal aid and stay at legal aid, it has helped the programs be able to recruit well qualified and experienced attorneys. Mr. Mollohan. Is the need for this program geographically uniform across the nation or are there areas that it is more effective in helping to recruit? Ms. Barnett. Perhaps in major metropolitan areas it is not as needed. We did not choose those as much as some of the rural areas where it is more difficult to get attorneys. But we have a broad spectrum of programs participating in the---- Mr. Mollohan. So you are implementing this program selectively---- Ms. Barnett. Yes. We---- RECRUITING LAWYERS Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. In areas where you are having more difficulty recruiting lawyers? Ms. Barnett. We asked our programs to submit to us the reasons why they were having difficulty in recruiting and retaining. And we made a judgment. And we looked at geographic balance and we looked for larger programs and small programs and rural programs and urban programs so that we would have a mix to be able to report back to Congress. And I think we do have a mix of programs, but it was based on their response to us of their difficulty in being able to recruit and retain attorneys. Mr. Mollohan. And you are suggesting that the program has been effective? Has it been in effect, has it been implemented long enough for you to make a determination about its real effectiveness? Ms. Barnett. Well we have evaluated its first year. We are in the process of completing the evaluation in the second year. I don't think any of the results are surprising to any of us. That it helps the attorneys make this decision. It helps the programs. And without this, even though people want to do this kind of work, they would not be able otherwise to come. Whether they will stay when the loan repayment is over and they say they don't know whether they will be able to, even though that is their what they want to do and they are satisfied with their job. So---- Mr. Mollohan. You mean stay---- Ms. Barnett. In legal aid. Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Past the point that they are receiving this loan repayment supplement---- Ms. Barnett. Right. Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Which is three years. Ms. Barnett. Right. Mr. Mollohan. My information is that the average law school debt is over $80,000. Three years of $5,000 or $5,600, I mean during that three year period, I suppose, it is a way to pay it, but it is you know, on an $80,000 average debt it doesn't really make a dent on the overall debt, but I suppose it helps the lawyer repay it during the year that they are working for legal aid. Ms. Barnett. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. It is not a lot, but it certainly helps them while they are repaying it. And that is part of the reason we are asking for this additional one million dollars to continue it. We certainly would like to continue it until a federal program comes into effect. And we would like to have a larger pool so that when we come back next year with our evaluation you would find it meaningful. Mr. Mollohan. Be able to assess it at that time. Ms. Barnett. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Fattah. Mr. Fattah. No, I am done. Mr. Mollohan. You are done. Mr. Frelinghuysen. FORECLOSURES Mr. Frelinghuysen. Just back onto the foreclosure issue. I assume you gave us some anecdotes. You did give us some statistics. I assume you are going to keep a pretty close eye on this, pulling as much information as possible. Ms. Barnett. We certainly are. And I can even share with you that we added two new case categories to our case service report so that if we come back next year we would be able to have a better idea of the actual numbers for you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. This obviously requires the local legal services group to, you know, do pretty much of a balancing act, I assume? Ms. Barnett. It would require the local programs, of course, to identify this as a program priority. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Ms. Barnett. Because it is up, as you know, to the local programs to---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. So more of one might mean less potential support for what Legal Services Corporation does traditionally? Ms. Barnett. And that would be left up to the programs. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I think we are becoming a little more expert on this issue of sub primes. It certainly is in nobody's interest to promote foreclosures, but needless to say there is somebody out there filling that gap and it really is outrageous that there are people taking advantage of people to expedite their losing. I mean it really is outrageous. There is a website mentioned in the New York Times the other day which I thought was even more appalling. It is called walkaway.com. I mean it was front page New York Times. Just a couple of other questions relative to compensation rates above statutory caps. Last year, as you are aware, we carried a provision that gave you the authority to pay employees in 2008 at a rate above the statutory caps. Can you describe why this is necessary and how many employees have been affected? Ms. Barnett. This has to do with the locality pay. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Ms. Barnett. All right. And we had been paying locality pay above the statutory cap. And we had asked Congress to continue to permit us to do that and I believe it affected only 17 employees; 11 in management and administration and six in the Office of the Inspector General. Mr. Frelinghuysen. We carried that provision at your request. Ms. Barnett. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So I assume you are familiar with it. Of course, the President's budget proposes to eliminate it. So I guess my bottom line question is are you going to ask the Committee to carry the same waiver language for fiscal year 2009? Ms. Barnett. Yes, we are, Congressman Frelinghuysen. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PRIVATE SECTOR LAWYERS Mr. Mollohan. Okay. You require your programs to promote private sector lawyer participation providing legal services. Tell us how you do that. Give us an idea how many clients that allows you to serve. Ms. Barnett. I would be happy to. We require our programs to expend the equivalent of 12.5 percent of their basic field grant on private attorney involvement in their service delivery. This means that they are spending it to do training and recruiting of volunteers, the oversight of the cases, whatever---- Mr. Mollohan. Training and recruiting of private sector lawyers? Ms. Barnett. Right. To do pro bono work. Mr. Mollohan. Do you pay private sector lawyers to do---- Ms. Barnett. The vast majority---- Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. But wouldn't be doing pro bono, but to represent. Ms. Barnett. The vast majority of the private attorneys that work with our programs do it pro bono for no cost. We do have some Judicare or reduced fee attorneys in certain areas of the country where it is difficult to find private attorneys to do pro bono work. However, we had over 97,000 cases closed by private attorneys in 2007 with over 31,000 attorneys helping our programs. We have made it a major initiative to increase the private attorney involvement with our programs. Mr. Mollohan. Pro bono? Ms. Barnett. Pro bono involvement. Mr. Mollohan. Under what circumstances would you hire a private attorney? Ms. Barnett. Well we don't hire these attorneys. Mr. Mollohan. No, I know the pro bono ones you don't, but I understood your testimony to be in some certain circumstances you might pay on a lower scale---- Ms. Barnett. Yes. Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. A private attorney to undertake a case. Ms. Barnett. I can think of---- Mr. Mollohan. You are looking for a specialty or are you looking---- Ms. Barnett. No. I am thinking of Wisconsin Judicare in areas where there aren't many private attorneys. We would pay a very much reduced rate for us to be able to send cases to this panel that would handle the cases on a very reduced fee. But the vast majority of private attorneys that work with our programs and handle these 97,000 cases are pro bono. And actually our Board initiated a private attorney involvement plan called ``Help Close the Justice Gap. Unleash the Power of Pro Bono.'' And they adopted a resolution encouraging programs to enhance their private attorney involvement. And we asked all our programs to adopt similar resolutions. And to date we have more than 80 programs that have already adopted it. In addition, I sent a program letter out in December of 2007 encouraging our programs to look at creative, strategic, innovative ways to use private attorneys. And citing examples that many of our programs have used so that other programs could think to replicate them. And private attorneys do direct representation of clients. Private attorneys co-counsel and support cases with them. Private attorneys do transactional work, they do training in their areas of specialty. They have on occasion helped draft manuals for the use of our attorneys. So there is a wide range of services that private attorneys provide to LSC eligible clients. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Strickland, you are probably sitting there feeling neglected. [Laughter.] Mr. Strickland. Oh, that is all right. I don't mind it a bit. This is a tough, tough crowd here. [Laughter.] Mr. Mollohan. You were really busy at the beginning talking about all these GAO studies and reports. I want to give you an opportunity. JUSTICE GAP STUDY Mr. Strickland. I wanted to make a couple of points, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to quantify when you were talking a moment ago about one out of two eligible clients being turned away. In the year of the Justice Gap study, those numbers were that our grantee programs combined with pro bono lawyers had represented a million eligible clients and it follows that they turned away a million. I remember reading the draft report before it was published and that number just jumped off the page. And as President Barnett said that probably has gotten worse. And particularly as we do these State legal need studies, I think we are going to find that it is worse than that. And I also wanted to emphasize that included in the legal work that was done for those clients was this private attorney involvement. So even with that, there was still this tremendous unmet legal need. Mr. Mollohan. And that can all be translated into the human consequence of that. Mr. Strickland. Absolutely. Mr. Mollohan. I am sure that translates into battered women, maybe people killed. In any reports you submit or communications with us, if you can translate the consequences in those terms, that is always a good thing to know. Mr. Strickland. And in terms of being able to refer those individuals elsewhere they really have come to the court of last resort, so to speak, when they have come to---- Mr. Mollohan. And they are desperate. Mr. Strickland [continuing]. To legal aid. Absolutely. Mr. Mollohan. Obviously, they are desperate. They probably wouldn't know where to go if---- Mr. Strickland. Where they think they should go, of course, is to legal aid. And unfortunately as we have observed today that half of them are being turned away. And we are speaking of income eligible clients, not undocumented immigrants or folks in that category, but eligible clients. Mr. Mollohan. Well that is a serious issue. Mr. Frelinghuysen. NEW TECHNOLOGY Mr. Frelinghuysen. Just about everybody who comes before the Committee is talking about utilizing new technology. You have a technology initiative. Do you want to roll it out for us? I think you are doubling the amount of money and is it exciting or how would you characterize it? What are you doing to promote inner connectivity and give your people the tools you need to communicate with one another around the country. Tell us about it. Ms. Barnett. We, with Congressional appropriations, began our technology initiative grants program in 2000. And through 2007 we have made grants totaling $27 million. And the results of that have been enhanced and more efficient and more services. Through that funding we have funded centralized intake systems, which gives clients easier access to our services. We have funded Statewide websites in every State that give a full range of information. We have funded the automated document assembly where people who are unable to get representation can fill out court forms, online that have been drafted with court input that are accepted in the courts in multiple languages. Maybe in 35 different languages we have done that. So we have, I think, enhanced pro se assistance, enhanced access to our programs. We have improved technology infrastructure in our programs. We have this year funded an 800 number for low wage workers to be able to claim the earned income tax credit. And in 2007 alone we have returned over $10 million to low wage earners because of that. We are looking at other ways that 800 numbers can be used by low income people throughout the country. We are looking at the possibility of online intake where 24/7 through the internet people could access our services that would be then integrated into their case management system. We don't even know what the use of cell phones may be in the next couple of years as a means of communicating. So I think our technology initiative and the funding we get from Congress for technology we have used to both expand our services, increase them, improve the efficiency of our programs and we look forward to continued funding to be able to report to you the new advances that---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well we commend you for your efforts. As you know, I am housed in my New Jersey Office cheek by jaw with one of your legal aid, Morris County Legal Aid Society. And of course, you know, it is the same old, same old in terms of the people who do a remarkable job for, I mean earning nothing. You know, I don't think they get any pension benefits at all. I mean they do some incredible work. I always hope that some day maybe they might be slightly compensated by some technology that would enable them to do an even better job with the resources they get. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Now there is a good opportunity to input a program with a member of Congress. [Laughter.] Right next door to him. Mr. Fattah. Mr. Fattah. I will yield, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Mr. Fattah. I think we have gotten to the point. ADVERTISEMENT Mr. Mollohan. Just following up a little bit as a final question. I have seen advertisements, not for legal services because they are not provided by lawyers, but by corporations online for leases, deeds and wills. The organization may be run by lawyers, but they specifically disclaim giving legal advice. Are you familiar with such services? And if so, can you automate your services in that sort of way? You are unfamiliar with them? Ms. Barnett. I am not familiar with them. In some ways I wonder whether there is any unauthorized practice of law implications, but---- Mr. Mollohan. Well I know that immediately occurred to me, but I am advised there is not and I have not looked into specifically, but there were corporations that provide, it is threatening isn't it? Mr. Strickland. It is threatening. [Laughter.] We do have on, correct me if I am wrong on this, but I believe we have on some of our websites that is websites maintained by our grantee programs, some standardized pleadings. For example, for a domestic relations case where an indigent client could capture those pleadings and fill in the blanks and at least file the case in the correct form so that it comes before the court in good order as opposed to something just their own attempt to do that. So I think we have in effect gone into that business to some extent, that is providing a standard form pleading, in a domestic case is one that I can think of right now. Ms. Barnett. I will just supplement that, if I might. One of the grants that I thought was terrific that we did with our TIG funding was in Idaho where we had the approval of the courts to adopt Statewide forms. And believe it or not somebody could fill the form out in Spanish and it would come out absolutely properly formatted in English. So we are using technology in that way. Mr. Mollohan. I will find out more about this and follow up. Ms. Barnett. We would be happy to answer. And if you have a question on it and specifically. Mr. Mollohan. Well if there are no more questions, Chairman Strickland, President Barnett, we very much appreciate all the good work you do on behalf of providing legal services to those who can't afford it. And we appreciate your testimony here today. And know that you are going to continue to aggressively follow up on all those oversight issues. Mr. Strickland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Barnett. Thank you. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Tuesday, February 26, 2008. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION WITNESS DANIEL R. PEARSON, CHAIRMAN Opening Remarks Mr. Mollohan. We will come to order. Welcome to members, staff, agency witnesses, as well as the public. This afternoon we welcome the Honorable Daniel Pearson, Chairman of the International Trade Commission, to testify on the challenges facing the Commission as it carries out its critical trade functions in fiscal year 2009 and the budget proposed to meet those challenges. The budget request of the Commission is $73.6 million. Before inviting you to make an opening statement, Mr. Chairman, I recognize my ranking member, Mr. Frelinghuysen, for any opening comments. Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is a pleasure to welcome Chairman Pearson. I echo the Chairman's comments. We look forward to hearing about some of the challenges you are facing that are reflected in your budget materials and in your statement. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Your written statement will be made a part of the record, and we invite you to summarize it as you see fit. Mr. Pearson. I was hoping you would allow me to deviate from the prepared script. Let me begin by thanking the subcommittee, both for the opportunity to testify and for managing to grant our full fiscal year 2008 appropriation request of $68.4 million. And I will explain a little later why that has been so useful. I am pleased to have both Vice Chairman Aranoff and Steve McLaughlin, our Director of Administration, here. They will answer all of the hard questions. What is the same as last year for us? Our budget allocation is about the same, in terms of how we split the pool of funds. Salaries and benefits account for about 71 percent of our total expenditures. Rent accounts for 12 percent. It is a little bit up from last year, and I will explain that in a bit. Services are around 11 percent. Those are our security guards, some of our IT support, people with whom we contract for necessary services. That leaves us with 6 percent for other that is somewhat discretionary--travel and training and miscellaneous. Another thing that is the same as last year is we are still digging out of the situation we got ourselves into by asking for a reduction of $2.75 million in our fiscal year 2006 appropriation, which then gave us a low baseline for the modified freeze in 2007. We have made good progress now with the 2008 appropriation, but we still have effects from that earlier situation. And the final thing that is the same is we still have no control over our workload. We deal with what comes in the door. So what has changed since last year? We managed a cash flow under the modified freeze by allowing our vacancy rate to rise. As of the end of this week, it will be at 16 percent. Normally we have had about a 5 percent vacancy rate, so we are at roughly three times the normal level. We have 64 vacancies currently, out of a total of 407 positions. The number of ITC civil service staff is now at its lowest level since sometime prior to 1980, and we didn't have time to go back and check the archives, but it is been several decades. Another thing that has changed, our workload has gone up. We have become entirely too popular. Last year we talked about the filing of new antidumping/countervailing duty cases going down. We were in a 3-year downtrend; knew it would likely turn at some point; couldn't predict when. Two things have happened since then. One is that the Department of Commerce made a decision to allow the filing of countervailing duty cases against nonmarket economies, including China, and that has encouraged several filings. And then, in addition, the economy has weakened, and as we see demand for some products start to soften, then there is no longer room in the marketplace comfortably for both domestic production and imported products. So we see an increased filing because of financial pressure on domestic producers. Now, the vacancy rates for the people who do those anti dumping/countervailing duty investigations had been allowed to rise. I mean, that was a logical thing for us to do to manage the cash flow. But we are in a situation now where we really do need to rebuild that staff. Another thing that is different than last year--well, then I told you our 337 intellectual property investigations, that those were going up, but we were hoping they were plateauing. Well, they have continued to go up. So they didn't stop. Last year when we spoke, we had about 40 active investigations; now we are at 50, so with a 25 percent increase. We have an office in the ITC, our Office of Unfair Import Investigations, which serves the public interest in these intellectual property cases. And they have a lot of contact with the Trade Bar. They discuss petitions that are coming up and that sort of thing. The head of the Office of Unfair Import Investigations advises that there is just no slowdown in new filings. The cases are out there, just over the horizon. We don't know exactly when they will be coming; they will be coming. We have already had 24 new filings this fiscal year. In order to deal with that, we spoke last year about trying to hire a fifth administrative law judge. Well, we had that effort under way, but then we had two of our then-sitting judges retire. So we went from four judges down to two. We have managed to hire two back or, you know, two replacements. And so we are still at four ALJs. We are in the process of trying to hire the fifth now. The application deadline closes here in a few days, and we will, I hope in March, be able to interview some candidates. What we have been able to do is to hire more staff for the ALJs, more clerks. We have also added resources to the Office of Unfair Import Investigations and to the general counsel's office. And when I say ``add resources,'' I mean adding basically patent attorneys. One other thing that doesn't really come under the purview of appropriations, but we are seeking legislative relief regarding the hiring of Section 337 judges because of problems we have with the existing alternatives. Another thing that has changed since last year, we have more requests for Section 332 investigations on trade issues. These are the economic analyses, the reports that we are asked to prepare, either by the Ways and Means and Finance Committees here on the Hill or by USTR. As examples, we are doing more support for USTR in the Doha round. We have a very interesting but complicated request from Chairman Rangel for a three-part study on China, trying to understand the policies that China has that influence international trade. The first of those studies is completed. The second one is under way, and the third one will end sometime late next year. But they are very resource-intensive. They take a lot of time. We have challenges obtaining data from the Chinese. Some travel is required. So these are very interesting and worthwhile, but they have required more resources than we anticipated. The staff who work on those tend to be the same staff who would be available otherwise to work on the antidumping/ countervailing duty cases. We have a fair amount of synergy between some of our offices that work on slightly related items, and so we are seeing a pinch both ways there. With all this focus on staff shortages, it probably won't surprise you to learn that I have developed a reputation as being fairly good at saying no. We haven't had any money. I can assure you, though, that my happiest day as Chairman came this past December when, after learning that we had been granted our full $68.4 million appropriation request, I sat down at the desk and signed a stack of Form 52s to allow some hiring, which--it was a wonderful thing. Let me say a good word about the senior managers in the Commission. They all knew the budget situation that we were in. And I wouldn't say there was no complaining or anything, but they pretty well tightened their belts and--and with the light at the end of the tunnel, they found a way to get things done. But when we could authorize some new hiring, it was great for me and for the full Commission. So we now are trying to fill 25 of the 64 open slots. If we can get those key positions filled, then we will be able to move on to do the others. It is our plan to try to get down to a 9 percent vacancy rate by the end of fiscal year 2008. And then the hope is that we could continue that rebuilding process and get it down to a 7 percent vacancy rate by the end of 2009. Another thing that has changed since last year is our rent. And I talked last year about the rent. It was our projection, based on what the GSA had told us, that we would be looking at a 15 percent increase. In August, less than a week before we were expected to sign a letter of agreement, they advised us that, ``Oops, well, sorry, it is 38 percent, $1.3 million.'' Of course our appropriation request was in long before that, and we have had no alternative other than to absorb the $1.3 million, which we are doing basically by delaying some IT- related projects and some FISMA-related items. There are certain things that we would prefer not to delay, but we are not taking it out of personnel. We are sticking with our personnel plan for fiscal year 2008. But in fiscal year 2009 we just, out of necessity, have to build in an extra $1.3 million that we hadn't thought we were going to ask for, as part of our ongoing funding requirement. So what is not included in our 2009 request? Well, we have not included a sixth administrative law judge. We have had some discussion as a Commission. We may need to take that step sometime in the future. We don't think we are quite there yet. We want to get five ALJs up and running and see how that goes, let that consolidate a little bit, and then make a call on whether to hire a sixth. The judges are telling us that they really need another courtroom. We have two courtrooms that are devoted to the 337 cases, and that worked okay when we had a lower caseload. What we are having as a problem now is that we have the guidance in the statute to try to finish these cases in 12 to 18 months. And partly because the caseload is heavy in and of itself and partly because soon after the case is filed the judge will schedule a time when a hearing room is open to hold the hearing, and with hearing rooms being booked, they are having to schedule those out further--so many of our cases now are being scheduled for well over 20 months' completion times, and the intellectual property holders are not amused. Another thing that is not included in this request is some larger IT expenditures, IT infrastructure issues. We are not so far away from having to come forward, I think, with a more significant IT request, that would go beyond basic replacement. And then we continue to be behind in our continuity-of- operations planning. We have done some planning work, but we have not been in a financial situation where we have been able to actually locate a site, an off-site site, to relocate to and to go through any type of actual drill for continuity of operations. Another thing that is not in the budget is preparation for what I might call the coming wave of retirements. Twenty percent of ITC staff currently are eligible for retirement. Within 5 years, another 19 percent will be eligible. And that, of course, is on top of the current 16 percent vacancy rate. So you can understand our interest in trying to bring in some younger staff to work with the older folks, try to get the benefit of that expertise before they leave us. So this last part has been by way of early warning. Don't be surprised if we talk to you about some of these again next year. Let me comment briefly on the risks that I see of an appropriations freeze in 2009. We don't know if it will happen, and I understand it is beyond the control of anyone here, but we have had to think about that as we, you know, get ready for what lies ahead. Even a partial freeze would derail our 2-year plan for rebuilding staff. If we have to pause in our recruitment efforts, it would mean that we would miss the January hiring cycle for economists. We are several Ph.D.s short now, and this year we have been in the market, trying to hire some. We have been turned down by three so far. We are doing our best. I have approved waivers to grant some extra preferences, and we hope to be able to hire someone, but it has been a little dicier than I would have liked. But if we miss them this year, then we need all the more to be able to hire some of those folks next year. A complete appropriations freeze would have the effect of reducing our personnel compensation by $3.6 million relative to what we are now planning for fiscal year 2009. And to fill that gap would require either an immediate reduction in force of 7 percent of our staff or, over the course of the year, allowing the staffing to fall enough so that we would have an average vacancy rate of 16 percent. And if we follow the average approach, by the end of the year, as a practical matter, we would be somewhere around 56 people short, on top of the vacancy rate that we started with at the first of October, this coming. So we would be really in a world of hurt. And the other risk if there is a real constraint on appropriations next year is equipment upgrade, especially in the IT area. Conclusion--I am getting to the end here. I would like to express appreciation for the work of your staff, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member. Tracey LaTurner, Adrienne Simonson, Sally Moorhead, Mike Ringler, Katie Haslet, they have really been exceptional to work with. And I say that because we are a small agency and, in the broad scheme of things, not terribly important, and yet your staff has treated us as if we are real people. And that is very gratifying. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Fantastic. Mr. Pearson. But, no, I have just had the impression, our concerns, even though they are modest in the broad scheme of things, are being taken seriously. And so that makes us feel wanted. My 2-year term, Mr. Chairman, will end this coming June, and I will be pleased to hand over those administrative responsibilities to one of my highly qualified Democratic colleagues. Don't know who at this point, but I have my hopes. I sincerely hope that the new Chairman will be able to continue the process of rebuilding the Commission's staff and its broader capabilities. And to that end, it would be very helpful if we are able to receive the full $73.6 million appropriation that we are requesting, which has the bipartisan and unanimous support of the Commission. I recognize that is a 7.6 percent increase. It is significant in percentage terms. And I would be pleased to discuss in more detail why we think it is necessary. Thank you very much. [Testimony of Daniel R. Pearson, Chairman, United States International Trade Commission] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Chairman Pearson, and thank you, Vice Chairman Aranoff, for your good work on the Commission. It is certainly appreciated by everyone. And you deal with a lot of issues that I am concerned with, and really do appreciate your consideration as you consider those cases. Administrator McLaughlin, how long have you been in this job? Mr. McLaughlin. I have been in this job since 1995. Mr. Mollohan. You know, as you look ahead at some of the challenges you have--rent challenges, relocation challenges, staffing challenges--as the Chairman has described them, have we built into that some contingencies? And first of all, let me, on one hand, commend you for your fiscal responsibility and for your honesty in coming forward. But I am wondering if you anticipated some of the unintended results of, you know, no good deed goes unpunished. And looking forward, are you anticipating the unexpected here or the unintended? And I am referring to giving back money and maybe the rent situation, not any of which is necessarily anybody's fault. But as you are looking forward, to what extent do you think you are anticipating the unexpected? Mr. McLaughlin. I think it is fair to say that we try to balance what could happen good with what could happen bad. It is hard to fully anticipate the unanticipated, obviously. But when we look at risk items, one of the things we certainly didn't anticipate was the kind of change in our rent. I mean, you are always concerned, when dealing with other Government agencies or contractors, that costs won't come in exactly as you projected, but the history has been that some come in lower and some come in higher. Rarely do they come in that much higher. And then, since it is a Government agency, you have really no control over what you are going to do with it. Mr. Mollohan. I am sympathetic to that, because GSA has surprised a lot of Members of Congress, certainly this Member of Congress, with some really high rent increases over the last 4, 5 or 6 years. But I am wondering, at this point, if that is to be unexpected. Mr. McLaughlin. Fool me once. The next time--we are assigning higher-level staff to overseeing that contract. So we are going to be monitoring that very closely, certainly. And we do have other risk factors. And, frankly, it just hasn't been prudent, given the kinds of requests that we are asking for, to also load in things on security and replacement of equipment when, obviously, we have to accomplish our mission first. So we have seen--I am not completely comfortable, in the last 3 years, we keep deferring these kind of secondary requirements to mission accomplishment, given the budget circumstances we are in, but we, frankly, have little choice. Mr. Mollohan. Well, with your request of $73.6 million, which is a 7.6 percent increase over 2008, do you think you are anticipating being able to adequately address deferred expenses in addition to the unexpected? Mr. McLaughlin. We have decided that we really need to move forward on the human capital and rebuilding the agency, and that is really where we are putting the bulk of our money. There is some risk there on systems failures and things of that nature, and some of the documentation on information security. But to a large extent, we have decided it is not that we are completely vulnerable in these areas, it is just that we can do a better job of meeting OMB requirements for documentation, not that we are vulnerable. So I am reasonably comfortable, given the budget environment, that we can get the job done if we get our request. Mr. Mollohan. In this first round, we are going to stick to 5 minutes so everybody can have a chance to ask questions. And we just got a vote. How many votes do we have? We have three votes. Okay. Well, we are going to try to keep rolling with this hearing. And, Rodney, do you think you can agree with that? Mr. Frelinghuysen. Sure. Mr. Mollohan. We can keep rolling. So we will try to stay 5 minutes--we will stay 5 minutes in the first round, and then the second round we will just see how many folks are here. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Frelinghuysen. When the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee asks you to do something, you do it, I take it? Mr. Pearson. We certainly try to. Mr. Frelinghuysen. And, obviously, whatever three targets he suggested you investigate--and you said you have completed one study--obviously that benefits the House and Senate and, generally, I assume, gets out into the public. Mr. Pearson. Yes, they are intended for public distribution. Mr. Frelinghuysen. But are there any other congressional directives that are in that sort of a category that we are not aware of it, or a whole slew of them? Maybe we have put a few in our own bill. Just so I understand, so the people who would be responding to Chairman Rangel, which obviously everybody would want you to do expeditiously, are taken away from their traditional role. I see a head. I sort of wonder, how is this handled? Ms. Aranoff. We have statutory authority under Section 332 of the Tariff Act which gives the Ways and Means and Finance Committees, as well as both houses of Congress as a whole and the President the authority to directly request these studies from us. So that is our responsibility. We have people whose primary job is to respond to those kinds of requests. Mr. Frelinghuysen. No, I am admiring of it, and we salute you for doing it. But you are obviously doing a lot of other things, as well. In the Chairman's statement, he says, and I quote--this is under the ``Increases in the Import Injury Caseload'' section. It says, ``The recent spate of new filings seems to be related, to some extent, to the U.S. Commerce Department's recent decision to apply countervailing duty law in China. Six new CVD investigations were filed against products in China,'' et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So besides, obviously, congressional directives, you take upon yourself historic missions from the Commerce Department? Sort of explain to me how that works. Mr. Pearson. Right. What is going on here, the private sector, domestic industries have responded to a change in rules that Commerce has implemented. Commerce has made it, as some firms would see it, more attractive to bring countervailing duty/antidumping cases against China. And once Commerce made that decision, then we saw firms responding to that and bringing petitions forward. So it wasn't a direct request from Commerce to us, but Commerce kind of opening the door wider to the private sector. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Educate me. Quite honestly, I have reviewed a lot of figures here. And, I think we are hugely admiring of what you do. The protection of intellectual property is incredibly important. Is a very high percentage of this related to things from China? Mr. Pearson. Right. Mr. Frelinghuysen. If you were to describe to a layperson, what is the caseload? Could you talk about the complexity of some of these cases? You know, historically it has been done in an 18-month period of time. Now I assume if it goes to 20 months, either because of lack of manpower--it must be somewhat related to the complexity of the cases as well. Mr. Pearson. Oh, yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So, to the layperson, how would you characterize why you are doing more? And, is it particularly related to certain countries? Mr. Pearson. Right. Let me split the investigations into two separate parts. We have our intellectual property investigations that we conduct under section 337. Those are basically like court cases where a company that believes its intellectual property-- usually it is patent--is being infringed by an import can bring a case to be heard by our administrative law judges that will allow us to issue an exclusion order to keep out the infringing product. Okay. Very useful to owners of intellectual property, especially in a global economy that is increasingly dependent on trade, where so much of what we consume is imported. Okay. Set that aside. The antidumping/countervailing duty cases are different. Those are brought usually by groups of companies, a domestic industry represented by--they will put together an ad hoc coalition or some organization, and they will decide to bring an antidumping/countervailing duty petition against imports from a country or group of countries. We find that China often is one of those countries. Somewhat more than half of our cases deal with steel products of various sorts, with which the Chairman is particularly familiar. We also deal with quite a few chemical cases, some consumer products, a few agriculture products. And in those investigations, we don't issue an exclusion order. We would instead be blessing the antidumping duties that Commerce has agreed on. Commerce has the job of determining how big the margin of underselling is, what is the level of unfair pricing. And that will be the dumping margin or, in the case of subsidies---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. They have that responsibility. What is your responsibility on that? Mr. Pearson. To determine whether the domestic industry is injured. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So it is your investigations that make those determinations? Mr. Pearson. Right. Assuming Commerce finds the dumping, then we look at the industry to see whether they are being hurt by the unfair imports. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am staying in the 5-minute rule. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Ruppersberger. Mr. Ruppersberger. First thing, I thank you for being here today. Just quickly, I think you referred to it, to an extent, about the Department of Commerce's decision to apply the countervailing duty law to China. Specifically as it relates to steel, have you seen a change in the cases that you are hearing as it relates to steel? Is it affecting your workload? Where are we as it relates to the issue of steel on the new Commerce decision to apply the countervailing duty law to China? Mr. Pearson. Right. I think that we have only one steel case that has been filed since then, and that has to do with stainless steel pipe from China. The other cases all have dealt with a variety of other products. Mr. Ruppersberger. That is amazing. Mr. Pearson. Right. I mean, in general, the steel industry has experienced quite strong demand, and they have been doing better financially in the last 3 years, for instance, than they had been in the previous several years. Mr. Ruppersberger. So the dumping has slowed down, to an extent, their concern about the---- Mr. Pearson. Or even if there is some modest amount of dumping, it has not been hurting the domestic industry. Mr. Ruppersberger. You mentioned in your testimony about needing another courtroom. How many administrative law judges do you have? Mr. Pearson. Currently we have four. We hope soon to have the fifth. Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. And so, how many cases are they able to hear a year? Do you know? Mr. Pearson. We think in terms of eight cases, eight active cases, being a full workload. And we have the four of them now, each dealing with a dozen. Mr. Ruppersberger. How long are the cases in the system from the time they start, on average? A year? Half a year? Mr. Pearson. Eighteen months is what we are taking now, except that it is going longer than that. Mr. Ruppersberger. Will an additional judge make a difference in that? Mr. Pearson. We certainly think so. We think we can get it back down more to the 15-month range. Mr. Ruppersberger. Do you need that additional courtroom also to make that happen? Mr. Pearson. At this point, we don't think so. And the reason is that we have our main hearing room, which some of you have seen. It is not ideally set up to be a courtroom for the ALJs, but it can work as a backup. So what we are encouraging the ALJs to do is to go and schedule three hearings at any given time. There is a reasonable chance that one or more of those cases will settle before getting to the trial. And in the case where they actually have to go forward with three cases, we will allow them the use of the commissioner's hearing room. And if we need to schedule it for a vote or something, we would just have to postpone the ALJ hearing for a day. Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Schiff. Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief, because we are going to have to run to vote. I am interested particularly in the IP work that you do. I wanted to ask you a question on the patent cases. Darrell Issa and I introduced legislation to establish a pilot program in the district courts to develop experience among Federal district judges on patent cases, because of, among other things, the very high rate of reversal in the court of appeals on patent construction cases. The ITC has had a very low rate of reversal, and I am interested to know what you attribute that to. What are you doing right, that the district courts are doing wrong? How have you managed to have a much higher sustainability in the court of appeals than your fellows in the Federal court system? Mr. Pearson. Would you care to respond? Ms. Aranoff. The main reason that we have had such a high rate of success is our level of expertise. Our administrative law judges hear nothing but intellectual property cases, and about 95 percent of them are patent cases. Even though many of our ALJs don't come to us with patent expertise, they quickly develop it. And we do have full-time staff of patent attorneys who come in with that expertise and are hired for it. As compared to district court judges, who might only hear one or two patent cases every few years. Mr. Schiff. It sounds like a pretty persuasive argument for our pilot project. Mr. McLaughlin. I would just like to add, in addition to that, the decisions of the administrative law judges are reviewed by our commissioners, and they have good advisors on their staff as well, and the general counsel has patent attorneys. So if there are some things wrong, we can fix it before it gets out of the agency. Mr. Pearson. Representative Schiff, if I could just explain that, of the six commissioners, I am the only one who is not an attorney. So I found it prudent at times when legal questions get asked to turn to one of my more learned colleagues. So it is not that I have no opinion, it is just that I trust Shara's more than I trust mine. Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. You talked a little bit about your 2009 funding request and how important it was to get it. What would be the effect of a 9-month CR on the Commission? Mr. Pearson. At the 2008 level? Mr. Mollohan. Yes, at the 2008 level. Mr. Pearson. It wouldn't be pretty. The problem we have is that, because we have no--we would anticipate that there would be a Federal pay raise. And that would somehow have to be absorbed. Three months into the CR, we would need to absorb the pay raise. Are we building in 4 percent for that? Mr. McLaughlin. Three and a half. Mr. Pearson. Three and a half, okay. We will have the $1.3 million higher rent than had been projected when we got our 2007 baseline funding, so that would have to be absorbed. The only alternative that we really have, since we have--you know, we continue to push out the IT projects that can be pushed out, but we would cut staff. I am not saying we would do this. We have no Commission consensus to do it. But as a practical matter, if we need to have a 7 percent staff reduction, the simplest way to accomplish that would be a reduction in force at the start of the fiscal year, because that would take the number down immediately and we would get the savings throughout the full year. Whereas if we don't act soon, then we will dig ourselves in the hole and have to have an even more severe reduction in personnel later in the year. Mr. Mollohan. Will you elaborate on that answer for the record, please? Mr. Pearson. Certainly. Mr. Mollohan. I will give you more time to think about it and actually give us an assessment of that. Mr. McLaughlin. Mr. Chairman, you had asked previously what risks was I concerned about. Going forward, I think we are navigating between risks fairly well. The one risk that would really scare me would be the risk of a 9-month CR. Because we are putting all our money in staff, and it is hard to take money back out of staff once they are here. That is the thing. When I became Director of Administration in 1995, we were running a RIF at that time. And I would not like to have to go back to those days. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well, if you would submit for the record an answer to that question, in addition to your answer here. I think I heard you say that you were hiring more clerks to support your ALJs. Is that because of your increased caseload? Is that because the clerks, you can hire the expertise without seniority considerations? Or is it both? Mr. Pearson. Well, both, I guess. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Pearson. It is challenging for us to hire administrative law judges. We have only two ways to do it. One is to recruit sitting administrative law judges, which all of our current judges were sitting at some other agency. Or we can go to the Office of Personnel Management and get the three most senior names off their registry. As a practical matter, we have always done both, but we have never found one of those three off of the OPM register as having a sufficiently technical background dealing with complex cases, and certainly we have never found anybody with patent law background to hire. So what we have tended to do is hire judges from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or other agencies that have a history of dealing with complicated litigation of the sort that we have. And our pool of applicants has been shrinking. I don't know what we are getting now in the current go-around, but in the last--when we hired the last judge, the pool was smaller than when we had hired the previous judge, and that pool was smaller than when we had hired the previous judge. So I don't know what is going on, but the trend is against us. Our ALJs really do work quite hard. In a sense, they might be at the pinnacle of ALJ practice in the Federal Government. Some 90 percent of all ALJs work for the Social Security Administration, and they do important work, and it is relatively shorter cases, and they can get through it quickly. A lot of our Initial Determinations that the judges put together when they decide the cases run hundreds of pages. Mr. Mollohan. Well, what I was wondering was, is that the reason you are hiring additional clerks, more clerks, for that reason? Mr. Pearson. Right. Apologies for not answering the question. Mr. Mollohan. No, no, no. You were answering the question. Mr. Pearson. Yes, what we are trying to do is augment the skills that we have there in the four ALJs by giving them everything they need. Everything they can farm out to somebody else we are trying to allow that to happen, so that they can focus on what only they can do. Mr. Mollohan. And you are having an increased caseload at the same time? Mr. Pearson. Oh, yes. Mr. Mollohan. So that is obviously helping with that. Is this solving your problem? Are you solving your problem through hiring these additional clerks? Mr. Pearson. At a minimum, it has had the effect of persuading the existing ALJs not to retire. I mean, I think we have demonstrated to them, as a Commission, that we are committed to trying to give them what they need. Mr. Mollohan. Helping them with their workload. Mr. Pearson. Right. We are trying to get another ALJ; while that can't be done, what else can we do for you? And we have been doing all those things that we can. Mr. Mollohan. And with all that, you feel you need one more ALJ? Mr. Pearson. Yes. Soon. Mr. Mollohan. And that would solve your problem? Mr. Pearson. That addresses the problem for now. At the 50- active-cases level, I think we would be okay with five judges. Mr. Mollohan. I guess when I say solve your problem, does that dispose of your cases in a timely manner? Do you project that another ALJ and complement of clerks would resolve your cases in a timely manner? Mr. Pearson. Another ALJ with clerks, yes, that should get us, I think, back to at least an 18-month figure. Mr. Mollohan. Is that acceptable? I mean, are you asking here in your request for what you need in this area, I guess is my question? And this gives you an opportunity to speak to that, you know. Do you need more ALJs? What is your---- Mr. Pearson. If our caseload continues to increase in the coming year the way it has in the past, someone from the Commission will sit in front of you next year and say we need a sixth ALJ. That is my personal view; that is not a Commission decision yet. But there is just no way around it. We have the tide flowing in and rising to higher and higher levels. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. McLaughlin, do you have a comment on that? Mr. McLaughlin. When we were here last year asking for the fifth ALJ that we still don't have, it was based on 40 active cases, and the model was about eight active cases per judge. We are now at 50. We are still asking for five, but that is because we don't know that it is going to stay at 50 over the long term and we are trying to be prudent. But if it is at 50 next year, I think you could anticipate additional upward pressure on the number of judges and the resources for each judge. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Relative to the ALJs, if it is simply a matter of a waiver? Is the OMB involved in this, as well? Mr. Pearson. OPM more directly. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Is there something we can do in our bill, in terms of language, that could help resolve this issue? Mr. Pearson. What would be needed, we believe, is---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Is there a legislative remedy outside of somebody putting in a bill? Mr. Pearson. It is a change in authorizing language, and I have no permission to come before you and suggest that that is an appropriate role for the Appropriations Committee. But I would note that Senator Baucus has introduced a provision in a trade package back in August that would allow for the hiring of Section 337 judges specifically to address the concerns that we have been discussing. Mr. Frelinghuysen. The four judges you have now, are any or all eligible for retirement? Mr. Pearson. Three of the four are eligible for retirement. One of our judges is 77 years old, still enjoys his work a lot, but---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. That is a huge amount of devotion. Just think if that person were to step down. From what you have told us, if you have a smaller pool of people from which to choose, you have a pretty difficult problem finding somebody to accept that or go through the process to be considered. Mr. Pearson. Right. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Are these presidential appointments? Mr. Pearson. No, we are able to hire them. The Commission does the hiring. And these ALJs are hired under the procedures--it is the Administrative Procedures Act, correct? Mr. Frelinghuysen. I want to get back to the whole issue of your complexity of your cases. Is it too much to say all your cases continue to be more complex, just the nature of the beast, whether they have to do with pharmaceuticals or technology? Mr. Pearson. That certainly is the trend in the patent case area. We have---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. You have remarkable people who work with you, which you have pointed out. We are very lucky to have these people. But, in reality, we are moving into an area of greater complexity. Mr. Pearson. Without a doubt. And we have more claims per patent being contested. We have oftentimes petitions brought involving multiple patents, each with multiple claims. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You have gotten pretty high marks from everybody, in terms of your proceedings are identified with expeditious actions. So we are moving ahead to a situation where it will be potentially from 18 to more months? Is that where you are suggesting we are going? Mr. Pearson. Oh, we are there already, yes. And we are trying to push the tide back toward 15 months, is where we would like to go. Mr. Frelinghuysen. In your intellectual property proceedings, if they result in the finding of a violation and result in exclusion orders and cease and desist orders, who is responsible for enforcing them? Customs? Mr. Pearson. Customs enforces them directly. We provide guidance to Customs in terms of what specific tariff items are to be excluded. And their technical staff work with ours. And, on the whole, I think Customs does a good job of enforcing. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So they are effectively enforced? Mr. Pearson. Yes. There are instances---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Do you have any problems? Mr. Pearson. Oh, yes, sure. When---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Give us an example. Mr. Pearson. Well, what often happens is that an order will cover quite a specific product, and an importer will have a product---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Let's give an example. Is there a problem with this picking a product where there has been--or is this all, sort of, in the era of litigation? Ms. Aranoff. Just as an example, if there is a particular IT product, maybe a piece that goes into a computer that is covered by a certain patent, the engineers will design around it, and they will design a product that is going to do the same thing as this part that was found to be infringing. Someone has to make a determination of whether the design-around is actually far enough that it is outside the scope of the patent. And those sorts of things are frequently disputed. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Those would be within your purview? Ms. Aranoff. Sometimes. In the first instance, that would go to Customs. But there are times when people can actually come to us for an advisory opinion or an enforcement proceeding where it would go back to the ALJ for a formal adjudication. Mr. Frelinghuysen. How would you characterize Customs? Do they have people that are pretty well-qualified in some of these areas? Ms. Aranoff. You will have to ask them. They have an IP rights branch which handles these matters. Its staff is relatively small. Mr. Pearson. I think, if the questions get complex enough, they probably prefer that we look at it again and decide what-- -- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Could you make any comments, in the Chairman's absence, on the probable effects in terms of the exiting free-trade agreements? You have completed all your work relative to the ones that are out there now; is that right? Mr. Pearson. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. What areas do you expect your economic studies will focus on this year and next? USTR is pretty busy. Where do you see the next focus? Mr. Pearson. We are unlikely to do any more FTA reports for a little while. We hope sincerely at some point to be able to do a report on the Doha round, which, of course, isn't ready yet either. Some of the work that we have been doing for USTR in regard to the Doha negotiations includes analysis of the nonagricultural market access negotiations. We have done a project for them to look at the economic partnership agreements that the European Union has been signing with its former colonies to try to understand, in aggregate, the effect those are having. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So you are looking at the trade agreements, as well? Mr. Pearson. Oh, yes. If the USTR asks us to do it, it is relevant to how USTR is trying to position in various ways, you know, in negotiations with other countries. So, yes, we have a much larger economic staff than USTR. I think they have 10 or fewer economists, and we have in terms of positions, what, somewhere over 40. Mr. Frelinghuysen. So these are men and woman who are familiar with Central America, South America, and Africa? Mr. Pearson. Right. One of our divisions is a regional analysis division, one of our divisions in the economics group. We have three divisions. So we have some people who try to look at the world in terms of its regions, to understand what is going on in the various areas. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Does the USTR have her own equivalent, or are you her main backup in this area? Mr. Pearson. Because their staff is so small and I think they deal much more with the moment-to-moment issues of the negotiations, we serve what you might call a back office function or a backup function, where the more complex, bigger projects they hand off to us, and they give us anywhere from 2 weeks to 1 year, and we try to give them an answer. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I think we are going to take a brief recess until the Chairman comes back, if that is all right. Mr. Pearson. That would be just fine. I recall well--the tag-team effort that the two of you put in last year was admirable. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I was rehashing a number of questions. Mr. Mollohan. I am sure it was the same ones. Thank you, Rodney. Did Mr. Frelinghuysen talk about countervailing duties and antidumping? No? I can safely get into that without asking you to repeat? The fiscal year 2009 budget request states that import injury investigations are projected to increase by 10 percent because of increased filings of the antidumping and countervailing duty petitions. In your statement, you mention seven new CVD investigations filed against products from China in the past year and project they will remain at relatively high levels in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. Please explain how the U.S. Department of Commerce's recent decision to apply the CVD to non-market economies such as China effects the levels of filings of this type of petition. Mr. Pearson. Sure. Some U.S. industries have been concerned, because when they have brought just antidumping petitions against the Chinese, sometimes the margins have come back at relatively modest levels. Some of the Chinese firms have been effective at retaining counsel and working with the Department of Commerce, and they have argued successfully for relatively modest margins. Given the cost advantages that some Chinese firms have, they have still been able to export to this country without a huge restriction despite the antidumping order. So I think that by--the reasoning of the Department of Commerce, I think, was that if they were to look at the subsidies in China, which we understand there are quite a few, and then calculate a subsidy margin, that perhaps the antidumping-plus-CVD margin would be sufficient that it would be harder for firms from China to export products to the United States. So, in other words, once that door is open, then U.S. firms may be more likely to file cases. Mr. Mollohan. Are there any other reasons for the increased filings? Mr. Pearson. I think that it is not possible to ignore the economy. As we see the economy slow down, as we see demand weaken, there just isn't room left for firms to sell at profitable prices with a shrinking or a weakening demand base. So this is normal. I mean, our workload in antidumping/ countervailing duty cases tends to be counter-cyclical. The better the economy is, the fewer cases we have filed. When the economy heads south, our caseload goes up. So, without knowing any precise numbers, we would anticipate that we are going to see some filings through this time of weak economic growth. Mr. Mollohan. What other countries are involved besides China? Mr. Pearson. Well, we see quite a variety of petitions. We have one that we have just dealt with involving France only. We have quite a few involving India, Thailand. When we are reviewing existing orders, we often--we have been dealing with Ukraine and Eastern European countries, as well as, you know, some of the Western European countries, occasionally South American countries. Particularly Brazil is a major exporter; it shows up occasionally. If you would like, I can provide in post-hearing a more thorough review of countries that we have been involved in in the past year. That would be simple enough. [The information follows:] Question. What other countries are involved [in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations besides China? Answer. In FY2007 and year-to-date FY2008, antidumping and countervailing duty cases have been filed with respect to imports from the following countries: China--20 cases, Korea--4 cases, India--3 cases, Germany--2 cases, United Arab Emirates--2 cases, Australia--1 case, Brazil--1 case, France--1 case, Indonesia--1 case, Japan--1 case, Mexico--1 case, South Africa--1 case, Taiwan--1 case, Thailand--1 case, Turkey--1 case, and Vietnam--1 case. Mr. Mollohan. Do you have any steel cases pending? Mr. Pearson. Yes. We have a hearing for next, what, next month sometime on stainless steel pipe from China. [The information follows:] Question. Do you have any steel [antidumping or countervailing duty] cases pending? Answer. Active Steel Product Investigations: 1. Steel nails/China & United Arab Emirates. 2. Circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe/China. 3. Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube/China, Korea, Mexico and Turkey. 4. Steel wire garment hangers/China. 5. Welded stainless steel pressure pipe/China. 6. Steel threaded rod/China. Active Steel Product Reviews: 1. Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod/Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad & Tobago & Ukraine. 2. Steel concrete reinforcing bar/Turkey. Mr. Mollohan. Is that the only one you have, countervailing duty or antidumping case petition? Ms. Aranoff. That is the only new one. We are continuing to do sunset reviews on quite a number of steel-related orders. Mr. Mollohan. So all that represents an increased workload? Mr. Pearson. The new cases clearly do. See, in terms of the 5-year sunset reviews that we do, we know what is out there, because any time an order goes into effect, we know that 5 years later we are going to look at it again. So that is predictable; we can budget for that. The new cases are brought at the pleasure of the domestic industries. Mr. Mollohan. I know you have talked about this already in the hearing, but how are you with your current staffing levels? How are you meeting this demand? You have a higher demand here. You have a higher demand from the Congress, a request from the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Pearson. We are meeting it with some difficulty, frankly. We are pushing people harder than we can over the long term. That is why I mentioned earlier it is important for them to see the light at the end of the tunnel, because people are-- -- Mr. Mollohan. What is the light at the end of the tunnel? Ms. Aranoff. Getting the vacancy rate down. Mr. Pearson. The light they would see is if we have the 2008 appropriation we asked for, if we get the 2009 appropriation. Then I think there will be a general sense across the agency, ``Okay, we are back. We are rebuilding. We are going to be okay.'' Mr. Mollohan. But you really should be okay with the 2008 request you asked for, but you are saying the rent situation frustrated that; is that correct? Mr. Pearson. Yes, that is correct. Although what we have done is we have protected the personnel side of our plan and we have taken the hit on the IT side. Mr. Mollohan. If you protected the personnel side, then your 2008 request should have taken care of your personnel needs. But it hasn't taken care of your personnel needs. Mr. Pearson. Well, I see what you are saying, but, in fairness, it is very difficult for us, given the specialized requirements we have for many of our offices, to just go out and in one fiscal year hire all the---- Mr. Mollohan. Do you have the money to do it? Mr. Pearson. We have the money this year to get our vacancy rate down from 16 percent to 9 percent by the end of September, which we hope to do, which is about as much as we think we can absorb this year. That is why to have continuity through fiscal 2009 is so important to us, because, otherwise, we are going to have the job half-finished, with the risk that we have to turn around and start reducing employment again. Mr. Mollohan. You have to be approved by OMB; is that correct? Mr. Pearson. Our appropriation request has to be submitted to OMB, but they can't adjust it. It is one of the elements of our independence. Mr. Mollohan. And I remember that. Mr. Pearson. We are one of the most independent of all independent agencies. You know, six commissioners, no more than three from any one party. We serve 9-year terms, staggered with one term ending every 18 months. We all outlive any administration. And the chairmanship flips back and forth every 2 years by presidential designation. Mr. Mollohan. You didn't adjust your request based on anything OMB had to say about it? Mr. Pearson. No, not at all. It passes directly through to you, and we are very much subject to whatever you should decide, which is why we appreciate this opportunity to visit. Mr. Mollohan. And we want to help you. So your $73.6 million is what you all have sat down and said, ``That is what we need for 2009''? Mr. Pearson. Right. The commissioners met in late August, early September, I guess, and approved this figure. So we have, like I said, bipartisan and unanimous agreement with this request. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Frelinghuysen. That is pretty good and admirable. I just want to get to the rent increase and GSA. Did you protest, or what did you do? You didn't take the rent increase sitting down when they made initial projection of 15 and then came up with somewhere between 38 and 40 percent. Mr. Pearson. Right. We did not take it sitting down. But in the short term, they have the right to take out of our accounts however much money they want, on a monthly basis. So they go ahead and get their money, and we have to live with that. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You protested, but what did you actually find out? Do you think that there was any justification? Mr. Pearson. Well, they have their rationale. It is just they did not communicate it to us. Mr. Frelinghuysen. What do you think their rationale might be? What did they tell you? Mr. Pearson. Let me turn to Mr. McLaughlin. Mr. McLaughlin. Most of my summer was spent on this rationale. The short version of the story is what we were being quoted as our price was not the bottom-line price; it was GSA's costs. So notwithstanding our request for a budget figure, they were quoting us their cost. They are renting the property from Boston Property. They did not disclose to us that, oh, by the way, their cost doesn't include operating fee escalations for the last 10 years and real estate escalations for the last 10 years and their 8 percent administrative fee, which totals $1.3 million. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Oh. Mr. McLaughlin. That was my reaction. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, I am glad we have it entered into the record, because obviously this impacts other agencies and groups that come before us. I would think, obviously, those figures were set before maybe our economy was headed south. I just have a question on Thailand. When I was in Thailand in late August, I met with a variety of people at the embassy. The Thai case you are talking about here, didn't that involve pharmaceuticals? Any of you familiar with that issue? I know there are things going on there where people are not playing by the--rules. Mr. Pearson. I don't believe we have had a pharmaceuticals case in front of us. Mr. Frelinghuysen. The Thai issue, you don't remember what that was? Mr. Pearson. We had a steel case involving Thailand, a review of an old order, and then a little more than a year ago, we had a case involving crushed canned pineapple from Thailand and other countries. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Interesting, somehow I thought there was some sort of pharmaceutical case that was involved. Mr. Pearson. And that is not impossible. We could have easily had an intellectual property case, a 337-case, that might have involved one or more producers in Thailand. And I wouldn't know that unless I went and looked at it closely. We do as a practical matter deal with some biotech and pharmaceutical cases on the patent side. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Were you involved in any way in any of the Mattel stuff with toys? Mr. Pearson. No, we watched that from the side lines wondering what it would mean for the bilateral relationship, but there was no trade remedy case brought before us, and we have not been asked to look specifically at toys by the Rangel study that we are doing on China. The request for the study preceded the concerns with toys. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Even though maybe the Chinese are to be blamed, obviously, these were American companies that are contracting so there are obviously obligations they have. Mr. Pearson. Important lessons to learn about one's supply chain, I think, yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. With regard to your exemption from OPM's ALJ pool requirement. Does your request or desire to be exempt from OPM's ALJ pool and priority, does that have to be coordinated through and approved by OMB? Mr. Pearson. No. I mean, if OPM had some administrative authority that it was willing to use to grant relief, then perhaps OMB would have to look at it. I don't know that. But OPM has made it clear to us that they don't think they have the administrative authority, and if they did have, they wouldn't be inclined to use it, because they are not eager to start what they would see as a slippery slope by making an exemption for one small agency, because then what would come next in terms of requests. Mr. Mollohan. In July of last year you released a report on certain economic effects of U.S. restrictions on agricultural sales to Cuba. Mr. Pearson. Yes. Mr. Mollohan. I have a series of questions on that, please. What factors raise the cost of U.S. Goods for Cubans and limit U.S. sales? What factors raise the cost of U.S. goods for Cubans---- Mr. Pearson. Okay. Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. And limit the U.S. sales. Mr. Pearson. I will try to answer these, I have not looked at that study now in over half a year, but off the top of my head. [The information follows:] Question. What factors limit U.S. agricultural sales to Cubans? Answer. Several factors, both economic and non-economic, limit U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba. Beyond the additional costs of U.S. goods mentioned above, Cuba is unable to benefit from several USDA credit programs that provide low-interest credit for the purchase of U.S. agricultural products. Such credit is available to the Cuban Government from many U.S. competitors, such as France, China, and Vietnam. Even though the United States is able offer Cuba high quality agricultural products at prices lower than most competitors, non-economic factors are important to Alimport in making its purchasing decisions. For example, Cuba seeks to diversify its agricultural import suppliers, not only to avoid becoming too reliant on any single country, but also to develop favorable geo-political relationships (such as with China and Venezuela). U.S. travel restrictions also limit our agricultural sales to Cuba in a number of ways. For example, reducing the number of U.S. citizens able to travel to Cuba lowers demand for U.S. products in Cuba. Further, Cuban officials wishing to visit the United States in order to inspect U.S. processing and port facilities, a prerequisite in many cases for purchases, have difficulty obtaining visas from U.S. authorities. Similarly, U.S. exporters face time-consuming and complicated procedures in obtaining licenses for travel in order to conduct essential face-to-face business negotiations in Cuba. Question. What factors raise the cost of U.S. goods for Cubans? Answer. Sanctions prevent the Cuban Government entity, Alimport, (the sole purchaser of U.S. agricultural products) from conducting financial transactions with U.S. banks. This means that Cuba must make payments for U.S. agricultural sales through third-country (typically European) financial institutions. The additional costs associated with such third-party transactions, including currency conversions, raises the price of U.S. goods paid by Alimport. Also, compliance with stringent financing regulations often results in delays at U.S. ports, leading to additional shipping costs for Alimport. Sanctions also penalize shipping companies whose vessels enter Cuban ports. As a result, few companies service Cuba and a lack of competition among shippers leads to higher freight charges on goods coming from the United States. The majority of U.S. agricultural products imported by Alimport are distributed directly to the Cuban population through government-run ration stores. However, some products imported from the United States are resold by Alimport to private sector grocery outlets, hotels, and restaurants. As the sole buyer and seller, Alimport is able to charge higher prices to these private sector outlets than if these outlets purchased directly from U.S. suppliers. Overall, the ITC estimated that sanctions raise the cost of U.S. goods for Cubans by as much as 2.5 to 10 percent, depending on the products. Mr. Mollohan. Okay, go ahead. Mr. Pearson. There is the travel restriction that makes it challenging for people who want to go to Cuba on sales calls to do so, so that is one factor. And there are the financing issues where U.S. financial institutions can't be involved in a trade with China--Cuba, excuse me. Those would be the two things that would come to me. Mr. Mollohan. What agricultural commodity sectors would likely benefit most from the lifting of financial restrictions on U.S. agriculture exports to Cuba? I will submit these for the record. The recent WTO rules draft apparently included changes with regard to the administration of sunset reviews, and the new provision would perhaps provide for mandatory sunset trade relief at 10 years. Is it true that the WTO rules draft provides for mandatory sunset trade relief at 10 years? Mr. Pearson. Yes, the chairman's draft that is currently under consideration does include a provision that would sunset all orders after 10 years. [The information follows:] Question. What agricultural commodity sectors would likely benefit most from lifting of financial restrictions on U.S. Agricultural exports to Cuba? Answer. The United States export a wide range of agricultural commodities to Cuba, including food and feed grains, soybeans, dry beans, dairy and meat products, fresh fruit and vegetables, and a variety of processed food and beverages. The ITC estimated that U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba could double absent the financial restrictions. Sales of all products would benefit from lifting financial restrictions, with fruit and vegetables, meats, bulk dairy products, and processed foods benefiting the most. Mr. Mollohan. Well, what effect will this have on U.S. citizens who have used the existing trade laws to obtain relief from unfair trade practices? Mr. Pearson. It would require them to come back and file a new case. Now, my understanding is that the chairman, without defining it, has indicated that he would be open to some expedited procedure in that situation. But at this stage of the negotiations, that is only a concept; it is nothing more than something we could speculate on. Mr. Mollohan. I understand that some members of the Commission recently traveled to Geneva to meet with officials to discuss these issues. Can you elaborate on those meetings? Did you travel? Mr. Pearson. Certainly, yes. Four of the commissioners went. It had been several years since we had been there, there had not been a lot happening in the Rules negotiations, okay? So we didn't want to spend unnecessary time there. And I should explain, too, that the Commission does not negotiate directly on Rules. Those negotiations are handled by Commerce and USTR. The reason that both Congress and USTR want us to be informed and kind of a part of the process is that, at some stage late in the game, we are going to get a phone call saying, okay, the language on material injury is this, can you live with it? And of necessity we need to be aware of what those changes are, what changes are being proposed. But there are suggestions to change the material injury standards that are of some concern, and those were the ones we were primarily focused on. Sunset, although it would have an effect on us, there was nothing there that we would--that we would take a position on, because it is kind of outside the scope of what we should focus on. We have been very scrupulous to leave to Commerce and USTR the things that are their---- Mr. Mollohan. So you would not have commented on the sunset provisions? Mr. Pearson. If it goes into effect, it may or may not change our work load; it depends. If new petitions are filed, that may have the effect of increasing our work load. If new petitions are not filed, our work load would go down. We kind of know what is out there for work load if we are just doing a review every 5 years. It is a little easier for us to plan. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am all set, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Pearson. Mr. Chairman, could I add it has been pointed out to me, you had asked earlier about steel cases. We do have a case involving steel nails from China and--is it the United Arab Emirates? I think it is probably Dubai, and that is in front of us now. It is not one of our traditional steel cases, but it is a steel product. Mr. Mollohan. Okay, Mr. Fattah. Mr. Fattah. I will pass this round. Mr. Mollohan. We're done. Mr. Fattah. We're done? I have some questions that I will submit for the record. Mr. Pearson. That would be fine, thank you. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice Chairman, Mr. McLaughlin, we appreciate your testimony here today, thank you again for your good work. There will be some questions submitted for the record. Mr. Fattah has indicated his interest in doing that, and we may as well. That was excellent testimony, and again, I appreciate very much your good work. And if you will please give my personal regards to Commissioner Lane, I'd appreciate that. Mr. Pearson. I would be pleased to do so. And again, we appreciate so much the attention that you give to our little agency. I mean, we do our best, and we may be one of the most bipartisan places in town. We try hard to maintain that working atmosphere and to have good relations with the Hill, so thank you. Mr. Mollohan. You are small enough that these accounts get scrutinized, which is important to do. But you know, we want to be responsive to your needs, so you need to come forward with what they are. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Pearson. Thank you. Mr. Mollohan. And the hearing is adjourned. [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Wednesday, April 9, 2008. OFFICE OF UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE WITNESS SUSAN C. SCHWAB, UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Opening Remarks Mr. Mollohan. Good morning and welcome to staff, Members, and the public. This morning, we welcome Ambassador Susan C. Schwab to testify on the United States Trade Representative's fiscal year 2009 budget request. This is her first appearance before this Committee. Welcome, Ambassador. We look forward to working with you. This year's budget proposes a slight increase of 4.9 percent. However, the justification clearly conveys the inadequacy of this request. Current FTE levels cannot be sustained at this level and other risks to the budget have been identified but not included. Furthermore, the assertion is made that any remaining carry-over funding will be exhausted in fiscal year 2008, leaving no capacity for unbudgeted events. Yet, the annual performance goals and 2009 initiatives are far ranging. The workload will have to be managed by eliminating noncritical missions. Indeed, USTR has already begun deferring such missions in fiscal year 2008. USTR plans to slow hires or not backfill vacancies, increase the number of unreimbursable detailees, and reassign personnel based on mission priorities. As a result, critical institutional knowledge may be lost. This justification states, ``This request significantly slows important administrative and infrastructure upgrades that commenced in fiscal year 2006,'' which were an attempt to reverse a decade of inattention to support and logistical needs. You may recall that in fiscal year 2006, the President's proposed budget was just 38.8 million. Congress appropriated 44.6 million. It has been two years since USTR has appeared before this Committee and we have a new Ambassador. Unfortunately, my concerns about the economic and social effect of free trade agreements on American communities has not abated in the intervening years. There appears to be some progress on the inclusion of environmental agreements and labor principles into trade negotiations, but the U.S. is still disadvantaged on balance. Moreover, the idea that nations should avoid using the environment and climate change as an excuse to impose trade restrictions is worrisome. And then there's China. In 2006, USTR's top-to-bottom review of trade with China concluded that the relationship lacked equity, balance, and durability. In October 2007, GAO testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property that U.S. intellectual property faces increasing risk of theft as U.S. firms integrate into the world economy. ``The severity of these risks has been intensified by weak enforcement in some countries, particularly China, whose enforcement challenges have persisted despite U.S. efforts.'' In February 2008, the Department of Commerce reported that the trade deficit with China rose to 256 billion in 2007, the largest gap ever recorded with a single country. China has now surpassed Canada to become the U.S.'s largest source of imported goods and, yet, despite the decline in the dollar, U.S. exports to China fell 15 percent in January 2008 amid contentions of unfair manipulation of China's currency to keep its value low against the dollar. The Committee looks forward to your thoughts on these issues, Ambassador Schwab. And so I will invite you to go forward with your oral testimony. Your written testimony will be made a part of the record. And then when Mr. Frelinghuysen arrives, we will give him an opportunity to make an opening statement. Welcome. Ambassador Schwab. Super. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2009 budget for the Office of U.S. Trade Representative. As you know, the USTR is the lead agency in the U.S. government responsible for the development, the negotiation, and the implementation of U.S. trade policy. We are a lean, efficient, effective organization that currently boasts around 226 FTEs. And the principal focus of virtually everyone on the staff is opening markets abroad for the products and services of American workers, farmers, and entrepreneurs. We negotiate agreements that level the trade playing field and hold our partners to their commitments. Our trade policy and the agenda to deliver it has four main components. First, multilateral trade talks such as the WTO's Doha development round; second, regional and bilateral trade talks such as pending free trade agreements with Colombia, with Panama, and South Korea; third, monitoring and enforcement of U.S. rights under existing trade agreements; fourth, issue- specific problem-solving and negotiations on topics such as intellectual property rights protection, softwood lumber, removal of nonscience-based sanitary and phyto-sanitary barriers to U.S. farm exports, and the use of trade to contribute to international, environmental, and climate objectives. Trade today is playing a larger role in our economy than ever before and while some sectors of the U.S. economy are under stress, more than 40 percent of U.S. economic growth last year was attributable to the growth in U.S. exports, goods and services. With U.S. exports to our free trade agreement partners rising significantly faster than our exports to the rest of the world, our trade agenda is more important than ever. I am here today to ask that you fully fund these very important activities for fiscal year 2009. With our funding levels relatively flat for the last two years, our office has been challenged to keep pace with our growing responsibilities. USTR has a very high-skilled labor and travel-intensive job to do. And of the 45.2 million we spent in fiscal year 2007, 33 million or 73 percent went to payroll. Travel was the next highest expense at 12 percent. In fiscal year 2008, our payroll increases to 35 million, primarily due to a cost-of-living adjustment, making payroll this year almost 80 percent of our current appropriation. If the budget is cut below the President's budget proposal, the new USTR, the next USTR will have to reduce costs by cutting staff. This would seriously impair USTR's congressionally mandated mission of opening international markets to U.S. exports and enforcing trade agreements. Let me briefly mention some of our activities and accomplishments if I may. First, on the multilateral front, a successful WTO Doha round outcome is our top trade negotiating priority. This multilateral agreement in the WTO offers the potential to generate economic growth and development here and around the world and to help lift millions out of poverty. We have worked since 2001 to achieve a successful Doha outcome that will open markets, generate new trade flows, and boost both economic growth and confidence in the global economy, but it is important that the United States stay a strong and active leader at the WTO so as to ensure maximum benefits to U.S. interests. On FTAs, we are working very closely with Congress as we did last year to address the environmental and labor protections in four free trade agreements. The four FTAs that were pending before the Congress, Peru, Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. We included at Congress's suggestion and in concert with a bipartisan agreement stronger enforceable provisions that have set a new standard in both areas, environment and labor protections for FTAs. Monitoring and enforcing these and earlier labor and environmental provisions in our FTAs is important but also resource intensive. And with a substantial increase in the number of countries with which we now have FTAs jumping from three to seventeen during the course of this Administration, USTR's workload has grown dramatically. Despite this increase in workload, we have increased staff by only 13 percent since fiscal year 2001. On the enforcement front, since USTR testified last before this Committee, we have initiated five WTO cases challenging China's trade practices. This brings the total number of cases filed against China to six since March 2004 when we filed the first ever case against China at the WTO. As the result of filing one such case last year, China agreed to eliminate a dozen major export subsidies and important substitution incentives. We also continue to challenge in the WTO the European Union's undue delays in approving agricultural biotechnology products. We have initiated two arbitrations against Canada to enforce bilateral softwood lumber agreement. USTR has, as you know, an array of tools available to us to enforce our rights under trade agreements. And while litigation is never the preferred option, it is an option that we have and will continue to use when other efforts fail to resolve our trade problems. Just briefly before closing, a couple examples of subject- specific negotiations or actions that we are engaged in. First on intellectual property rights, we have made progress with several of our trading partners this past year in improving IPR laws and enforcement. For example, the three pending FTAs, Colombia, Panama, and South Korea all contain world-class IPR protections. USTR uses our annual special 301 report that will come out later this month to guide our choice of policy priorities, our priority targets for addressing IP challenges. In addition, we recently announced the launch of the negotiations of the new anti-counterfeiting trade agreement with key trading partners designed to hit a higher standard for combating intellectual property rights violations, piracy, and counterfeiting. On trade and the environment, in addition to improving environmental standards through our free trade agreements, the United States together with the European Union recently submitted a groundbreaking proposal as part of the Doha round negotiations to reduce international barriers to trade and environmental goods and services, including important climate- friendly technologies such as clean coal, wind energy, and solar cells. I would note that USTR depends greatly on our interdependent relationship with other agencies when we move forward with the Administration's trade agenda. In particular, we rely on the capacity building, development, and technical assistance provided by some of the development agencies to support in particular the labor and environmental provisions of the free trade agreements. And since I know that these decisions are vested with another Subcommittee, I hope that you would keep that in mind because these are tools that we really rely on. In conclusion, American taxpayers get an exceptional return on their investment in USTR and, therefore, I would respectfully ask that you fully fund our 2009 budget, fiscal year 2009 budget so that the work of the U.S. Trade Representative's Office can be smoothly transitioned to the next Administration. Thank you for your time and I would be happy to take any questions. [Written testimony by Ambassador Susan C. Schwab, United States Trade Representative] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. I recognize Mr. Frelinghuysen for an opening statement. Opening Remarks Mr. Frelinghuysen. First of all, let me apologize, Mr. Chairman, for being late. And, Ambassador, it is my pleasure to join the Chairman in welcoming you for your first appearance before this Subcommittee. You are requesting an appropriation of $46.3 million which provides no increase for your fiscal year 2008 operating level which included carry-over funds. The fiscal year 2009 request provides no additional resources for pay, inflation, or other built-in cost increases, let alone any increases for the new initiatives that you have mentioned. This seems to me to be somewhat shortsighted given the very active trade agenda facing the nation. As you said in your testimony, the American taxpayer gets an exceptional return in their investment in the USTR. I had an opportunity over the weekend with you to see some of that investment and the extraordinary amount of work that you have been doing relative to that trade agreement and so many others. I also had an opportunity to take a close look at your 2008 national trade report, the NET, which substantiates very much to me your successes and many challenges. That is quite a list of accomplishments and a lot of barriers yet to overcome. I believe that our security and prosperity are dependent upon active engagement in the global economy through free and fair trade. I am convinced and certainly even more so having been with you recently on a bipartisan trip that the Colombia free trade agreement will yield important economic benefits for the United States and Colombia and also will demonstrate support for a very strong ally. The odds of President Uribe succeeding were long, but he has succeeded and now we need to match his courage and the work of the men and women who support him. I am very pleased that you are here and I salute you for your work. Your budget needs a lot more money. As I know you said in your testimony and certainly in your published testimony, you are preparing for the next Administration and they have to face these challenges. You are not only looking after your needs between now and the end of the year, but giving the next President the tools they need to open the marketplace for American goods and services. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. USTR BUDGET Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Ambassador Schwab, I just point out that it puts the Committee in a difficult position when we receive testimony as late as we received your testimony. I do not know whether you know it or not. We received your testimony 6:30 last evening, which actually was 15 hours in advance of USTR's hearing. That beats Census. Census was 19 hours in advance of the hearing. Of course, we gave about two postponements of their testimony in order to accommodate their trying to get their information together. But we have not even read and what we heard of your testimony is the first we heard of it. So it really does put the Committee in a difficult position. Thank you for appearing at the same time. In 2009, USTR budget includes an increase of $2.1 million. That is just under five percent of the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. However, this is just equivalent to USTR's fiscal 2008 spending level, which allowed USTR to spend 2.2 million in no-year carry-over funds in addition to the enacted level of 44.1 million. Indeed, your justification makes it quite clear that 46.3 million, the President's request, is not enough, as Mr. Frelinghuysen is pointing out here, for fiscal year 2009, in part precisely because USTR will have exhausted all of its no- year carry-over funds in fiscal year 2008. The justification states that, ``This will be a challenge to USTR management.'' On page 23 of the justification, USTR lists its fiscal year 2009 budget risk. Included on this list, but not in the budget, are first a WTO ministerial normally scheduled bi-annually which has not been assumed in this budget due to the current stage of the Doha negotiations. Two, capital security costs in China related to the State Department's Global Embassy Construction Program that have not yet been charged to USTR despite the fact that it has been in Beijing since 2007. Three, the need to strictly control personnel costs through deliberately pacing hiring requirements. And, lastly, a new lease for the Ambassador's residence in Geneva. Ambassador Schwab, this budget was developed some time ago and we heard from your office that the Doha round was heating up. Please update us on the Doha negotiations and explain how this affects the need for a WTO ministerial. Ambassador Schwab. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you note, the Doha round negotiation is heating up. It has done so periodically over the last several years. We are once again going to take a run at getting this elusive break- through that would open markets to trade in agriculture and manufacturing goods and services. And we do hope to see a ministerial sometime in the next two months or so. Unlike the previous ministerial in December of 2005, which was in Hong Kong, this one would probably be in Geneva, which is slightly less costly for us because we have a small office in Geneva that can support us. So that is a good development. The key to the Doha round from our perspective is to make sure that this multilateral development round meets the promise that was stated for it when it was launched in 2001, namely to help generate economic growth, including in developing countries, and to help alleviate poverty. And the key, one of the key points that we have found is a challenge in this negotiation is ensuring that the emerging markets, the advanced developing countries, China, Brazil, India, others contribute to this market, opening at a level that is commensurate with their level of development. Obviously the developed countries would be expected to do the most and the least developing countries are the ones that we are targeting for the most help, but everybody needs to contribute for this to be a successful round. Mr. Mollohan. Your risk was calculated at a million dollars for this ministerial. How risky is the exclusion of the ministerial request? Ambassador Schwab. I would guess at this stage, first of all, the ministerial, assuming the ministerial takes place, and there will be a lot of developments in the next four to eight weeks to see whether we are ready for a ministerial, we cannot afford a failed ministerial again, assuming it takes place, my guess is that it will be less costly than the million dollars that it cost us to do the Hong Kong ministerial in December of 2005, and that if there is a second ministerial to eventually close the Doha round, it would be in the next fiscal year. So we are talking about one in this fiscal year, one in the next fiscal year, but neither of them---- Mr. Mollohan. What fiscal year? Ambassador Schwab. One in fiscal year 2008, one that would be closer to the end of this calendar year, therefore, fiscal year 2009. Neither would be as costly as the Hong Kong ministerial was. Mr. Mollohan. How costly was the Hong Kong ministerial? Ambassador Schwab. It was close to a million dollars. This was December of 2005. But I would be happy to provide---- Mr. Mollohan. Do you really think it is going to cost less than a million dollars? And even if it does, it is not provided for, so how are you going to cover it? Ambassador Schwab. USTR has become pretty adept at setting priorities and making sure we have the resources available to fund those priorities. And there are other things that we could and probably should be doing that sometimes slip. Mr. Mollohan. Why do you not request it? Ambassador Schwab. You know, obviously USTR, I am fully supportive of the President's request. We can manage with the President's request. Mr. Mollohan. I know you have quoted the President's request. We understand that. Why do you not request it? Ambassador Schwab. For the ministerial? Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Ambassador Schwab. In part because we have been planning. We have assumed or thought there would be a ministerial for several years running and there has not been one. We thought there would be one in 2006. We did not have one. We thought there would be one in 2007. We did not have one. I cannot actually tell you there is going to be a ministerial in fiscal year 2008 or fiscal year 2009. We believe we are going to have a ministerial in fiscal year 2008 later on this spring, but that is not even set yet. And, therefore---- Mr. Mollohan. Is the funding for that provided for? Ambassador Schwab. We would make certain that we had the funding for that. And as I said, because that ministerial would be in Geneva, and my guess is both would be in Geneva, if there is one to get the break through and one to close the deal, my guess is both would be in Geneva. And Geneva, while there has been some increase in cost associated with exchange rate changes in doing any of our travel, a Geneva ministerial will cost significantly less than a Hong Kong ministerial because we have the infrastructure of our office in Geneva. Mr. Mollohan. But just looking at probabilities, which is the way you are answering my question, just how risky is the exclusion? With what probability do you think you are going to have a ministerial in 2009? Ambassador Schwab. In 2009? Mr. Mollohan. That is what this budget request is. Ambassador Schwab. Right. I think there will be a ministerial. I suspect it will be on a smaller scale. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. But it is not requested in your budget request, right? Ambassador Schwab. We do not know that there will be a ministerial. Mr. Mollohan. I understand. But you have not requested it? You have not requested funding for it, have you? Ambassador Schwab. That is correct. Mr. Mollohan. Sorry. There is a number of risks as I went over. USTR has been in Beijing since 2007, but no capital security costs have yet been charged. Has the USTR been in contact with State Department about a possible range and do you have any idea how much these costs might be? Ambassador Schwab. We worked very closely with the State Department on this and to this point, we have not had to absorb a significant cost associated with this. I will continue to work with the State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Beijing to make sure that if they have to transfer those expenses to us that we are able to manage payment of those. Mr. Mollohan. Well, as I understand it, we used to fund State Department. They are supposed to charge you. Ambassador Schwab. They are supposed to charge us $50,000 a person basically. We pay that. We have someone in Brussels and we pay that in Brussels. And so up to this point, we have not received a bill from the State Department. We do an awful lot of work with and for the State Department. They are in many ways an extension of our mission. We are an extension of theirs. So far, they have cut us a break. We are talking about three individuals that we have in U.S. Embassy Beijing. Mr. Mollohan. Do you have any indication that you will or will not be charged in 2009 for the---- Ambassador Schwab. We do not have any, up to this point, we do have any indication. If we were charged in 2009, that would be an expense of approximately $150,000---- Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Ambassador Schwab [continuing]. For the three individuals. Mr. Mollohan. But you have no communication one way or the other from State Department to give you an inkling of whether you are going to be charged in 2009? Ambassador Schwab. No, not to date. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Satisfy my curiosity. I read in the newspaper the other day that the Chinese are aggressively pursuing like 30 free trade agreements and they concluded one, I think recently, with New Zealand. I know we monitor those, but obviously our focus here is on the budget as well as policy. How do you match how we resource your people versus their negotiating teams? It seems to me you basically have had a sort of a budget freeze here for three years. Knowing the Chinese, it seems like if we have three people in Beijing, that is a paltry amount considering the size of their marketplace. And as you make clear in your testimony, you are not only about promoting free trade and opportunities, you are also there to make sure that those treaties are enforced. I would like to know what the literal impacts would be? Are you suggesting you are having a hiring freeze or your budget as submitted to us represents a hiring freeze? And given that, you would not have any ability to do anything more in Beijing in terms of adding people that you might need. Ambassador Schwab. That is correct. We could not under this budget ramp up our activities in Beijing. We do not as a matter of course throw quite as many numbers of individuals at negotiations as the Chinese do. But, again, we work very closely with other agencies, the Congress Department, Agriculture Department, State, and so on. Mr. Frelinghuysen. ITA. Ambassador Schwab. ITA. All of these other agencies, we work very closely with them. No, we could not ramp up for a stronger presence in China. Our staff in China is almost exclusively an enforcement team. It is intellectual property rights. It is a team that supports our Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade activities, some of our strategic economic dialogue. And what we end up doing is we spend a great deal of time with the Chinese on problem solving. And it ranges from, you know, jaw boning at one end of our toolbox to filing cases and retaliating at the other end. And there we have much more engagement in terms of the Washington team of the General Counsel's Office, our China shop, our IP shop. So there is a lot of backup in Washington. Mr. Frelinghuysen. But with no more money for increases in your budget, there are going to be some pretty big impacts. Should we anticipate that you would have to implement a hiring freeze? Ambassador Schwab. It is not our expectation to implement a hiring freeze. I do---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. We gave you some help last year. Ambassador Schwab. Right. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Up to 335, I believe. Ambassador Schwab. Last year, what sustained us, in fact, in the last couple years---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Two thirty-five, yes. Ambassador Schwab [continuing]. Is the no-year carry-over, which, unfortunately, we will have exhausted by the end of this fiscal year. I do not see us imposing. I would hope we would not need to impose a formal hiring freeze. But as you know, what you end up doing is you end up running vacancies longer than you might otherwise want to run vacancies. You deploy, you have to deploy resources to your highest priorities. Obviously enforcement and particularly enforcement vis-a-vis china is a very high priority. Your point about free trade agreements, I think, is a worry for us because while we are not actively negotiating many free trade agreements at this point, there are hundreds of FTAs being negotiated around the world by our trading partners. And there are countries including China that are negotiating free trade agreements and regional trade agreements that could very well lock us out and disadvantage our workers, our farmers, and entrepreneurs. One of the reasons we are so anxious to move ahead with the three pending FTAs before the Congress, Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, you mentioned the geopolitical implications. The trade implications are just as profound because right now in the case of Colombia, they get virtually unlimited access to the U.S. market under preference programs that have been around since 1991. And our guys are paying 35 percent tariffs on manufactured goods, 80 percent tariffs on farm goods, and this would level the playing field. I mean, so the Colombia agreement for every day that we are not passing it, it is our workers and our farmers and our entrepreneurs who are getting hurt, who are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars, indeed, you know, millions of dollars in tariffs. In the case of Panama, it is exactly the same. And in the case of the Korea FTA, that is as, you know, a large market with high trade barriers. We have low barriers in terms of what they ship to us. You both go to zero. You have got a lot of new market access. And those three together, you are talking about customers, over a hundred million new customers for U.S. exporters. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am highly supportive of all of what you are doing. I just want to make sure that there is a mandatory pay raise in here. Ambassador Schwab. Yes, sir. Mr. Frelinghuysen. How are you going to meet that mandatory pay raise? Is there going to be some sort of reduction on the FTE side of things? Ambassador Schwab. Our current plan would be, and we did articulate the budget risks as the Chairman noted, our current plan would be that we can manage with the President's request, that we would not expect to be cutting personnel, that we would need obviously to focus on our priorities, and there may be things that would slip in the process. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Can you provide, perhaps for the record, your fiscal year 2009 built-in costs associated with a 2.9 percent pay increase, pay raise in January 2009, and the cost of annualizing the three and a half percent pay raise in 2008? Ambassador Schwab. I would be happy to provide that. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Somehow as we looked over some of your budget documents, it seemed to be lacking a little bit of a clarity in that regard. Ambassador Schwab. I would be happy to provide that. [Clerks note.--The information was not submitted before the print deadline.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Culberson. Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to tell you how much I appreciate the work that you do. Of all of the different agencies of the Executive Branch, your work in particular is extraordinarily important to the U.S. job market. And I share my colleague, Mr. Frelinghuysen's enthusiasm for free trade, but distressed to see once again, Mr. Chairman, the Administration's priorities. As important as the Office of Trade Representative is, the White House continues to frankly short stick you and not give you enough money. And it is distressing to hear that you do not even have enough personnel to man the office in China sufficiently to be able to really engage them on a full range of issues that are important because the Chinese, our trade deficit with the Chinese is just awful. And I wanted to ask just a couple of quick things. Where are we negotiating free trade agreements and with who? You said we were not really working on many. What others are out there that you are working on? Ambassador Schwab. In terms of free trade agreement negotiations that are pending, there is an FTA with Malaysia that has been under negotiation where the negotiations have slowed of late, in part because the expiration of trade promotion authority and in part because their election and changing government as they sort themselves out. We have other negotiations on trade and investment framework agreements, bilateral investment treaties. Those are being negotiated or negotiations are being explored with a number of countries. We have recently entered a negotiation on the services, financial services and investment provisions associated with a group called the P4, which is a small Asian regional agreement that currently exists between Chile, Singapore, New Zealand, and Brunei. And we have got FTAs with two of the four. Because we are anxious not to be locked out of regional deals in the Asian market, joining the P4 at some point might be part of a way to integrate ourselves into Asia. So in terms of formal free trade agreements, there is very little under negotiation at the present time for a variety of reasons. However, we do have, as I said, TIFA negotiations, BIT negotiations going on and a lot of troubleshooting and individual market opening activities. EXPORT ISSUES Mr. Culberson. And, finally, I just want to ask a very narrow question involving an employer in my district who manufactures forklifts who are upset that we export forklifts. Korea, China, others are hammering us with a big tariffs while we do not impose any. I want to ask specifically have you raised that? My office and others have contacted you. Have you raised that yet and will you, please, try to get that resolved? Ambassador Schwab. In the case of forklifts, in the case, we are aware that one of the principal benefits of the Colombia free trade agreement and the Korea free trade agreement will be the elimination of tariffs in both of those countries for U.S. forklift exports. And that will be of significant benefit to a variety of U.S. manufacturers of forklifts, earth-moving equipment, tractors, and so on. In the case of China, the Chinese tariff has been brought down through its accession to the WTO. I am not exactly sure where it is now, but I certainly will look into it. Our hope would be if we get a Doha round multilateral trade agreement, that will be a great venue, a great opportunity to reduce some of these tariffs. Mr. Culberson. Okay. But rather than just look into it, I am asking specifically will you raise it, please, with the Chinese? This is a really important issue and it is hammering our forklift manufacturers. Ambassador Schwab. I will do so, absolutely. Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Schiff. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ISSUES Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Ambassador, I want to ask you a number of questions about intellectual property issues which are very important to not only the country at large but certainly a great many of my constituents in Southern California. Along with several of my colleagues, I am co-sponsoring legislation called the PRO IP Act which you are probably familiar with. A number of proposals that I have made have been incorporated into the bill. I understand your office has raised some concerns with this legislation recently, and the inability to resolve some of those concerns has hindered the progress of the bill moving forward. One issue in particular, and I do not know if this is an issue that your office has expressed an opinion on, was based on recommendations from several GAO studies and a broad industry labor coalition. That would create a permanent high- level White House IP enforcement coordinator to ensure that the U.S. government approach for attacking IP theft was thoughtful and effective and consistent. Has your office taken a position on that provision? Are there other aspects of the legislation that you want to share your thoughts on? I think there is a markup anticipated in a couple weeks. I would like to work with you and your office to try to resolve any remaining issues you have over the bill. Ambassador Schwab. Thank you, Congressman. And I commend you, as you know, I did last fall when you were there for the launch of the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement negotiations, for all of your dedication and commitment on issues of piracy and IPR protection. USTR, as you know, has a very active set of IP related activities, including the cases that we have filed against China, the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement, and the very strong IP protections we negotiated into our free trade agreements. On the legislation that you mentioned, I am not in a position to comment on the legislation at this time. The Administration is pulling together its official position and I would very much welcome the opportunity to work with you and work with the Committee on the legislation. We would obviously be concerned by any legislation or any legislation that would call into question the responsibility for developing, coordinating, negotiating U.S. IP protections. I think we work very well with our fellow agencies as we developed the special 301 report, as we negotiate on these FTAs, as we decide to file cases. And it is a system that works. We stepped up the pace. And as I said, we would very much like to work with the Committee on those pieces of legislation that may work better than others. And you have my commitment to do so. Mr. Schiff. Thank you. I appreciate it. The thought is not to inhibit the work that you are doing, but rather you have a very broad portfolio of issues to be responsive to. I think it is the consensus of many in the industry and the Congress that it would be desirable to have someone at a very high level whose primary focus each and every day they get up is dealing with the IP problem and who is at a high enough level within the White House to actually effectuate changes necessary to deal with the problem. Let me give you one illustration of what we are confronting. You mentioned China. By some estimates, there are more than 225 million internet users in China and a majority of those are downloading and streaming music illegally. Two recent newspaper articles discussed a China-based internet company called Baidu, which offers illicit music downloading. They are basically a search engine, I guess like Google or whatnot, but one that also lets users listen to and search for songs free of charge. Roughly nine percent of their traffic comes from the MP3 search. This has helped make them China's biggest search engine, accounting for nearly half of all the queries on the site. This is a company evidently that trades on U.S. markets via U.S. or American depository receipts. Can you tell us what USTR is doing to confront this company since they are in our market and yet they are becoming one of the major sources of the illegal IP downloading and theft in China? Has your office worked with other Executive Branch agencies regarding the company's activities, particularly given that they trade in the U.S. markets? Ambassador Schwab. We are obviously well aware of the problems posed by Baidu and it showed up prominently last year in our annual special 301 report as one of the notorious markets that we highlighted. And as you know, we used the special 301 report to set priority targets for the U.S. government, not just USTR, but U.S. government activity related to intellectual property rights violations in our trading partners. This is an issue that we have raised with the Chinese, in some ways is similar to a problem web site that we are aware of in Russia that we have made some progress on, in fact, and so the answer is, yes, we are working on that, doing that in conjunction with other agencies. And along with a lot of other IP challenges in China, this is very high on our priority list. Mr. Schiff. One of my staff was recently in China, and I participate in a parliamentary exchange with China where we continually raise the IP issue. During my staff member's recent visit, he saw, not that it will surprise you, no diminution of the number of pirated goods in Chinese shops and markets. A store near the Forbidden City had a sign offering DVDs of ``all of the 2008 Oscar winners'' and the Hung Chow market in Beijing and New Gardens area of Shanghai were filled with counterfeit goods, including a virtually identical kiosk selling fake iPods. I think as we have seen in reference to the Olympics, it is not a matter of China's capacity to deal with this problem. Where they have the will to do it, they do very well in dealing with expressions of any kind, let alone pirated music and film. We run an enormous trade deficit with China where we see that China has the capability and China cannot plausibly make the argument that they are powerless to deal with this problem. What more can we do? I know we filed the case with the WTO, which is good. Maybe you can share with us the status of that, but also what efforts we can do to make sure China understands we are serious about this and it is going to have trade repercussions. Ambassador Schwab. Congressman, you are absolutely right about the degree of seriousness of the China IP problem. In the last couple years, close to 80 percent of the pirated and counterfeit items that have been seized at the border in the United States came from China. So it is a topic that is always at the top of our priority list when we are in China. I was there late last month, I mean, just three weeks ago and it was something that I raised with the new Vice Premier who is responsible for the trade and international economic portfolio and with the new Trade Minister. And the answer is we have a variety of tools that we have and will continue to use through, for example, the JCCT. We have reached an agreement in the past where the Chinese agreed that all computers produced in China would have preloaded operating software. It seems like a small thing. It had a dramatic impact in terms of the sale of the legitimate operating software. We understand that from U.S. software producers. That is one example of sort of a success in a problem-solving approach. Where we have not been able to get traction, get success in enforcement, and in the case of copyright heavy trade distribution, we now have two cases pending in the WTO, one on enforcement, one on market access related to copyrighted products, which is, you know, music, video, books, reading matter. We do not like to go to litigation, but we will go to litigation. And the status of those cases is this fall, we would expect to have interim panel findings, early in the fall on the IP enforcement case, later on in the fall on the market access case. And we will continue to pursue those rigorously. Our objective, though, is to solve the problem, you know, and, therefore, whether it is through law enforcement, and I am sure you are aware last year the FBI and Chinese law enforcement authorities seized half a billion dollars in counterfeit software, there are various successes we can point to, but we know that it is not nearly enough. And, therefore, we continue to ramp up the pressure and ramp up the cooperation that we seek and often get from the Chinese authorities. We also believe that the Chinese authorities are capable of doing more in this area and we will continue to push. Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Ambassador, for being here. It is good to see you again and thanks for coming to the Subcommittee for your testimony. Of course, the issue that you and I have talked mostly about is, of course, the CAFTA issue of 2005. I know that was before you came on board, but you came along right on the heels of CAFTA passing. And as you are well aware, I supported CAFTA in 2005 after a lot of discussion, especially concerning the sock tariffs and either the phase-out will be gradually over ten years or be maintained indefinitely through a rule of change of origin. And, of course, both of those sort of have been derailed over the past couple of years. Of course, the sock tariffs disappeared when each country joined CAFTA, as you know, and the rule of origin was never changed. Back several months, and it may even have been close to a year ago, I think you were kind enough to come here and meet with Senators Shelby and Sessions and myself and two or three other members from other states including North Carolina and Wisconsin. And we talked about this issue. And at that time, you were talking about working to implement the tariff phase-out. And at the time, you seemed optimistic about that occurring. And I just wanted to touch base with you and see if you are still optimistic and what your thoughts are on that, if you could just share a little bit about that. Ambassador Schwab. Thank you, Congressman Aderholt. I hope your soft sock producers have a sense of what an incredible advocate they have in you here in the Congress. You are right. This is sort of topic number one every time we get together and you have brought--I think I have learned more about socks than any USTR in the history of this organization. In the letter of July 2005 that my predecessor, Ambassador Portman, and Secretary Gutierrez sent to you, there were five provisions, as you know. And we believe that we have been able to deliver in whole or in part on at least four of them. We have been less successful in terms of modifying the phase-out, tariff phase-out. But in some ways, the negotiation is being overtaken by the safeguard action, as you know. And we would expect shortly to see the imposition of safeguard on Honduran socks. Also, you are aware that the special China textile safeguard that was renewed expires at the end of this year. That was also part of the commitment. And our chief textile negotiator, Scott Quesenberry, continues to pursue the other elements in that commitment. So we have succeeded, as I said, we have succeeded in, we believe, delivering in whole or in part on at least four of the five. And on the last item, the crackdown of transshipment from Asia is an ongoing challenge. But, again, we have made some progress there too. Mr. Aderholt. The concern with the transshipment issue is, do you have the funding available so Commerce is able to do that? I know that is probably more Commerce than your office in particular, but I am sure they give you reports and probably keep you posted on that, or do you feel confident that they are, you know, having the funding to do what they need to do with that? Ambassador Schwab. This is a good example where we work very closely with other agencies to accomplish objectives. Commerce being one. And in this case, obviously Customs and Border Patrol being the lead on this kind of addressing transshipment. But I will give an example of one of USTR's activities there. We have signed transshipment prevention MOUs with several countries in Asia designed specifically to make sure that those countries do not become vehicles for the transshipment of textile products. Indonesia. Scott is not here. Indonesia, the Philippines, others, these are countries where we have been concerned about transshipments in the past and have specifically addressed them in dialogue with these countries. Mr. Aderholt. Well, I know that has been the issue with my folks as well. Of course, even with the textiles. But one thing I would like to do is if you could get with the negotiator. You talked about the chief negotiator, Quesenberry. If we could get maybe an update from him at some point. If he could give us an update of how those negotiations are going and let us know. Ambassador Schwab. Absolutely. Mr. Aderholt. As you mentioned, he is working on that. So that would be very helpful so we could have an update to know how those negotiations are in process. Ambassador Schwab. Absolutely, Congressman. Happy to do that. [Clerks note.--The information was not submitted for the record before the print deadline.] Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Ruppersberger. Mr. Ruppersberger. Ambassador Schwab, now where were you before your current position? Ambassador Schwab. I was at the University of Maryland. Mr. Ruppersberger. Oh, so you are a Terp. Ambassador Schwab. I am. I am Terp. Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, I am from Maryland, too, so I just had to get that in. Okay. That does not mean that I am going to be easy on you now. Ambassador Schwab. I understand, sir. Go Terps. Mr. Ruppersberger. All right. You said in your statement or opening statement, I was not here, I did not read it, I am not sure if you read it or not, about having trade agreements are really pointless unless you have enforcement. And what is the Administration's total budget request for your office and how much of that budget is related to enforcement, what percentage? Ambassador Schwab. The fiscal year 2009 request is 46.3 million. And it would be very hard to differentiate between those who are involved in enforcement and those who are not involved in enforcement in the agency. Enforcement activities really are throughout the agency, Office of General Counsel being the most obvious, but also our Intellectual Property Rights Office. Our China office spends, I would say, the bulk of its FTE's on enforcement issues. Similarly, in some of our services shop on financial services, on other services issues. So even those folks who are out there negotiating trade agreements frequently are addressing, you know, trying to work through some of the trade barriers that we see as enforcement issues in the context of negotiations. You try to settle disputes sometimes. So I would not actually, we have never done assessment because it is really---- Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, let us get to what I am really getting to is not the issue of enforcement is important. I mean, you have made that statement. Ambassador Schwab. Absolutely. Mr. Ruppersberger. It seems to me that the budget that you have here, there is not enough money in there for enforcement. Now, I know you have to protect the President's budget. But do you feel that you will need more money in order to effectively deal with the issue of enforcement, because that was a strong statement you made? Really trade agreements are pointless if you do not have enforcement. Ambassador Schwab. USTR and I would say the Administration and a lot of the folks we work with in the Administration and other agencies, we feel very, very strongly about enforcement. You have to have enforcement for these agreements to be credible. And we think we do a good job of enforcing them. One of the challenges that we have had is as you increase the number of trade agreements, whether it is multilateral trade agreements or going from three free trade agreements to seventeen free trade agreements, that obviously increases dramatically the kind of monitoring and enforcement that you need to do. And particularly in areas such as labor protections and environmental protections that we have built in to the most recent free trade agreements, we will make certain that we allocate within USTR, within our budget whatever we need to meet our enforcement, mandated enforcement obligations. As I noted in my oral testimony, we know that we can manage within the President's budget request. We also know that if that amount is cut at all, we are in trouble. Mr. Ruppersberger. Are you familiar with ITAR? Ambassador Schwab. Yes. Mr. Ruppersberger. And the State Department basically manages the approvals of the sensitive technology sales. I am on the Intelligence Committee. I deal a lot in the area and information that has come to us is that we have some serious issues with ITAR. I think the entire industry has a problem with ITAR. And really ITAR was really created to protect sensitive technology so that it did not go to other countries, probably China and others. But now it seems that, especially in the European countries, that ITAR is a hindrance not only to our manufacturers and our companies here in the United States, but it can be a hindrance to our national security because literally people are marketing products in Europe as ``ITAR free'', which means that they are trying to come up with our type of technology to sell it or for components in Europe. And I think it is something that has to be dealt with. Now, what jurisdiction would you have there? What is your opinion of ITAR? What do you think we need to do? Ambassador Schwab. USTR has no role in ITAR. I am familiar with it. It is one of those areas where like the Administration of the anti-dumping and counter-veiling duty laws or export promotion, you know, formal export promotion, ITAR, these are areas that we are not directly involved in. We do hear from governments that our export control policies, I mean, we hear from industry and we feed that into the State Department, Commerce Department, Defense Department process. We are on the CFIUS Group. I mean, so on that, we are part of CFIUS, that Committee, but on ITAR, I would be happy to pass along your thoughts on that to the agencies with jurisdiction. Mr. Ruppersberger. Because you have such a great background and great educational background and coming from a great school, do you have any suggestions on, from your point of view and what you know now in your job, on how we can really aggressively pursue this issue because it is getting to the point that it really could hurt our country? Any ideas? Ambassador Schwab. When I used to teach this in graduate school at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy where I was Dean, I used to talk about the balance that is necessary. I mean, clearly priority one has to be our national security interests. But having a healthy economy and vibrant technology growth and development and exports are key to our economy. One of the things I mentioned earlier in my testimony is that even with some bumpiness in our economy today, one of the bright spots is exports and we need to be opening markets for U.S. exports with 40 percent of U.S. economic growth last year attributable to our exports, our export growth. And so when it comes to export controls, you need to strike the balance. You do want to ensure that you are not letting technologies fall into the wrong hands that could come back and jeopardize our national security but at the same time, you do not want to be in a position of shooting yourself in the foot. So it is that balance, I think, that is important. And I know that the agencies that administer ITAR, State and others most directly involved are aware of the importance of that balance. It is also sometimes a balance that is hard to strike, as you know. Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. I am going to throw you one softball and that is the last question. Do you have an opinion or why do you feel that the trade agreement with Colombia is so important? Ambassador Schwab. I believe the trade agreement--thank you for the question--with Colombia is incredibly important for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, going to the economic issue, the U.S. workers, U.S. farmers, service providers are as dependent, more dependent than ever before on exports. And what the Colombia FTA does is takes a one-way free trade situation where 92 percent of what Colombia ships to us comes in duty free and makes it a two-way trade relationship. It eliminates the unfairness that our workers, our farmers face with tariffs up to 35 percent in industrial goods, up to and above 80 percent in agricultural goods. And 80 percent of the tariffs on industrial and commercial goods in Colombia would be eliminated on the first day of entering into force of this agreement. So first and foremost, our economic commercial interests. U.S. jobs really are what we are talking about and the advancement of U.S. jobs. National security, you are on the Intelligence Committee and probably know more than I do about how critically important Colombia is as an ally in a region that is a troubled region at times and that Colombia represents a pro Democracy, pro markets, and pro U.S. country that has made incredible strides in terms of their own progression to more safety, more security. Mr. Ruppersberger. Especially under the leadership with Uribe. Ambassador Schwab. Particularly under the leadership of Uribe. And that really gets to the third point which is whether the issue is violence in Colombia or narco-trafficking. Since 2002, there has been such a dramatic improvement in the level of violence, in the level of impunity. And we believe that the free trade agreement will enable those trend lines, those really positive trend lines to continue and that a delay or a voting down of this free trade agreement really risks the progress that has been made. Mr. Ruppersberger. Do you negotiate or do you communicate with labor? Ambassador Schwab. All the time. Mr. Ruppersberger. And what is labor's position and how would you answer to labor's position? What is their issue as far as this agreement? Ambassador Schwab. Well, first, as you know, organized labor in the United States as a general matter just opposes trade agreements and I think this has been a really hard agreement for them to oppose because it takes one-way free trade and turns it into two-way free trade, and so the job benefits are very clearly going to accrue to the United States and the stability benefits to Colombia. Organized labor, the labor leaders I have spoken with have expressed concern about violence toward trade unionists in Colombia and that has been a problem and has been a very severe problem in the past. As you know, the level of violence against journalists, against legislators, against jurists, there are certain groups in that country that have been targeted in the past. What I think organized labor or labor opponents to this agreement miss is, one, the incredible improvements in the level of violence, the safety and security that President Uribe has brought to that country with a 40 percent decline in the murder rate, an 80 percent decline, I might add, in the murder rate as it involves trade unionists, a dramatic decline, over 80 percent decline in kidnapping, over 75 percent decline in terrorist attacks. And so from our perspective, if you look at how Uribe has done this, he has set up special protections for union members and others and he has demobilized 40,000 paramilitaries and other guerillas into the broader economy. And for that, the current trade preferences and the free trade agreement are absolutely critical to keep those individuals out of violent pursuits and moved into the legitimate economy. Mr. Ruppersberger. One more question. Mr. Mollohan. Sure. Mr. Ruppersberger. How would not only organized labor, but especially blue collar workers in the United States benefit from this free trade agreement. Ambassador Schwab. Very clear benefits to American workers, American workers and American farmers because the Colombia market has 44 million customers. Right now Colombian products are coming into the United States duty free and U.S. products are facing, U.S. exports are facing high barriers in Colombia. This agreement eliminates every single one of those barriers to U.S. exports to Colombia which means that the increase in U.S. exports to Colombia that we have already seen would go up dramatically. And we have seen this when we talk to Caterpillar or John Deere or laptop computer producers, Sony television producers making Sony televisions outside of Pittsburgh. These are all companies that have told us they would expect--Whirlpool is another one--they would expect to be able to increase their exports and, therefore, have a positive impact on their workforce from this agreement. Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mollohan. Madam Secretary, following up on Mr. Ruppersberger's line of questioning, in your testimony, you state that these agreements, free trade agreements have been an enormous gain for U.S. farmers, workers, entrepreneurs, and consumers. U.S. exports to the 14 countries with which we have free trade agreements that have entered into force have grown over 40 percent faster than U.S. exports to the rest of the world. Would you acknowledge that there have been winners and losers in this process and when we are talking about workers, there have been substantial losers in sectors, particularly the manufacturing sectors, and our economy? Ambassador Schwab. It is correct that there are individuals and individual companies and communities that have been negatively impacted by---- Mr. Mollohan. What about whole industries? Ambassador Schwab. There have been industries negatively impacted by trade, but I think when we are looking at the churn in the economy, we need to take into account technological advancements, need to take into account productivity enhancements. And trade ends up, when you sort of go through the list of changes that affect jobs and the economy, trade and trade agreements ends up being a minute part of it, but it is a part of it and, therefore, programs like Trade Adjustment Assistance have become incredibly important for us to be able to---- Mr. Mollohan. Programs like Trade Adjustment Assistance are inadequate. And I would suggest that if you would acknowledge the significant and severe impacts, industry eliminating impacts of trade agreements and then address the fundamental causes of that, you would advance your cause in getting and acquiring additional support for trade agreements. I represent an area that is highly dependent on basic manufacturing generally, but principally steel of late, and there have been a lot of industries that have gone by the wayside preceding steel. In the Mon Valley, steel industry is gone many, many years ago. In the High Valley, it is now atrophying to the point of nonviability in certain communities. So when you talk about the benefits on the one hand, I think you have to, on the other hand acknowledge the extremely negative impacts that trade agreements have caused on sectors of the economy and large geographic areas in the United States. I mean, it is there before us. And the concern expressed by those who have been defending the interests of these sectors need to be taken seriously and need to be incorporated in these trade agreements if you are going to broaden the support that you have for the agreements. So with that in mind, what types of products and which sectors benefit the most from these agreements? Ambassador Schwab. Actually, these agreements benefit sectors across the board when we look at manufacturing. U.S. manufacturing exports, for example, have increased over 128 percent since the Uruguay round was negotiated in the 1990s. Mr. Mollohan. To what extent is that sector specific and what sectors have been benefitted? Ambassador Schwab. It is almost across the board. Mr. Mollohan. I want you to detail, if you will. Give me some examples of---- Ambassador Schwab. Sure. Okay. Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Sectors that have been benefited. Ambassador Schwab. Happy to do that. Happy to do that. Agri-business, earth-moving equipment, tractors, autos, auto parts, electronics, a lot of industrial goods. Mr. Mollohan. So the automobile industry, you would suggest has been benefited by trade agreements? Ambassador Schwab. The auto sector has, in fact, been benefited by trade agreements. Mr. Mollohan. What about the steel industry? Ambassador Schwab. Parts of the steel industry have benefited from trade agreements. Parts of the steel industry have had a harder time adjusting to it. Mr. Mollohan. On balance, how do you measure how that nets out? Ambassador Schwab. Well, if you look, you ask---- Mr. Mollohan. Do you measure? Do you measure how that nets out and do you---- Ambassador Schwab. Well, we have a group of economists and it is hard to measure the impact of trade because, for example, U.S. manufacturing output in this country is higher today than it has ever been before in our history. I mean, U.S. manufacturing output goes up. U.S. manufacturing employment has not gone up. And, therefore, the key question, and I think this really goes to your fundamental question, when we look at trade in the economy, we need to make certain that we have in place the environment within which American workers can remain competitive in an economy where there is constant churn and this has to do with education and it has to do with education and skills. It has to do with portability of pensions. It has to do with healthcare. It has to do with a variety of things. In terms of a specific way to help individuals, Trade Adjustment Assistance is a more narrowly drawn approach which has, as you know, health benefit components and wage insurance components. In terms of beneficiaries and the U.S. economy from these agreements, we are looking today at over a $100 billion surplus in trade and services, for example, and these include high skill. These are high-skill services. They are engineering services, architectural services, legal services, that kind of thing. In agriculture, one out of three is produced for export in this country. So, again, exports has a measurable impact on farm income. And in certain sectors, beef, poultry, pork, you are talking about in some cases half of everything that we produce is being produced for export. In the Colombia agreement, the tariff, the Colombian tariff on high-quality beef which is currently 80 percent goes to zero immediately upon entering into force. For an industry sector that is now facing higher input prices, that is very, very important. But on the manufacturing side, recognizing that obviously West Virginia has a large manufacturing base, industrial and consumer goods almost across the board benefit from this trade agreement. I would be happy to get you a list and we have, I believe, we have state-specific information sheets about benefits for each of the trade agreements and would be happy to provide that specific information to you. [Clerk's note.--The information was not submitted before the print deadline] Mr. Mollohan. And do you have sheets also that show the cost in terms of economic dislocation for those same areas? Ambassador Schwab. Honestly, in the case of the Colombia free trade agreement, because---- Mr. Mollohan. For whatever you have the benefit list, do you have a detriment list? Ambassador Schwab. The answer is yes. In the case of the Colombia and Panama free trade agreements, because both countries have had unlimited access to the U.S. market, virtually unlimited since 1991 or so, we would not expect much of an increase in imports. In fact, the difference between the 92 percent of duty free treatment that they get now and what they are likely to get, there is a 50,000 metric ton increase in sugar imports, for example. Mr. Mollohan. Well, let me just say that the reality that the world is increasingly becoming a smaller economic community and that that is a good thing is acknowledged, I think, broadly. The fact that this has happened in a very precipitous way and that as we have negotiated these trade agreements, we have not taken into consideration the adverse consequences of throwing high standard of living populations, manufacturing populations specifically, against low standard of living manufacturing populations is a reality and has had devastating effects. Throw in those disparate standard of living populations today, doing it in a very short period of time without, in these trade agreements, negotiating the provisions that would at least in part level the playing field, stretching out the agreements over time, requiring these countries to begin the process of adopting environmental regulatory activity comparable to ours, workplace health and safety requirements comparable to ours and the rights of collective bargaining which we should embrace and promote around the world, our trade agreements have not incorporated these provisions that do create, along with the standard of living disparities, do create a very unlevel playing field. And I think if we are going to aspire to the Adam Smith principle that the natural advantages of different areas to different sectors of the economy ought to be allowed to work their selves out so that we have the cheapest goods and services provided to everyone and now around the world, then we have to address the artificial disparities that are created by government activity and regulatory enforcement. And that has not been done in trade agreements typically up to this point. So my question is, with regard to the Colombia free trade agreement, I am giving you an opportunity to speak to that, to what extent are you negotiating in the Colombia free trade agreement these level playing field labor standards: right to organize, environmental requirements, beginning the process of complying at least equally to our standards, and to workplace health and safety requirements which all cost our manufacturing a lot of money and, because they are not incorporated into the manufacturing practices of many of our competitors, do not cost them and, therefore, in and of themselves create the disparities which result in the dislocation of a lot of jobs from the United State to these foreign competitors? Ambassador Schwab. I appreciate what you are saying, Mr. Chairman. And I think some of the issues that you have raised including the question that Congressman Ruppersberger raised are, in fact, addressed in a very unique and very powerful way in---- Mr. Mollohan. Which ones and what are they specifically? Ambassador Schwab. As you know, last May, we reached a bipartisan agreement, the Administration with the leadership here, to include in these free trade agreements enforceable labor and environmental provisions. So in the case of the labor provisions, what we are talking about is the 1998 declaration of fundamental worker principles and so our worker standards and there are five. One is the right to, let me make sure I get these right, right to organize, right to bargain collectively, the end of forced labor, the end of child labor, and nondiscrimination. So those are in there along with a requirement that both countries, along with a requirement that Colombia enforce its own labor standards which are strong labor standards. And what we have done for the first time with this level of specificity is made these as enforceable as the commercial elements of the trade agreement, so as enforceable as and subject to the same challenges, dispute resolution, and remedy as the intellectual property rights provisions. The environmental standards are similar in approach and I know those also have been cited as adding to cost of production in the United States. Mr. Mollohan. Let us take the environmental standards. What environmental standards have been incorporated into the agreement? Ambassador Schwab. There are two sets of environmental standards incorporated. One is again that Colombia's domestic environmental laws be fully enforced. As you know, many of these countries have labor or environmental standards that are as strong as ours. They just are not necessarily enforced. Mr. Mollohan. Are you suggesting that Colombia does have environmental standards as strong as ours and they have labor standards as strong as ours? Ambassador Schwab. My understanding, and I can get back to you with the specifics if you need a specific comparison, but my understanding is that Colombia does have on the books strong labor and environmental protections. The other environmental, again, the new environmental component in this free trade agreement, the Colombia free trade agreement is the addition of a number of multilateral environmental agreements and making those enforceable. For example, the Endangered Species Act where both the United States and Colombia are signatories of the Marine Protection Agreement. Those are examples of multilateral environmental agreements where Colombia is a signatory. The U.S. is a signatory. And we are agreeing through this FTA to mutually enforce our participation in those agreements because frequently these are multilateral agreements that sometimes have teeth and sometimes do not have teeth. Mr. Mollohan. Well, you may not know the answer to this, but my question was, does Colombia have a standard or standards in the area of labor and environmental principles that are comparable to those standards which manufacturers in the United States of America have to comply with? Ambassador Schwab. In large measure, my understanding is that they do. There are going to be differences, for example, in terms of minimum wage and so on. But if I may get back to you with a specific response. Mr. Mollohan. Certainly. If we had representatives of the environmental community and the labor community sitting at this table asking that same question, would they agree with that answer, do you think? Ambassador Schwab. I would hope so. Mr. Mollohan. Well, do you know? I mean, you work with this every day. Ambassador Schwab. I do not. I do not know the specifics and I will---- Mr. Mollohan. Well, what are they saying to you? When environmentalists and labor, representatives of the labor community input this issue, what are they saying in this regard? Ambassador Schwab. Well---- Mr. Mollohan. Surely they are and surely you are listening to them. Ambassador Schwab. Oh, yes. Absolutely. In fact, we have as part of our statutory mandate and responsibilities, we have an Environmental Committee that advises us. And we have a Labor Committee that advise us. And---- Mr. Mollohan. My question is, are they agreeing with your assessment which you have just given us here? Ambassador Schwab. If you look at the reports that the Environmental Committee and the Labor Committee have provided on these trade agreements, because they have to provide recommendations on these trade agreements, in the case of the labor group, they have not been supportive of this or, quite frankly, any other trade agreement that our office has ever negotiated. Mr. Mollohan. Well---- Ambassador Schwab. In the case of the environmental group, it is as uneven. It depends on which of the participants. Mr. Mollohan. Okay. So you have given us very positive thoughts about the quality of the environmental standards and the labor standards which are in effect in Colombia vis-a-vis the United States, but you also acknowledge that there is a lot of opposition from the respective communities, the labor and environmental communities about that. Ambassador Schwab. Those communities were involved in---- Mr. Mollohan. They are not totally satisfied---- Ambassador Schwab. Negotiation. Mr. Mollohan. They do not see it as positively as you see it. Ambassador Schwab. We believe that the provisions, the labor and environmental provisions in these agreements that we worked out with congressional leadership, the Ways and Means leadership and the House leadership, Senate Finance Committee leadership, go a long way to meet the objections. In fact, I would note that if you look at the positions that labor representatives have taken on trade agreements in general over the last several years, the last ten years, what they have advocated formally on the record be included in these free trade agreements, we did that and more in terms of the Colombia free trade agreement and others. And, quite frankly, the goal posts have moved. Mr. Mollohan. Well, and that was the point of my question before. You are giving us a very positive assessment of that. And my question was, would they be expressing the same opinion if they were sitting here based upon the input you are receiving from them on a daily basis as you process their input? Ambassador Schwab. I suspect not, but you would need to ask them. Mr. Mollohan. Well, it is fair. Of course we will. But it is fair for you to have your opinion. I was just asking to what extent you acknowledge that they would have a different opinion. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And following up on the Chairman's comments and Mr. Ruppersberger, I think big labor is opposed to this agreement and I think, as you said in your earlier testimony, just about all the other free trade agreements. There is a public perception that the Administration and the USTR has not come to the table to address these sort of labor and environmental and workplace condition issues, but in reality, to add emphasis here, that has been done. Now there seems to be sort of another barrier, shall we characterize it as a political barrier, which is perhaps made even more difficult because you have everybody running for President and trying to appeal to their base. But you have substantially addressed as you have the trade issues a lot of these hot-button issues with the leadership. I think that is somewhat not so subtly referred to in the transmission letter that both Secretary Paulsen and Condoleezza Rice have sent to Speaker Pelosi on Monday. I want to focus on a paragraph in that transmittal and let me quote it. One of the benefits of travel, and it was bipartisan travel, is to go to Meta and to Cartagena where literally six years ago, it would be a place where few Colombians could live in safety without the potential of being killed, where kidnapings were rife, where the drug lords ran the place. It was no place for foreigners. In the transmittal letter and I quote, ``We take very seriously the importance of timely and effective solutions to concerns regarding labor violence and impunity. The government of Colombia has engaged actively to address these concerns. We have already seen concrete evidence of sustained results. Since 2002, kidnapings are down 83 percent. Homicides are down 40 percent,'' which you mentioned in an earlier response, ``and terrorist attacks are down 70 percent. Homicides of trade unionists declined by over 79 percent between 2002 and 2007. Meanwhile the number of trade unionists enrolled in the Ministry of Interior Injustices Protection Program has increased with more than 9,400 individuals, one-fifth of whom are trade unionists taking advantage of this protection.'' My view is, and we discussed this among our congressional colleagues on the trip and on our way back, is a lot of what big labor is operating on is old news. There are horrific things that happen. I assume you would agree and I would like your comments. Ambassador Schwab. You are absolutely right, Congressman, that one of the challenges that we have in selling the Colombia free trade agreement is perceptions that are obsolete. And the tremendous progress that has been made in the decline of violence and impunity since 2002, very, very significant. And we believe that those remaining concerns, and Colombia continues to be a violent country and we do not imply otherwise, that those remaining concerns are best addressed, and these are concerns of American workers and concerns of Colombian workers, really are best addressed by enacting and implementing this free trade agreement, that delaying the free trade agreement or stopping the free trade agreement is not going to save a trade unionist in Colombia, is not going to create a U.S. job, is not going to save an endangered species. And so we believe very strongly that the free trade agreement actually contributes to solidifying, locking in the tremendous progress articulated in that letter, solidifying that and putting it on an even, stronger trend line going forward. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, we met with the Colombian Attorney General. We met with a variety of prosecutors, some members of the Judiciary, and prosecutions are up. And, of course, I asked the question, which hopefully was not viewed as an irritant, in a bipartisan way, since the days of former President Clinton, we have substantially invested in what is called Plan---- Ambassador Schwab. Plan Colombia. Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. Colombia. I mean, of all the countries in the hemisphere, Colombia has been the beneficiary, and you would agree, I assume, that we have seen substantial results. We have operatives there from the Drug Enforcement Agency, the FBI, and the ATF. The Department of Justice has basically been a leading agent, not forgetting we respect their sovereignty, in setting up and promoting the rule of law. There has been a sea change. While there are obviously incidents of violence and the history of paramilitary operations and guerillas doing what they did, people are ever mindful that there has been some major progress. I assume you would agree? Ambassador Schwab. Congressman Frelinghuysen, I agree absolutely. And I would note just as one example the peace and justice law that was passed in 2004 which has facilitated the demobilization. It also changed their approach to prosecuting from one inquisitorial system to an accusatory system which has helped them to move through the pipeline of outstanding cases. And, of course, as you have 30, 40,000 combatants demobilized, they are, as part of the demobilization, they are presenting evidence and disclosing information about things, bad things that happened which add to the number of cases that the prosecutors need to address. And this transformation to an accusatory system means that they are able to move cases through the Judiciary in three months instead of five or eight or nine years. And so that again has been just a dramatic transformation that, for example, in my conversation a couple weeks ago with the Mexican Attorney General and they are looking at, you know, the challenge of narco-trafficking in Mexico, they are looking at that peace and justice law as a potential model to help them move more cases more rapidly through their judicial systems. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Talk for a minute about trade agreements with other countries in this neighborhood here. You know, the focus is on Colombia and they have been singularly our greatest ally in support of, and it is a nasty neighborhood to say the least, Hugo Chavez and bullies like him. What have we done in terms of preferences and trade agreements with countries in the neighborhood that have been willing to negotiate with us, that would somewhat lead to Colombians being bereft. I mean, in other words, we would actually weaken the one ally that we have there. Paint a picture as to what is occurring in this hemisphere and how important Colombia is in the overall security picture. Ambassador Schwab. I think there are two elements here that bear looking at. One, I think was best articulated by Alan Garcia, President of Peru, when the President signed the free trade agreement implementing legislation late last fall. And he made the point if you look at this region, there are basically two groups of countries in this region. You have got the pro Democracy, pro markets, generally pro U.S. group, Chile, Peru, Mexico, Colombia, and then you have got the anti markets, anti Democracy, anti U.S. group, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, and others, and that within the near term, countries are going to--Latin America is going to go one way or the other. I mean, there is one path. There is sort of the populist anti Democratic path and there is the path that is Democracy and freedom and economic freedom and turning away from isolationism whether it is political or economic. So you have got those paths and that is the geopolitics. The second area, and this was the one that Colombia articulated very clearly when we were down there this weekend, is they are saying, look, you have got a free trade agreement with Mexico, you have got a free trade agreement with Chile, you have got a free trade agreement with Peru, with the CAFTA countries, you would be putting Colombia at a disadvantage relative to other countries in the region if we were to deny or to delay the Colombia FTA. Mr. Frelinghuysen. It would be inexcusable, it may happen, that we would not act on this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mollohan. Well, there might not be an excuse, but there might be some reasons. With respect to the Colombia free trade agreement, what would be the benefit to Colombia to enter into this agreement if, as you have suggested here, and it has been suggested, if Colombia already enjoys duty free status on most of what it exports to the United States? Ambassador Schwab. Very good question and one that you can imagine I get asked frequently because it seems so obvious that this would benefit U.S. workers and U.S. farmers and service providers and why if Colombia has had 17 years worth of preferences would they want to open their market that way. One, their own economic philosophy and, as I noted, their ability to continue migrating people from paramilitaries into the legitimate economy, from narcotics into the legitimate economy. So that is one. What this brings for Colombia in addition to some additional exports like---- Mr. Mollohan. How does that work? I am sorry. Explain that. How does migrating them from the illegal to the legal part of the economy, how does a free trade agreement affect that? Ambassador Schwab. It is the combination of the preferences up to this point and then locking it in and expanding it. So, for example, the stability that comes with knowing this access to the U.S. market is permanent will generate investment and it will generate investment from Colombian entrepreneurs. It will generate, as we have seen it with the Peru FTA, for example, they saw new investment from Brazilian businesses, from businesses in Spain, from businesses in Mexico. Their own entrepreneurs invested more there. And so what they see is investment in, for example, more flower farms, they ship a lot of flowers to us, significant amounts of our cut flowers, coffee. Again, if you are not sure and you look at the trade preferences we have had to extend, the Congress has voted to extend those trade preferences twice in the last 18 months. If you have that kind of uncertainty, you are not generally going to put in the kind of long-term investment that you need to build your employment base. And so President Uribe has been able to turn around that economy. That economy has experienced in the past negative growth. Since he has been in office, they have enjoyed an average of six percent growth. Unless you have that kind of growth, it is impossible to move people from, you know, growing coca into growing other products, you know, flowers as I said, coffee as I mentioned. It is also not likely that you will see the combatants, the demobilized combatants having the ability to move into new jobs being created. And in part honestly, Colombia sees this agreement as a way of helping them and we should see it as a way of helping ourselves compete with China and third countries because by giving each other preferential status, Colombia products, for example, will be better able to compete with Chinese products coming into this market. We will better be able to compete for Colombia consumers than our Chinese counterparts. So to give you a sense of the multiplier effect of this FTA. Mr. Mollohan. Well, obviously it is a cost benefit analysis and you have done that. And you have just suggested some reasons why Colombia would benefit from the agreement, an expansion of their economy. On the other side, surely you have done an assessment of what sectors of our economy would benefit and you have suggested some of that. Have you at the same time done an assessment of what sectors of our economy would be hurt and could you talk about that for us? Ambassador Schwab. Sure. And let me---- Mr. Mollohan. I just need to round this out, and I understand there are going to be some sectors that are benefited. And you are advocating that overall to be positive. And I am just asking what sectors would not benefit, what sectors might be injured in the process. Ambassador Schwab. And, Mr. Chairman, I have been remiss in not having mentioned the International Trade Commission report that is required for every single one of these free trade agreements. So for every one of these free trade agreements, the ITC does a very detailed analytic study about the impact on the U.S. economy, so exactly what you are describing including sector-specific impact. Mr. Mollohan. Give us some examples of sectors. Ambassador Schwab. In the case of the Colombia FTA, we do not expect there to be any negative impact in terms of the import side simply because our market is already open to Colombian imports. Now, as I said, there is a little bit of an impact in textiles and apparel. That industry is supportive. There is a little bit of an impact in sugar. Mr. Mollohan. But what kind of an impact? I mean, when your testimony is on the record and you say there is a little bit of an impact, that could be a positive impact. That could be a negative impact. Ambassador Schwab. I see. Okay. I would---- Mr. Mollohan. What is your testimony here? Ambassador Schwab. Let me suggest that what I need to do is to provide for this Committee and the record the ITC report. Let me do that. [Clerks note.--The entire report was submitted for the record and is retained in committee files] Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Ambassador Schwab. And since I do not have it in front of me, as I recall from that report, there could be some modest increase in imports of textiles and apparel products. We know that that industry is supportive of this agreement, but there could be some modest increase in imports. So it is not necessarily a negative, but describing that. Mr. Mollohan. When you say the industry---- Ambassador Schwab. In the case of sugar---- Mr. Mollohan. Excuse me. When you say the industry, the textile industry is supportive, is that the manufacturing part of the industry? Ambassador Schwab. Correct. Mr. Mollohan. Is that the owner? What about the labor part of that industry? Are they supportive as well? Ambassador Schwab. I do not know. Mr. Mollohan. Well, you should know. I mean, that to me is---- Ambassador Schwab. I mean, presumably---- Mr. Mollohan. Presumably what? Ambassador Schwab. I am assuming that the labor part of that industry's position is reflected in the Labor Advisory Committee report that we received on the Colombia FTA which is not favorable to the FTA. You know, quite frankly, when we negotiate these agreements, we are very, very conscious of the impact on U.S. workers. And in the case of the Colombia FTA, it is an overwhelmingly favorable impact on U.S. workers. Mr. Mollohan. I did not mean to spend so much time on that. In the steel sector, the USTR worked with the organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, the Steel Committee, the North American Steel Trade Committee, and WTO accession negotiations and with countries bilaterally to focus on steel capacity worldwide and subsidy and other marketing distortions. The JCCT steel dialogue was launched on March the 4th, 2005. A follow-on meeting was scheduled for late 2006 with industry participants. Please describe the ongoing work affecting the steel sector. What accomplishments, if any, have been achieved? Ambassador Schwab. In terms of the steel sector, clearly there are challenges associated with global capacity and with increases in construction, a lot of that, and economic growth that we have seen worldwide, a lot of that has been absorbed. We have been concerned, as you know, with overproduction and overcapacity in China and this has been an area where the JCCT working group has been very actively engaged. It is also an area where I have been personally engaged. And in the first meeting of the strategic economic dialogue in December of 2006, I used the steel industry in China as a case study for the problems in China's economic industrial policy where they have made sort of an incomplete transition to market economics. And they got overcapacity in steel. They have addressed it, and this is in part due to our dialogue, in part due to the working group. They have eliminated a lot of their export rebates of value-added taxes. I mean, they are allowed to, under the WTO rebate value-added taxes at the point of export. They are no longer doing that on most, but not all steel products. So, for example, in my last visit to China, I sat down with my counterpart and identified a couple of products like pipe and tube where they are still rebating the tax and noted that that is creating some dislocation. Aluminum foil is another area. I do not know how much granularity you are looking for here. But their industrial policy, value-added rebates. The single biggest accomplishment that I can point to affecting steel vis-a-vis China is the WTO case that we filed beginning of 2007 against a dozen Chinese export subsidies and import substitution subsidies that presumably had an impact across a broad range of manufactured goods because they were generic. They were not sector specific, including the steel industry. And China settled that case last year, late last year by eliminating every one of those twelve subsidies. That was perhaps the best example that we have of, you know, the combination of problem solving on the one hand and resorting to litigation where necessary on the other. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Honda. Mr. Honda. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being a little late here. And as I walked in, I heard the comment about the effort of the Administration in Colombia working more hard on prosecutions and that over the past few years that there has been an increase in prosecutions. And there was a comment about having visited that area also in that discussion. So I assume that you have been to Colombia and discussed these things with the Attorney General there and with the President? Ambassador Schwab. Absolutely. In fact, just this weekend had a chance to meet with the Attorney General and the President. Mr. Honda. Now, how does a trade agreement affect the ability of the Attorney General to continue and increase his prosecutorial list? I understand they have a big shift and they went from inquisitory to prosecutorial process. I understand that. But my sense is that that becomes very expensive. And how does the trade agreement impact his ability to move forward and increase his list of folks that he wants to go after? Ambassador Schwab. It has a both direct and indirect impact. I think the most significant direct impact which really we cannot take credit for as part of the FTA because this is something that President Uribe launched when he came into office in 2002, but that has been increasing levels of funding for both the Prosecutor General and for the Judiciary to process these cases. And one of the challenges they faced, as you know, is with the demobilization of 30,000 paramilitaries, another 10,000 guerillas. With that demobilization and part of their peace and justice law, those individuals have been providing more and more information. Mr. Honda. But how does it impact his ability to increase his list of people he wants to prosecute in the way that would bring some justice to those who have been killed? How is that connected to trade or is that part of Plan Colombia? Is Plan Colombia part of the trade agreement? Ambassador Schwab. Plan Colombia and the free trade agreement are separate. Mr. Honda. Okay. Ambassador Schwab. However, they are obviously complementary and funding---- Mr. Honda. So how does trade impact the Attorney General's ability because there is a lot of talk about there is improvement, but improvement means what, going from ten to thirty, and is that pace acceptable? I am just trying to understand why we feel that the trade agreement will effect an increased list of prosecutions. Ambassador Schwab. Most of what is going on in Colombia related to prosecutions is separate and apart from the trade agreement. It is related to President Uribe's commitment to his citizens when he was reelected and the additional funding that he is providing both for prosecutors, for the protection program, and for the Justice system in general. To the extent that there is a direct relationship with the free trade agreement, it is by creating an environment within which, meaning the stability within which they can see more demobilization is appropriate, where they have the economic growth to sustain the funding that they would continue to provide for this. Plan Colombia is a very important part of this effort and, as you know, bipartisan initiative launched originally by President Clinton. And part of what we see happening here is for President Uribe and subsequent Colombian administrations to sustain this transformation and sustain, you know, the rapid decline in violence and the rapid uptick in prosecutions and convictions is to move into more self-sustaining capacity to fund these things. And the FTA would help do that. Mr. Honda. So it sounds like Plan Colombia should be the mechanism to increase funding for that, for the AG? Ambassador Schwab. If you are asking for direct impact, absolutely, yes sir. Mr. Honda. Well, he said he would like to have more because he spends more now on protecting judges, the attorneys---- Ambassador Schwab. That is true. Mr. Honda [continuing]. And, you know, other folks that are involved in this difficult process. My other question would relate to the fact that 25 percent of Colombia's population are Afro-Colombians. How does this trade agreement help that community and, is it directive? I mean, is there a prescriptive way of having some of that wealth that is supposed to be realized go to certain communities that have heretofore before Uribe even helped create an economic development stimulus for them? Ambassador Schwab. We had a chance to talk about that issue with President Uribe and with one of the Afro-Colombian legislators and the mayor of Cartagena when we were in Colombia this past weekend. The Colombians have, as you know, a growing set of initiatives to address problems faced by Afro- Colombians, including land returns and so on. And so the capacity of the Colombian government to continue helping bring along the Afro-Colombian population and right some of the previous wrongs is related to or is aided by the stability, the economic stability, political stability, and economic growth that we would see as part of the FTA, you know, one of the results of the FTA. Again, we are talking about an indirect impact, much as you articulated the Plan Colombia, direct impact and the work of our Justice Department in helping the government of Colombia on the issue of impunity, prosecutions, and convictions. Again, in the case of the initiatives that President Uribe has underway, particularly in the coastal areas to address challenge, coastal areas around Bogota to address challenges faced by Afro-Colombians, the FTA has an indirect benefit in terms of stability and job creation and economic growth, contribution to economic growth that at the end of the day enables the positive trends to continue and to be sustained. Mr. Honda. So last question, Mr. Chairman. So there is no direct initiative through the FTA that would impact economic development through trade on the population along that coast in terms of infrastructure or economic activity? Ambassador Schwab. Only to the extent that we are talking about increased investment likely to accrue along the coast and the generation of jobs. That would be the most direct impact from the FTA. Mr. Honda. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Do we have any other questions from Committee members? [No response.] Mr. Mollohan. Madam Ambassador, there will be some questions submitted for the record and we appreciate your response to those. We very much appreciate your testimony here today. There will certainly be some questions, budgetary questions submitted for the record. Ambassador Schwab. Absolutely. Mr. Mollohan. And, again, thank you for your service and for your testimony. Thank you. Ambassador Schwab. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, members of the Committee. [Questions and answers sumitted for the record follow.] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] W I T N E S S E S ---------- Page Barnett, H.M..................................................... 727 Beering, Dr. Steven.............................................. 455 Bement, Dr. A.L., Jr............................................. 455 Earp, N.C........................................................ 635 Griffin, M.D..................................................... 1, 43 Marburger, J.H., III............................................. 311 Pearson, D.R..................................................... 781 Schwab, S.C...................................................... 829 Strickland, F.B.................................................. 727 I N D E X ---------- -- -------- Page National Aeronautics and Space Administration Aderholt, Questions Submitted by Congressman..................... 314 Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS)................................90, 92 American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI)........................ 44 Ares Thrust Oscillation.......................................... 86 Budget Cuts, Overall............................................. 40 Budget Stability................................................. 83 Budget, Constrained.............................................. 51 Budget, Research and Development................................. 24 Chinese Space Program............................................36, 88 Civil Space Exploration, U.S. Leadership......................... 11 Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS)................ 85 Constellation Confidence Level................................... 53 Core Visions..................................................... 51 Cost Overrun Impacts............................................. 71 Culberson, Questions Submitted by Congressman.................... 303 Deep Space and Near Earth Networks............................... 66 Exploration on Architectural Review.............................. 55 Exploration, Adequate Funding for................................ 50 Failures, Program Manufacturing.................................. 22 Foreign and Domestic Suppliers................................... 31 Foreign Contracts................................................ 31 Frelinghuysen, Opening Remarks of Ranking Minority Member Rodney P.............................................................. 2 Frelinghuysen, Questions Submitted by Ranking Minority Member.... 272 Funding, NASA Adequate...........................................13, 21 Funding, NASA Levels............................................. 72 GAO Accountability............................................... 46 Glory Mission.................................................... 26 Griffin, Closing Remarks of Administrator Michael D.............. 98 Griffin, Opening Remarks of Administrator Michael D.............. 3 Griffin, Prepared Statement of Administrator Michael D........... 6 HSPD-12.......................................................... 40 Hubble Space Telescope........................................... 83 Human Exploration Beyond Earth Orbit............................. 53 Hurricane Katrina................................................ 20 Ice, Clouds, and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESAT)............... 24 Independent Auditors............................................. 39 Independent Cost Estimates....................................... 49 International Space Station...............................2, 21, 46, 63 International Space Station Participation Program................ 36 Latham, Questions Submitted by Congressman....................... 311 Lunar Return Program............................................. 72 Lunar Science Research........................................... 67 Manifest, Authority to Change.................................... 91 Manifest, Shuttle Mission........................................ 81 Mars Program Funding............................................. 16 Mars Program..................................................... 58 Mollohan, Closing Remarks of Chairman Alan B..................... 98 Mollohan, Opening Remarks of Chairman Alan B..................... 1 Mollohan, Questions Submitted by Chairman Alan B................. 99 Moon, Returning to the........................................... 71 Moon, US Presence on the......................................... 50 NASA's Budget Request............................................ 18 Near-Earth Object (NEO)..........................................34, 89 New Millennium Approach.......................................... 70 Next Generation.................................................. 64 Orion Heat Shield................................................ 87 Outer Planet Flagship Process.................................... 80 Outer Planets Mission............................................76, 78 Plutonium-238....................................................40, 43 Prometheus Mission............................................... 77 Rebaselined Projects............................................. 48 Research Training Opportunities at the University Level.......... 30 Return to Flight, Shuttle Cost Compensation...................... 19 Rogers, Questions Submitted by Congressman....................... 306 Ruppersberger, Questions Submitted by Congressman................ 268 Russian and Chinese Relationship with NASA....................... 12 Schiff, Opening Remarks by Congressman........................... 14 Science Mission Budget........................................... 69 Science Mission Cost Growth...................................... 68 Science Program Cost Increases................................... 28 Science Program Reserves......................................... 68 Sea Treaty Law................................................... 89 Space Interferometry Mission (SIM)...............................15, 56 Space Transportation Gap......................................... 52 Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA)......... 32 Supply Mission................................................... 84 Transition Cost..................................................13, 38 Visible-Infrared Imagery Radiometer Suite (VIIRS)................ 27 Wind Tunnel Testing.............................................. 87 Workforce Retirement, Civil Service.............................. 29 Workforce, Contractor............................................ 63 Workforce, Transition............................................ 62 International Trade Commission Frelinghuysen, Opening Remarks of Ranking Minority Member Rodney P.............................................................. 781 Frelinghuysen, Questions Submitted by Ranking Minority Member.... 822 Latham, Questions Submitted by Congressman....................... 826 Mollohan, Opening Remarks of Chairman Alan B..................... 781 Mollohan, Questions Submitted by Chairman Alan B................. 816 Pearson, Prepared Statement of Administrator Daniel R............ 786