    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                                          ?

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                      2010

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                    HEARINGS

                                    BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
                                  FIRST SESSION
                                    ________
        SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                    ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia, Chairman
     PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island   FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
     CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania         JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
     ADAM SCHIFF, California            ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
     MICHAEL HONDA, California          JO BONNER, Alabama
     C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
    Maryland
     PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
     JOSE E. SERRANO, New York

     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, Dixon Butler, Adrienne Simonson,
                 Tracey LaTurner, Diana Simpson, and Darek Newby
                               Subcommittee Staff
                                    ________
                                     PART 5
                                                                       Page
     Science Overview.................................................    1
     The Place of NASA and NSF in the Overall Science Enterprise......   57
     The Place of NOAA and NIST in the Overall Science Enterprise.....  103
     Science Education................................................  161
     Where Are We Today: Today's Assessment of ``The Gathering Storm''  225
     Status of Climate Change Science.................................  265
     Critical Satellite Climate Change Datasets.......................  317
     Climate Satellite Requirements, NASA and NOAA Programs...........  363

                                       S

                                    ________
             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

    PART 5--COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
                                    FOR 2010
                                                                          ?
    ?
                                                                          ?

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                      2010

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                    HEARINGS

                                    BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
                                  FIRST SESSION
                                    ________
        SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                    ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia, Chairman
     PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island   FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
     CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania         JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
     ADAM SCHIFF, California            ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
     MICHAEL HONDA, California          JO BONNER, Alabama
     C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
    Maryland
     PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
     JOSE E. SERRANO, New York

     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, Dixon Butler, Adrienne Simonson,
                 Tracey LaTurner, Diana Simpson, and Darek Newby
                               Subcommittee Staff
                                    ________
                                     PART 5
                                                                       Page
     Science Overview.................................................    1
     The Place of NASA and NSF in the Overall Science Enterprise......   57
     The Place of NOAA and NIST in the Overall Science Enterprise.....  103
     Science Education................................................  161
     Where Are We Today: Today's Assessment of ``The Gathering Storm''  225
     Status of Climate Change Science.................................  265
     Critical Satellite Climate Change Datasets.......................  317
     Climate Satellite Requirements, NASA and NOAA Programs...........  363

                                       S

                                    ________
             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                    ________
                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
     51-219                     WASHINGTON : 2009

                                      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    HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
     MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                 FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
     PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana        JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
     NITA M. LOWEY, New York            RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey
     JOSE E. SERRANO, New York          TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
     ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut       ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
     JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia           TOM LATHAM, Iowa
     JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts       ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
     ED PASTOR, Arizona                 JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
     DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina     KAY GRANGER, Texas
     CHET EDWARDS, Texas                MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
     PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island   JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
     MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York       MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois
     LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California  ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida
     SAM FARR, California               DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
     JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois    JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
     CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan    RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana
     ALLEN BOYD, Florida                KEN CALVERT, California
     CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania         JO BONNER, Alabama
     STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey      STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
     SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia    TOM COLE, Oklahoma
     MARION BERRY, Arkansas
     BARBARA LEE, California
     ADAM SCHIFF, California
     MICHAEL HONDA, California
     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
     LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
     JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

                     Beverly Pheto, Clerk and Staff Director

                                      (ii)

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                      2010

                                  ----------

                                                Tuesday, March 3, 2009.

                                SCIENCE OVERVIEW

                                    WITNESS

    DR. RALPH CICERONE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

                     Opening Statement by Chairman Mollohan

        Mr. Mollohan. I am glad to see you made it in this cold
    morning. It was cold this morning. March comes in like a lion,
    goes out like a lamb. So we have spring to look forward to.
        Welcome before the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies Subcommittee. We appreciate your coming today to
    provide your perspective on the state of science in the United
    States and where you see it heading.
        As those responsible for appropriations for four
    significant research agencies, NSF, NASA, NOAA, and NIST, we
    want to ensure that we provide appropriate support for science
    and technology so that our country can continue to enjoy
    economic growth beyond our growth in population.
        We recognize that there is more to encouraging and
    sustaining a healthy science and engineering enterprise than
    government financial support. The freedom of inquiry offered by
    our democracy is significant as are patent protection and the
    rule of law.
        Our responsibility is to balance the investment of federal
    tax dollars across many competing government programs and
    across the research and science and education activities
    included in our jurisdiction. Finding the right balance is
    crucial along with providing levels of support that are
    sustainable politically and practically.
        Research is usually a long-term investment and is poorly
    served by boom-bust cycles in funding and employment.
        The National Academy of Sciences of which, of course, you
    are currently President provided a major influential report
    entitled Rising Above the Gathering Storm that highlighted the
    critical need for increased funding for NSF, NIST and the DOE
    Office of Science and recommended increases have been provided
    especially in the just enacted ``American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act of 2009.''
        So, as the U.S. science enterprise is receiving increased
    funding, are we striking the right balance among different
    areas and agencies and between science and science technology,
    engineering, and mathematics education?
        This morning's hearing is the first in a series that are
    intended to give this Subcommittee a clearer view of the state
    of science and science education in the U.S. and a basis on
    which to make the tough choices balancing federal investments
    in the research agencies within our jurisdiction.
        Dr. Cicerone, we look forward to your starting us off with
    an overview of the state and direction of the U.S. science
    enterprise. Your written statement, of course, will be made a
    part of the record.
        Before I ask you to begin, I would like to call upon our
    Ranking Member. This Subcommittee was extremely well served by
    the good work of our colleague Rodney Frelinghuysen last year
    who was the Ranking Member on this Committee. And we were sorry
    to see Rodney go, but we are very pleased to see Ranking Member
    and former Chairman of the Committee, Frank Wolf, join us back.
        Frank has a deep understanding of the accounts that are
    under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee and he is a great
    guy in every way and we are very pleased to have him here.
        Frank.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really
    pleased to be back with you. We had a great working
    relationship before and I really am glad to be here.
        And I want to welcome the witness. And with that, I will
    just yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
        Dr. Cicerone.

                         Dr. Cicerone Opening Statement

        Mr. Cicerone. Good morning and thank you, Chairman Mollohan
    and members of the Subcommittee.
        My name is Ralph Cicerone. I am President of the National
    Academy of Sciences, which, as you know, was chartered in the
    middle of the Civil War, 1863, with the mission of advising the
    government on matters of science and technology.
        So even though we are not part of the government, that is
    our job and we work along with the National Academy of
    Engineering and the Institute of Medicine.
        I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you this morning
    about the enterprise of science in the United States because it
    is a subject that is enormously important to our country and,
    yet, complicated enough that I do not think anyone knows the
    whole picture. Therefore, I think the hearing that you are
    holding is essential for all of us.
        With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will just skip
    through parts of my testimony here and there.
        Mr. Mollohan. Go ahead.
        Mr. Cicerone. Thank you. And submit it.
        The enterprise of science in America today is very strong.
    Federal investment in American science has enabled the United
    States to be the world's scientific leader since World War II,
    and continuing federal investment has led to unmatched growth
    and prosperity through the creation of technology and
    technological advances themselves have increased the quality
    and span of life for Americans and for people around the world.
        Our science has also led to amazing discoveries about our
    universe and about life itself and all together, it has
    contributed greatly to the high opinion in which the United
    States is held in most countries.
        Other significant benefits include the strengthening of our
    military power to deter and to fight wars.
        Science comes in many kinds and your Subcommittee oversees
    much of American physical sciences and engineering, yet there
    is also a major enterprise in biomedical science.
        American science continues to lead the world in the
    physical sciences, but faltering federal support over the last
    30 years or so along with increased emphasis and investment
    elsewhere in the world has reduced our lead.
        In fact, our leadership is now disputed in some fields of
    physical science. In fundamental biology and biomedical
    science, including the creation and development of
    pharmaceuticals and biomedical instruments, the American lead
    is larger, although not in all subspecialties.
        In other countries, there is increased attention to
    inventorying and measuring scientific investment and
    productivity, especially in nations where national plans are
    being implemented.
        But besides federal funding, as you just said, Mr.
    Chairman, other ingredients are needed to sustain the science
    enterprise. Talented, ambitious people are essential, for
    example, and the stream of such people starts with childhood
    education and continues through college and university years to
    graduate and postgraduate education.
        To attract the brightest graduates, career opportunities
    must also be available along with specialized equipment in
    laboratories and computers.
        American science draws deeply from American-born people who
    study and produce here, but we have also enjoyed a large
    advantage over other nations through the immigration of
    students and scientists from other countries to our shores.
        We received many gifted people who fled pre World War
    Europe and the Nazis followed by others who left iron curtain
    countries and still others who sought opportunities here from
    Britain, from all of Europe, Japan, China, India, and Africa,
    for example.
        Names like Einstein, Fermi, Bethe, Von Braun, Von Neumann,
    and Eric Kandel come to mind. In fact, 24 percent of the living
    American Nobel Prize winners were born in other countries.
        Similarly, of the scientists elected to membership in our
    National Academy of Sciences just in the last ten years, nearly
    the same number were foreign born, that is 23 percent, and are
    now naturalized U.S. citizens.
        However, recognition as Nobel Laureates and as NAS members
    is usually for important research that took place 20 years ago
    or even earlier.
        A more current indicator is that approximately 65 percent
    of all of our current doctoral engineering students in the
    United States are from foreign countries. This flow of human
    resources to the United States continues. But as we place more
    barriers against the entry of talented people and as more
    opportunities develop in their own home countries, we will not
    be able to rely on them as much as we have.
        Research laboratories. American research universities are
    acknowledged to be worth imitating and many nations are trying
    to do so. The doctoral students who study and conduct research
    at our universities are extremely important to the science
    enterprise along with postdoctoral researchers and faculty
    members.
        And our research universities and liberal arts colleges
    also provide opportunities for undergraduate students to
    experience research.
        After World War II until roughly the end of the Cold War,
    American corporations also operated some amazingly distinctive
    and productive scientific research laboratories. Probably the
    apex was at Bell Laboratories where prodigious amounts of basic
    research were conducted.
        Bell Lab scientific staff was star-studded. They won
    several Nobel Prizes. They published their own journals. They
    created many advanced products. They contributed to the
    national defense while they also created and maintained the
    world's best telephone system.
        And there were other important corporate research labs such
    as at IBM, Xerox, Exxon, Chevron, and Eastman Kodak.
        Now, today those same laboratories do very little basic
    research compared to earlier years. The major responsibility
    for conducting research now is with our universities. However,
    it is an advantage, I think, to combine research and graduate
    education.
        So while our universities already have more than enough
    duties, the recently acquired burden of carrying the national
    research agenda fits well with the mission of education.
        And our system of American national laboratories and
    research institutes also represents important capabilities.
        I want to mention two other strategic advantages enjoyed by
    American research, philanthropy and business investment.
        The American practice of philanthropy is not practiced
    widely anywhere else. Private funds from individuals and
    foundations provide essential support for our research and for
    student scholarships and fellowships.
        And, of course, I mentioned business funds, but I will not
    go into detail today, about such funds invested in
    universities.
        Science is also a source of good will for the United
    States. American achievements and activities in science have
    created a great deal of good will worldwide. Significant
    numbers of foreign leaders attended American colleges and
    university graduate schools before returning to their homelands
    and they remain lifelong friends.
        There appear to be large opportunities for American science
    to become a major component of our diplomatic efforts while it
    also continues to undergird our economic and military strength.
        Let me say a few words about science education. Chairman
    Mollohan already mentioned the report from the National Academy
    of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the
    Institute of Medicine in 2007 called Rising Above the Gathering
    Storm. It arose from a 2005 request from your Senate colleagues
    and discussions with a number of House members, including Mr.
    Wolf, who is here today, who led any number of efforts in his
    home State and around the country about science technology and
    competitiveness.
        The charge that that Committee accepted was to identify
    actions which federal policymakers could take to enhance the
    science and technology enterprise so that the United States can
    successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global
    community of this century.
        The authoring Committee of 20 distinguished Americans
    placed a specially high priority on increasing America's talent
    pool by vastly improving K through 12 science and mathematics
    education. They argued that it is essential to produce more
    teachers who are well grounded in the sciences and mathematics
    themselves and to existing teachers to improve and maintain
    their science-content skills. And they proposed to use
    previously tested methods to achieve those goals.
        The Gathering Storm report dealt with all levels of
    education all the way through graduate and postdoctoral levels.
    I hope that Mr. Augustine will discuss this topic further with
    you.
        There are, of course, arguments about why American children
    do not stack up better than children of many other countries
    and maybe whether our standardized tests give too much emphasis
    to factual knowledge as opposed to reasoning ability, yet it
    remains that we receive very few visitors from around the world
    who want to learn about and to imitate our K through 12 system
    while we receive scores of foreign visitors to our university
    graduate schools who are trying to emulate them and to
    reproduce them worldwide.
        We have much work to do to improve our K through 12 and
    college level science and math education. Not only do we want
    to increase the flow of human talent into high level science
    and research, we also want to fill the pipeline with science
    students so as to equip the nation's workforce to be able to
    create and manufacture products which take advantage of
    scientific breakthroughs.
        And as Chairman Mollohan said, we need a scientifically
    literate population to comprise an electorate informed on many
    contemporary issues.
        Finally, improved education enables individuals to launch
    their own productive careers.
        The Gathering Storm report called attention to the
    importance of creating something like a new National Defense
    Education Act specifically to provide support to science and
    engineering graduate students.
        Now, recently there are some reports from around the United
    States, informal reports, that applications to attend graduate
    science schools are up right now apparently because of reduced
    job prospects for baccalaureate degree holders in industries
    such as finance and investment.
        It is especially important to provide support for these
    students not only to see them through their Master's and Ph.D.
    programs but also for research opportunities later.
        Amongst these new and prospective grad students, the new
    ones, there is special interest in energy science and
    technology and in climate change.
        For example, working in the science and technology of
    materials that might be useful in capturing solar energy and in
    storing solar and wind energy is very attractive now.
        Similarly, plant science is appealing as we consider
    pathways towards advanced biofuels that would not decrease food
    production and emerging issues of food security are attracting
    interest.
        And the science of climate change presents many fundamental
    and complex challenges that are perceived by young people very
    clearly who want to engage these challenges through science. So
    I think we have a special opportunity today supporting science.
        The Rising Above the Gathering Storm report presented four
    main lines of action that the federal government should take to
    enhance the science and technology enterprise for the reasons
    stated and they are to vastly improve K through 12 science and
    math education, to increase federal support for science and
    engineering research, to attract the best and brightest to
    American higher education in science and engineering, and to
    create an environment for innovation through a combination of
    economic, legal, and immigration policies.
        The report recommended special attention to increased
    federal investment in physical sciences, engineering,
    mathematics, and information sciences and to the Department of
    Defense basic research funding.
        It focused importantly on energy science and technology
    research and somewhat on the National Science Foundation and
    the Department of Energy and that choice of emphasis was very
    wise.
        However, the report omitted detailed discussion of NASA,
    NIST, and NOAA and, yet, the work of these agencies not only
    complements that of NSF, the National Institutes of Health and
    the Department of Energy, but these agencies are also important
    to address the new challenges I just mentioned, and to support
    American science and higher education and, frankly, to all that
    we must do.
        The recently passed federal stimulus package has provided
    substantial support towards major national goals and goals that
    have been arrived at very thoughtfully. The stimulus bill funds
    aimed at American science, I believe, will be used very
    productively and in forward looking ways.
        Let us hope and resolve to make these new levels of
    baseline for further advances.
        Thank you once again for inviting me to appear before you,
    Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to address any questions that I
    can.
        [Written statement by Ralph Cicerone, President of the
    National Academy of Sciences follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.011

                                science funding

        Mr. Mollohan. Doctor, thank you. Thank you for your
    testimony, and again, thank you for appearing here today.
        I know the Subcommittee members have a lot of questions for
    you and very much value the opportunity to discuss these issues
    with you.
        I will ask in the first round if we could stick to a five-
    minute questioning period and then the second round and that
    will give everybody an opportunity early on to ask questions
    and then in subsequent rounds, they can follow-up in more
    detail.
        Doctor, given the current largely bipartisan commitment to
    increase funding for science, which we are already seeing and
    we are very pleased, I can tell you all members of this
    Subcommittee are very pleased to see an increased interest in
    larger funding for science, what do you feel should be the end
    point of this growth and when should we reach a stable level on
    investment in real terms?
        Mr. Cicerone. Well, obviously that is a fair question, but
    I think we are so far away from that level that it is hard to
    say.
        But to be more thoughtful, I think we have to think about
    what our goals are for American science. A little over 15 years
    ago, we did a study at the Academy on basically how much
    science was enough, that is pretty much your question.
        And the conclusions of that group were that there are
    certainly several major goals for science: to maintain a basis
    for economic activity, to help to defend the national security,
    emerging issues of the environment, and, in some cases, to lead
    the world in important social and cultural issues.
        They concluded that it is going to be increasingly
    difficult for the United States to lead in all fields and that
    thought had to be given to which fields we absolutely felt it
    essential to lead such as those involving economic development.
        But the second category is in those fields where we could
    no longer be the clear leader, to be good enough to recognize
    breakthroughs that happened anywhere else in the world. So, for
    example, high temperature superconductivity was basically
    discovered in Switzerland and the new breakthroughs had been
    shown there, but our physicists and material scientists were
    close enough to the lead that they could instantly recognize
    the breakthrough and move into that area of work.
        So as we try to answer that question, when can we stabilize
    after these increases, I think we have to have goals of how
    many fields do we really want to lead the world in and in how
    many other fields are we content to follow, but to try to
    follow closely enough to be able to recognize major
    breakthroughs.
        I do not have a number in mind. It is just too far in the
    distance to be able to see when we will be at a stable level.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, we are looking for numbers here.
        Mr. Cicerone. All right.
        Mr. Mollohan. I do not know. Maybe in terms of factors or
    something and what does the recent funding in the stimulus
    package do for you and what is sustainable as you look forward
    and how do you compare the increases, for example, at the
    National Institutes of Health with regard to the increases in
    the accounts under our jurisdiction?
        Mr. Cicerone. There are certainly some lessons there that
    we can try to learn about what happened after the National
    Institutes of Health had a doubling of their budget and how
    they got into the pickle now where they are oversubscribed
    again under level funding.
        The success rate of investigators going through
    competitions for grants is frightfully low. It is something
    like 18 percent right now.
        Mr. Mollohan. We would like to avoid that as we look to the
    future and increased funding in these accounts.
        Mr. Cicerone. My understanding is it is going to take a
    combination of management at the agencies as well as thoughtful
    budget foresight so that the number of long-term commitments
    that are made with these new funds does not exceed the funding
    that is likely to be in place for the next two, three, four
    years. That is one issue.
        But to try to get to a number of what we actually need, I
    would look at the backlog that has developed in various fields,
    for example, at the National Science Foundation and the other
    agencies of how many proposals that had been submitted into
    these competitions or given the highest marks and then not
    funded over the years.
        We understand that a lot of the stimulus funding is going
    to be used to clear up some of the current year's backlog and
    from them to move back into a situation where maybe at least a
    third of the funding proposals could be funded.
        So that would suggest at NSF not only just a 50 percent
    increase in the funding, but because the grant sizes have
    gotten so small, we have people who do not even apply anymore
    because they cannot get enough done with an NSF grant. So
    clearly at NSF the doubling that has been requested by the
    Rising Above the Gathering Storm report would be kind of a
    minimal baseline.
        Where we go from there would depend on how much of a
    backlog develops and the proposal pressure of highly
    competitive proposals, some of which are facilities and
    equipment also.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Wolf.

                                  STEM GRANTS

        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would hope that we could do much more than we are
    currently doing. And Jim Cooper and I have a bill which tries
    to deal with this whole spending entitlement issue where we put
    more in math and science and physics and chemistry and biology.
        And when I get on the train in Washington and take it to
    New York, if you just close your book and look to the right and
    to the left, the factories are in decay, the windows are
    broken, the graffiti is all over, and we just do not seem to be
    making things anymore.
        There is that sign over the bridge in Trenton that said
    Trenton makes and the world takes. And Trenton does not make
    anything anymore. Trenton is a city that has been impacted. It
    has gang problems.
        And I really think we are having a tough time. One of the
    reasons, I think, is that young people are not as interested as
    they used to be. I saw figures, and maybe you will have the
    answers, showing that of the STEM grants last year, only 50
    percent of them were taken up.
        Do you know if that is true or not?
        Mr. Cicerone. No, sir, I do not.
        Mr. Wolf. Can you check or maybe we can check.
        Secondly, how many students do we have majoring in math and
    science and physics and chemistry and biology compared to, say,
    the Chinese and also India? Do you know that number?
        [The information follows:]

        Congressman Wolf asked about full utilization of STEM grant
    resources by students. The funds are known as Academic Competitiveness
    and SMART grants, and are overseen by the Department of Education.
        Created by Congress in 2006, the Academic Competitiveness and SMART
    Grant programs were designed to encourage students to take rigorous
    courses in high-school and to major in science, technology,
    engineering, or mathematics (the STEM fields), or a language deemed
    critical to national-security needs. Both programs were identified by
    Congress as a supplement to Pell grants for eligible students. Students
    must maintain at least a 3.0 GPA in college to be eligible.
        In 2006/2007 $428M was given out of $790M available. In 07/08,
    $493M was given out of $850M available. An overview of both programs
    and a table of state-by-state student awards for each grant program can
    be found in the following PDF prepared by the Department of Education:
    http://www.ed.gov/programs/smart/results2007/national.pdf
        It is likely that underutilization of SMART and Academic
    Competitiveness grants was not due to disinterest. Instead, the above-
    listed report indicates a lack of knowledge on the part of students and
    their parents about these resources. There is not a separate
    application necessary for each of these grant programs, but one does
    have to indicate on the FAFSA application about student eligibility. It
    is likely that students (and their parents) are not aware of these
    relatively new grant programs and do not understand what they are about
    or terms for eligibility.
        The Department of Education has been criticized (see Chronicle of
    Higher Education article--http://chronicle.com/daily/2009/01/9471n.htm)
    for not exhibiting more effort in publicizing these programs. Also,
    undergraduate colleges have registered complaints as to the difficulty
    of identifying and confirming student eligibility for these awards. In
    other words, startup flaws in the system appear to be working against
    strong program interest as well as institutional encouragement of
    student participation in seeking awards.
        I do not know what resources are designated in the 2009 budget for
    these programs or what has happened to unused funds from earlier years.
        Again, the underutilization of these grant funds do not point to a
    lack of interest in STEM careers, but instead to a lack of interest or
    understanding among students, parents, and undergraduate institutions
    about these two grant programs. Program-reporting regulations could be
    acting as a deterrent as well. The use of funds from these programs has
    incrementally increased over the last two funding cycles, but not at
    the speed which Members of the Congress would have hoped.

        Mr. Cicerone. I know that the fraction of our students who
    take college degrees, who major in the sciences and math is, I
    believe, it is about five percent. I can check that. And it is
    a fraction of that in China and India. It is probably less than
    half of that.
        [The information follows:]

        ANSWERS: The total number of bachelor's degrees (in all fields)
    awarded in China has grown rapidly in recent years, and is roughly
    comparable to the number awarded in the United States. Bachelor's
    degrees in math, natural sciences (e.g. physics. biology, chemistry),
    and engineering as a percentage of total degrees is much higher in
    China (about 50%) than in the United States (about 15%). Thus, China's
    annual production of bachelor's degrees in these fields is roughly 2.5
    times that of the United States (over 600,000 for China, under 250,000
    for the United States). Views differ with regard to the quality of
    those degrees. With no comparable standardized testing, the anecdotal
    information from company leaders hiring in both countries is that there
    is a significant quality gap between the U.S. and Chinese cohorts.
        Reliable statistics on Indian higher education degrees are not
    available, given the mix of public universities, private universities,
    and unaccredited private universities all providing engineering
    degrees. Recent research on engineering and IT-relating bachelor's
    degrees indicates that for 2005-2006, U.S. production of such degrees
    stood at about 129,000, with India's production about 220,000, and
    China's about 575,000.
        With regard to foreign students in the U.S., in recent years,
    temporary foreign residents have not constituted a high percentage of
    recipients of U.S. bachelor's degrees in math, natural science, and
    engineering. U.S. citizens and permanent residents, who would be
    expected to stay in the United States after earning their degrees, made
    up 95% of degree recipients in those fields. In fields such as computer
    science and engineering, the percentage of temporary foreign residents
    rises to 7 or 8 percent.
        There are some interesting data on foreign students who receive
    Ph.D. degrees in science and engineering in the U.S. These data
    generally show that 60% to 70% of these new Ph.D. degree holders are
    still in the U.S. two to five years after receiving their degrees, and
    that students from China and India stay at above-average rates.
        Data and Sources:
        United States data are for the year 2005. Total bachelor's degrees:
    1,437,200; Total math, natural science, and engineering bachelor's
    degrees: 235,619; Proportion of math, natural science, and engineering
    bachelor's degrees: 16%.
        U.S. citizens and permanent residents earning math, natural
    science, and engineering bachelor's degrees: 223,255; Proportion of
    U.S. citizens and permanent residents among math, natural science, and
    engineering bachelor's degrees: 95% (though temporary residents earn up
    to 7% or 8% of engineering and computer science bachelor's degrees)
        Stay Rates for Ph.D. degree holders: Computing Research Association
    (www.cra.org) and S&T Indicators at NSF).
        China data are for the year 2004. Total bachelor's degrees:
    1,196,290; Total math, natural science, and engineering bachelor's
    degrees: 610,705; Proportion of math, natural science, and engineering
    bachelor's degrees: 51%
        India: Reliable statistics on Indian higher education degrees are
    not available (see NSF S&E Indicators). Gereffi et al. have produced an
    estimate of ``engineering'' bachelor's degree production that includes
    computer science and other IT-related degrees with the following
    results for 2005-2006: United States, 129,000; India, 220,000; China,
    575,000.
        Notes:
        a. Social and behavioral sciences excluded
        b. U.S. and China figures are for first university degrees (ISCED
    5A)
        Sources: S&E Indicators 2008, Appendix Tables 2-28 and 2-38 http://
    www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/c2/c2s4.htm
        Gary Gereffi, Vivek Wadhwa, Ben Rissing, and Ryan Ong. 2008.
    Getting the Numbers Right: International Engineering Education in the
    United States, China, and India. Journal of Engineering Education.
    January.

        Mr. Wolf. In overall raw numbers, how do we compare? The
    reason I ask, and I do not know if it is true, I saw that India
    and China last year had 700,000 students in engineering. We had
    70,000.
        And then it went on to say that 40 percent of our students
    were foreign students who were probably not going to stay here.
    And is that figure accurate? And how long, if it is accurate,
    how long can you kind of go on with those numbers?
        Mr. Cicerone. The figure, I think, is probably exaggerated
    for China and India because it includes people who are not
    taking, let us say, as strong a degree as we would have in four
    years, but who are getting much more practical technician type
    training, two and three year programs.
        I am not sure anybody has the exact number, but it is not
    grossly exaggerated. I would say that is on the high side and
    it is growing so fast that if it is not that big now, it will
    be soon.
        Mr. Wolf. Could you see if you could get those numbers for
    the Committee.
        I also saw that we have fewer physicists, Ph.D. physicists
    in the country today than we had in 1956 before Sputnik. Is
    that accurate?
        Mr. Cicerone. These figures have all come out since the
    Gathering Storm report.
        Mr. Wolf. Are they accurate though? Is that an accurate
    figure?
        Mr. Cicerone. It is approximate, but I think we actually--
    that number also has been criticized in the last year with some
    evidence that we have a few more physicists now than we did in
    the mid 1950s, but not a lot.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, if you can correct the numbers, but also
    just a few more would sort of be a failure because the
    population in the country today versus then is fairly dramatic.
        What do you think we should do to have young people get
    interested? What age do you believe do we lose them? You very
    seldom hear somebody who goes to the University of California,
    University of Virginia, majors in history and then in their
    sophomore year transfers into biophysics.
        [The information follows:]

        Before listing any numbers about physicists in the United States
    now and in 1959, please note that the total population of the U.S. has
    increased by about 70% in those 50 years.
        The number of physicists is only an estimate, because many
    physicists take jobs not identified as a ``physics position,'' and in
    other cases, people who do not have degrees in physics may fill
    positions labeled as such. That said, the American Institute of Physics
    (AIP) has a membership (combined number from its constituent societies)
    of about 125,000 at last count. That number includes people with
    physics degrees at the BS, MS, and PhD levels. It is known that about
    27% of people awarded the BS degree in physics go on to get a PhD. Of
    those 34,000 PhDs awarded over the years, only about 40% are in
    teaching or university research positions in physics. That number of
    14,000 active PhD physicists is the same as the number cited in the
    Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. According to the AIP,
    there are 9,150 tenured or tenure-track university positions in physics
    in 2006 (contract with 8,450 in 1996); the remainder of the 14,000 are
    in non-tenure-track positions.
        The number of Ph.D. degrees awarded annually in physics in the
    United States was in the range of 500-600 around the time of Sputnik.
    In recent decades, the number has fluctuated in the 1,100-1,500 range.
    However, the proportion of bachelor's degrees in physics to total
    degrees awarded was twice as high in the year before Sputnik as in
    2004.
        Physics Ph.D.s awarded--Sourc: American Institute of Physics http:/
    /www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/ed/figure13.htm
        Physics Bachelor's Degrees as a Percentage of the Total--Source:
    APS News, August/September 2007 http://www.aps.org/publications/
    apsnews/200708/physicsbachelors.cfm

        Mr. Cicerone. That is right.
        Mr. Wolf. Usually they go into engineering or math or
    science and then into business or something else. I am not
    saying nobody ever does it, but there are probably not a lot of
    people.
        What age do you believe we lose them? Is it fifth grade,
    third grade? Have there been any studies showing that?
        Mr. Cicerone. It seems every time someone looks, it seems
    to be earlier and earlier. That is, the children seem to have a
    lot of curiosity, interest, and excitement about nature and
    science when they are young and as they get older, it seems
    that whatever we are doing to them, we are losing more.
        But I think the biggest break point is probably seventh
    grade or eighth grade. It has to do with Algebra, the teaching
    of Algebra, and the way children respond to Algebra word
    problems and then Algebra I and Algebra II. We seem to lose an
    enormous number of children there. They develop some kind of an
    antipathy toward science and math and it is hard to get them
    back after that.
        Mr. Wolf. Is the Academy looking at anything? How do you
    maintain and keep people? You are?
        Mr. Cicerone. Yes.
        Mr. Wolf. Could you share with us what?
        Mr. Cicerone. Mostly I would say these are local programs
    all around the country who are working towards increasing the
    flow of students through high school into college science
    technology and math programs. And they find the same
    experience. For example, if the child is excited about biology.
        I remember a lot of programs in California I worked with,
    we found that the failure rate had to do with first and second
    year chemistry, among the students who wanted to be biologists.
    And that failure in turn was based on the calculus and physical
    chemistry which in turn revealed a weakness all the way back to
    that seventh and eighth grade Algebra.
        So getting the math skills strong through high school has
    been identified as one of the keys because with strong math
    skills, then these young men and women can go on to do almost
    anything, whether it is engineering or whether it is economics
    or physics.
        So a lot of focus has been on working on the math skills.
    The other focus is to have teachers who are comfortable doing
    experiments with children which really bring out the curiosity
    and that is where so much emphasis, as I think you know, Mr.
    Wolf, has focused on equipping teachers and finding new
    teachers who are really comfortable in the content matter, that
    is who are not just generalists, but who have, if they are
    going to teach physics, a decent background in physics, if they
    are going to teach biology, a decent background in biology.
        But we have a long way to go. I think in California, two-
    thirds of the high school biology teachers do not have a degree
    in biology just as an example. So we have a long way to go.
        Mr. Wolf. Last question.
        Mr. Cicerone. More weaknesses than we do the solutions.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, then that leads to the last question and it
    is a difficult question. But since you do not work for the
    Administration, you can be very candid and tell us what you
    really believe. And I think you would carry a lot of weight.
        If you had to look at where we are on math and science and
    physics, chemistry and biology and all of these and the nation
    with regard to science, would you say that we are doing very
    well, would you say that we are holding steady, or would you
    say that we are in decline?
        Think carefully because I think----
        Mr. Cicerone. I would say we are in decline, but it is
    split. Our top end students can and do compete with the best
    anywhere. Our weakness is with a great bulk of the population
    who are not attaining a minimal level of understanding. So if
    we are content with a country based on the achievements of the
    highest few, we can hold steady. But we are not educating the
    great bulk of our students well enough.
        So when you go to our really top schools and see what the
    students are doing, they are doing wonderful things and better
    all the time and they can compete with anybody. There just are
    not enough of them and that is why we depend so much still on
    foreign students coming here because we are not producing
    enough engineers, we are not producing enough scientists, but
    our best students are as good as anywhere in the world, if not
    better. There just are not enough of them. We are not doing
    enough with our entire population, so that is why I would say
    we are in decline.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay. Thank you for your time.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                               SCIENCE EDUCATION

        Mr. Mollohan. You are not doing enough farming to identify
    and nurturing? A lot of the population is being lost in the
    schools?
        Mr. Cicerone. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mollohan. We are just not producing the students?
        Mr. Cicerone. Yes, sir. Our best continue to hold their own
    with anybody, but we are not bringing along the rest of the
    people enough.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Honda.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome.
        Just to pursue the line of questioning that Mr. Wolf had
    asked, in your opinion then, we are talking about changes in
    the field of education and the funding and support.
        Given the recent infusion of revenue and the direction that
    we are going in and the areas that we are concentrating on now,
    where are those differences compared to the last few years and
    is it more or less in terms of funding and support in those
    areas that relate to research and science and technology?
        Mr. Cicerone. Do you mean, sir, with reference to the
    stimulus accounts?
        Mr. Honda. Whatever revenues we are looking at now, whether
    it is stimulus or the current Omnibus bills that we are looking
    at, the type of support and the amount of support in the areas
    that are necessary.
        Mr. Cicerone. Probably the most dramatic change has been in
    the general field of research and development in energy. Our
    federal expenditures for energy R and D stagnated over the last
    30 years and probably went down in constant dollars. I am
    pretty sure they did.
        And this stimulus bill that has just been approved has a
    great deal of emphasis on energy. That is probably the most
    outstanding example of change overnight where we really have
    not done anywhere near what is necessary on energy research in
    this country.
        Since the oil shocks of 1973, 1974, and 1979, and a little
    bit of work around 1980, things have just gone downhill until
    this past year.
        Mr. Honda. In terms of educational policy, preschool to
    postgraduate, and looking at creating an inclusionary kind of a
    policy so that we expect all youngsters to be able to
    understand math and science as individual citizens, not
    necessarily to be scientists, but to be thoughtful and critical
    consumers, how would you address and where would you make those
    changes in terms of making those kinds of shifts in the way we
    are doing things or do we need to do it?
        Mr. Cicerone. Probably every one of us has their own ideas.
        First of all, a disadvantage we have is we do not have a
    national system of K through 12 education. It is all controlled
    locally so that even those of you with tremendous
    responsibility for the federal government cannot do everything
    for K through 12 education, but you can set examples and that
    those of us who have seen progress with our children, our own
    communities always have stories to tell about exemplary people
    who come forward and can work with children on their own terms,
    showing them interesting curiosities, ways to make a career,
    practical issues like how you can live your life better by
    understanding how this works or knowing how to do these kinds
    of calculations.
        There does not seem to be any substitute yet for individual
    attention to children. So we continue to depend enormously on
    the teachers and, of course, the family home life. I wish I
    could be more insightful than that, but I think that is the
    answer.
        Mr. Honda. So individual attention that is consistent
    across the country on instruction and how we address these
    areas is something that would or should be looked at?
        Mr. Cicerone. With examples from successful people who the
    children have heard of.
        Mr. Honda. Okay. And that is different from standardized
    assessment.
        Mr. Cicerone. Well, we have to have some kind of
    assessment, though, to know whether we are just feeling good or
    whether we are actually achieving anything.
        Mr. Honda. But if we have standardized assessment with an
    inconsistent feel of treatment, then the assessment is always
    going to be not where you want it. Is that accurate? So our
    focus should be really on trying to figure out how we address
    across the country consistent curricula and instructional
    activities to the child, individual child is what I hear.
        Mr. Cicerone. Yes. But some kind of nationalized standards
    are also necessary so that we do not kid ourselves in our own
    communities that we are like a little bit better than average.
        Mr. Honda. But this national treatment and approach to each
    youngster, that is going to be important, I mean that we are
    consistent across the board. And I guess we call it equity of
    instruction and resources. Rather than trying to victimize a
    victim, we have set them up so that we need to really provide
    the wherewithal for them to all be able to meet their
    potential.
        Mr. Cicerone. Of course.
        Mr. Honda. Okay. Thank you.
        Do I have a little bit more time, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Mollohan. Your first round is up.
        Mr. Honda. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mollohan. You will get a second one.
        Mr. Bonner.
        Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Doctor, I would like to go back to a question that Mr. Wolf
    posed and try to get you to enlighten us or at least enlighten
    this member.
        He asked a question that I was going to ask, and that is
    what we are doing to try to reach down to the right age and the
    right grade to capture the minds of young people to develop
    future scientists.
        Can you tell us what country or countries should be the
    example because it seems to me that the teaching of math or
    science or physics or chemistry, that the subject would be the
    same even if it is in a different language in China or in Japan
    or wherever, but obviously some other countries are doing a
    better job than we are? Which ones should we look to?
        Mr. Cicerone. Other countries are doing a better job of
    creating a floor level where nobody falls below. I do not think
    they are doing a better job at the high end. In fact, there is
    some evidence that if it is just teaching things to be
    remembered and kind of wrote learning, other countries do
    better than us. But on reasoning skills and thinking skills,
    there is a lot of evidence that we still do as well as we
    should.
        I think the real challenge is for us to work against our
    own best selves, that is we know we can do better. And these
    comparisons with other countries can always be criticized.
        For example, I just saw an article in Science Magazine last
    week that showed me that on reasoning skills and any number of
    tests, American students across the board are doing as well as
    many of their international counterparts. They are just not
    mastering as much material. They are not working as hard.
        But in terms of creativity, the reasoning skills are very,
    very important. So I am not willing to say that we are failing
    against all other countries. I think we have to focus on just
    lifting ourselves and as perhaps Representative Honda mentioned
    working with the potential of every child rather than trying to
    compare ourselves to Finland or Japan or Germany. There is a
    lot of disagreement on that point.
        Mr. Bonner. Well, my hometown of Mobile is the host of the
    State School for Math and Science, High School for Math and
    Science for our entire State of Alabama. I am very supportive
    of their efforts. I have actually sought earmarks for them.
        I guess the question, I am not going to ask you to say what
    are the top two or three schools for math and science in the
    nation, but when they come to me asking for help for computer
    technology or a new library, what should the very best schools
    that are training future scientists and mathematicians, should
    they be looking to make sure as a part of their curriculum so
    that they could one day be considered one of the best?
        Mr. Cicerone. So it sounds like that school identifies
    perhaps the children who have some kind of a gift or extra
    curiosity. There are few of these around the country and they
    are remarkable. And to provide opportunities for students like
    that is just absolutely essential because we just cannot ignore
    them.
        I would focus on the teachers. All the evidence is the
    quality of the teacher is the most important thing, the ability
    of the teacher to lead the children and to respond to unusual
    questions from children in a reasoning way rather than trying
    to give them flat out yes or no answers, but to lead them
    through deeper and deeper considerations and better and better
    experiments.
        So that falls on the teacher. I would focus on the teacher.
    And if the teachers say they need those kinds of equipment, I
    would listen to them.

                                SCIENCE FUNDING

        Mr. Bonner. And I guess my last question is this, that
    clearly this Subcommittee and many members of Congress do
    support increasing the funding for human sciences and, yet,
    everywhere we turn, the American people have a great angst
    about what is going on with their country. I mean, the stock
    market has certainly taken a tumble the last several weeks.
    People have seen their savings disappear. Costs go up, perhaps
    taxes going up.
        So I think a fair question on behalf of the American
    taxpayer is, and the Chairman alluded to it in his question,
    but to not pin you down to a specific number, what can we tell
    the American taxpayers that the benefits of increased support
    for the sciences will get them, because there are two things
    that I think most people believe we will never see and that is
    peace in the Middle East and a cure for cancer? And, yet,
    science may not provide the first. It certainly could play a
    role in providing the second.
        I guess my question is, what is the last most significant
    breakthrough in the sciences that we could tell the people back
    in my district or any other district in America that is so
    significant that it was worth the investment of more of their
    hard earned tax dollars?
        Mr. Cicerone. We have a whole string of those. I am not
    sure I could say the last one chronologically, but all around
    us, we have the benefits of this research like the global
    positioning system and everything it has done for our safety
    and traffic routing.
        And it all came out of discoveries that had nothing to do
    with the final product. People in laboratories were working
    with lasers and masers and timing devices, all of which turned
    out to be essential for the global positioning system.
        Going back a few years before that, these clunky devices
    that were individual transistors about as big as this
    microphone. When they were invented at Bell Laboratories and
    other places, nobody foresaw that they could be shrunk and made
    faster and embodied in automobiles to get better fuel
    efficiency and in biomedical devices to not only record data
    but to detect any unusual behavior with the biomedical sensing
    device.
        The nuclear magnetic resonance devices that give us NMR
    diagnostics now in medicine not only for sports injuries but
    for imaging of various organs and circulatory system and brain
    function, none of these were invented. That is, they were done
    because research was getting done and students asked questions
    and their supervisors asked them questions about how things
    work. And then some entrepreneurial person came forward and
    said, you know, I could make something useful out of that.
        So we have a whole string of these discoveries and, yet, it
    is hard to fit this into an elevator when somebody asks you why
    are you supporting all this extra spending at a time like this.
    It is very hard for us to predict what is going to happen six
    months from now.
        But I think our reasons for science have even expanded
    beyond what they were 15 years ago where we were focusing on
    military strength and economic strength in the post Cold War
    world. Now we know that we have national security issues
    developing out of climate change. We have some world leadership
    issues that people are looking to the United States because of
    the fondness they have for us and they like to see us leading.
        We know that some of our science serves that purpose from a
    diplomatic point of view. But, once again, it is hard to say to
    somebody your tax bill just went up because we want to support
    more science. I feel that way myself, but I am happy to pay the
    taxes.
        Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
        Mr. Schiff.

                                ENERGY RESEARCH

        Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Doctor, I wanted to follow-up on your comments regarding
    energy which I was delighted to hear. I think we did make a
    very important and sizeable investment in energy research in
    the stimulus bill.
        Just a few days ago, I visited a brilliant constituent of
    mine named Bill Gross who runs Idea Lab in Pasadena, which is a
    high-tech incubator. And one of the solar companies that has
    spun off from Idea Lab will be completing in May a solar power
    plant in Lancaster, California that for the first time will
    produce energy, will produce electricity from solar power at a
    price cheaper than deriving it from natural gas.
        They use a combination of affixing the solar panels on to
    units that track the sun to maximize the efficiency as well as
    mirrors to concentrate the sunlight and not have to go to so
    much expense in the production of the panels.
        So this will bring the price point down below natural gas,
    which is remarkable. It is hard for me to see how if that can
    be done this will not take off like a rocket.
        So I am very optimistic. I think we are on the cusp of a
    paradigm shift in energy, but how quickly that happens, I
    think, will depend also on how sensibly we incentivize and
    encourage that to continue and develop new science in this area
    and as well as encourage the transition of that science into
    technology and industry.
        So what I want to ask you is, what are your thoughts on
    what is the next step that we should be taking? We put a lot of
    funding in the stimulus bill. What steps can we take to further
    our work, the development of good science and technology in the
    field of energy?
        Mr. Cicerone. If I am not mistaken, the development you are
    talking about near Lancaster is actually focusing the sunlight
    to use the heat to make electricity on a fluid rather than the
    conversion directly into electricity.
        Mr. Schiff. Right.
        Mr. Cicerone. And it is turning out to be remarkably
    successful without even using a lot of great new basic science,
    but a lot of small improvements focused into one. It is
    fantastic.
        Well, as you know from California's history with
    electricity, the fact that Californians only use about 60
    percent as much electricity per capita as the rest of the
    country does, it has taken a lot of work in California not only
    in science and technology but in public policy.
        The pricing strategies whereby the utilities have been
    given incentive to provide energy services along with just raw
    electricity, the pricing strategies that allow the companies to
    charge more at times of peak usage have encouraged conservation
    which then save capital funds to help to keep the cost down.
    All of these things have to be done in tandem.
        But the challenge in front of us is huge. We are working on
    a set of reports right now which I am hopeful is going to help,
    it is called America's Energy Future, where we are looking at,
    this at the Academy, where are we getting our energy now, how
    much does it cost in each case, what are the prospects in the
    next few years, including efficiency improvements, and then
    trying to identify the barriers towards further improvement.
        And the barriers turn out to be a combination of science,
    technology, public policy, incentives, as you said. So we have
    a challenge to work together over a period of years to get all
    this done for a wider adoption of solar and wind energy and
    even nuclear. It is not going to be easy, but the incentives
    are huge.
        The strategic challenge is probably to create fleets of
    electric drive vehicles that can run off of the electricity
    generated from renewable and nuclear sources as opposed to
    using petroleum. That would accomplish a great deal for this
    country, but it is a strategic challenge because right now if
    you had the electricity, you do not have the cars. So it is
    going to have to go hand in hand.

                          ORBITING CARBON OBSERVATORY

        Mr. Schiff. I look forward to that report.
        Let me ask you one other very quick question if I could.
    The Orbiting Carbon Observatory, a lot of the research on
    climate change and in particular on this project comes out of
    the Jet Propulsion Lab, my neck of the woods. As you know, the
    launcher failed to place that mission in orbit. This is a
    heartbreak for all of us.
        As you look at our climate change research portfolio, do
    you see the data that this would have gathered as
    irreplaceable? Should we build another satellite to take its
    place? What do you recommend?
        Mr. Cicerone. Well, that mission, it is just a tragedy that
    it failed. I think it was February 23rd, because we were
    expecting several kinds of information from it. The only
    instrument like it is one that the Japanese just launched in
    December or January. And I am not sure which instrument would
    have turned out to be better. They are somewhat different.
        But the Orbiting Carbon Observatory was supposed to do at
    least two things. One is to track the carbon dioxide ebbs and
    flows and the bulges here and there that come out of both
    natural sources of carbon dioxide as well as industrial ones,
    and then also see the deficits, that is where is the carbon
    dioxide disappearing into the world's green things and the
    oceans to be able to do a better accounting for scientific
    purposes so we can make better predictions of future climate
    change.
        The other thing that that satellite possibly could have
    done is contributed to the United States' ability to monitor
    any new international agreements that might be reached in the
    future. That is, if the countries of the world sign up and say
    I am doing X, Y, and Z, what would be our ability to
    independently monitor whether country X is doing what it is
    supposed to be doing and whether or not the agreements are
    being effective.
        We were hopeful that OCO as it was called would give us
    some national ability which in turn could be shared with other
    countries to monitor international agreements, but we will
    never know now.
        So I think a strong case can be made that that instrument
    should be rebuilt and launched as quickly as possible. Usually
    producing the follow-on version of an original instrument, the
    prototype, is cheaper than the first one, but I do not know the
    details on this one.
        It was really the creation of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
    and people out there would have to give the answers.
        Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                   SATELLITES

        Mr. Cicerone. On that line, I think of the 20 satellite
    instruments we have looking at the earth right now, 19 of them
    are passed their lifetime. We expect to see these instruments
    going dead and if not falling out of the sky and that includes
    some weather satellites that we all depend on every day as well
    as these longer term issues. We have a real problem with our
    fleet of satellites.
        Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. You have 19 reaching or already beyond----
        Mr. Cicerone. I think it was at the close of 2008, it was
    either 19 out of 20 or 20 out of 21 satellite borne instruments
    looking at the earth have gone past their predicted lifetime.
    They are not fresh anymore.
        In some cases, it is pretty black and white, clear cut.
    That is, if an instrument had a certain amount of cryogenic
    fluid on board because it had to cool the detectors, we knew
    how fast that would evaporate and we knew that the lifetime,
    that would be it.
        In other cases, the instruments are continuing to perc
    along. They are not dependent on, you know, a certain amount of
    fluid and they will keep working. We do not know how long.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Culberson.

                                SCIENCE FUNDING

        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Cicerone, I cannot tell you how much I admire the
    National Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation. The
    work that you do is so important. And for the future prosperity
    of the nation, thrilled to be a part of this Subcommittee and
    work with the Chairman, members who are all equally committed
    to supporting the National Science Foundation and your work. It
    really is a privilege to work with you guys on this.
        I am particularly and wanted to focus, Dr. Cicerone, on how
    the Congress funds the sciences and what your recommendations
    would be in order to give greater stability and predictability
    to science funding.
        It is my impression after serving on the Committee for a
    number of years and following the work of science grants and I
    have been a subscriber of the Journal of Nature and Science for
    about 20 years and try to read as much as I can. I am an
    amateur astronomer, very passionate about the space program and
    funding the sciences.
        Mr. Wolf's question is so important and to have you testify
    that in your opinion we are in decline, and I think that is
    self-evident to all us, profoundly disturbing.
        The National Academy of Sciences chartered in 1863 to
    advise Congress.
        Do you have any thoughts or recommendations, number one, so
    we give you an open-ended opportunity to tell us? What in your
    opinion could we do or should we be thinking about doing to
    restructure the way that the Congress appropriates funding for
    the National Science Foundation, NIST, the National Institutes
    of Health?
        But let us start first with NSF because bouncing around
    from year to year is terribly destructive and damaging to the
    ability of undergraduates, for you to attract graduate
    students, for example, to stay in these grant programs.
        What do you recommend that we need to do to give more
    stability and predictability to science funding year after
    year?
        Mr. Cicerone. Well, you have already said some very
    important things and that is the commitment to the goals and to
    help people, including your own constituents, understand how
    important these goals are.
        The National Science Foundation is perhaps one of the
    jewels of the world and you can see it the way other countries
    are always trying to imitate it.
        The NSF standards are seen as the goal standard in terms of
    competition. The competition for NSF funding is extreme,
    sometimes brutal.
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Cicerone. The success rates when people send their best
    work to the National Science Foundation and seek funding, the
    success rates are now about 22 percent. And it is kind of like
    an unemployment statistic. When the unemployment figures go up,
    you know that you have got problems because a lot of people
    have dropped out and are not even applying anymore.
        Mr. Culberson. Right.
        Mr. Cicerone. We have got problems like that at NSF now
    that people are not even sending in applications because they
    are so discouraged.
        Mr. Culberson. Well, they do not know what next year's
    numbers are going to look like.
        And looking at other countries based on your experience
    over the years, do you have any recommendations today that you
    could talk to us verbally about and then follow-up with a
    written response? Very important.
        What should Congress do to change the way we fund the
    sciences to ensure great stability, predictability, a steady
    growth over a number of years to give those scientists in the
    field the assurance that their grant is not going to be jerked
    out from underneath of them in the second or third year?
        [The information follows:]

        To produce and maintain a strong core of scientist and engineer
    researchers in the United States, we must teach and encourage young men
    and women who are now in our K-12 schools and in colleges and then
    provide support for their counterparts who are in graduate schools and
    those with new doctoral degrees. A great start would be to implement
    fully the recommendations in our 2007 report Rising Above the Gathering
    Storm: stronger investment in cutting-edge research, fostering a new
    generation of dedicated researchers, building a K-12 education with a
    strong STEM element, improving the environment for business innovation
    in science and technology areas.
        The US research universities are still the best in the world, the
    most innovative in both research and the innovativeness of the people
    produced. The gap between us and other parts of the world is narrowing.
    We were preeminent; we are not probably best among equals. We must
    increase and maintain our commitment to developing and supporting
    talented people. Students can sense opportunities and also the lack of
    opportunities, partly by watching older, more experienced people in
    their own fields of interest. When students see accomplished and
    motivated older researchers who are not able to obtain research
    funding, the younger students can get discouraged.
        A key issue in science funding is that the competitive grants
    programs at NSF and NASA, for example, must be robust enough and stable
    enough to offer opportunities for truly worthy proposal requests to be
    funded. Now, the fraction of successful applications is only 22 or 23%
    at NSF and the grant sizes are too small to support even modest-sized
    projects. In fact, some researchers do not even apply any more because
    of these low chances for success and small grant sizes. At the NIH,
    grant sizes are much larger but success rates are even lower, perhaps
    19%. My opinion is that success rates must reach at least 33 to 35% and
    that grants must be at least twice as large as they are now, and that
    competitive grants for major pieces of scientific equipment are also
    needed.
        We need ways to establish believable, stable career opportunities
    for young scientists in areas of critical national need (as NIH has
    done for biomedicine) as the only way to build a best-of-class
    technical workforce in these areas. The US is the unquestioned world
    leader in biomedical research. As we increase such research funding,
    however, we must avoid bust-to-boom-to-bust cycles. Management of the
    allocation of funds in coordination with management of anticipated
    budgets is required; lessons from recent increases at NIH followed by
    periods of stagnation and cuts can offer lessons.
        Broader goals are to re-energize longer-term, truly innovative
    research (more emphasis on truly innovative ideas, longer grants,
    critical mass in funding) to contribute to job creation and solutions
    to national problems. Peer review has served America very well in
    science funding but many reviewers are too reluctant to support
    researchers whose goals are large; reviewers often favor incremental
    progress.
        Similarly, it is essential to develop financial/career incentives
    to attract good scientists/engineers (especially women and minorities)
    into K-12/college teaching as the fastest way to increase the quality
    of teachers, and now is a great time to do it since there are talented,
    committed people without choice jobs.

        Mr. Cicerone. Well, a few of you are in such leadership
    positions that I am sure that you do a great job in making the
    case and, yet, I think it would help if the public, more of the
    public understood why you were doing that.
        So in the case of NSF, the reason it is so special is that
    the NSF does not have the kind of mission, say, that NOAA does
    where NOAA has to run the weather service and the fisheries
    service which in turn are very important.
        NSF was created basically to respond to the scientific and
    engineering community when people had good ideas which did not
    yet fit into one of the national missions like fisheries or the
    weather service. So NSF is kind of the bright spot.
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir. I understand. Forgive me. We have
    got such a brief time.
        Mr. Cicerone. Sorry.
        Mr. Culberson. And I will follow-up. You are very kind, Mr.
    Chairman. Thank you.
        I am really driving at and what I am trying to get you to
    help us do is give us your best ideas on how, I mean, really
    restructure.
        Personally in my opinion, we ought to have an independent
    board of scientists that recommend a budget number to us, Mr.
    Chairman, that is independent of the President's budget no
    matter who the President is and that we fund that level of
    science based on the best advice of the best experts in the
    field and we get politics out of the way and let the peer
    reviewed competitive grant process drive the work.
        Please tell us what your best recommendation is on how in
    your opinion we should change the way we fund science in the
    future so that it is more stable, predictable, and we have a
    growth curve that will give the assurance to the scientific
    community and the world that the Chinese are not going to
    produce ten engineers to every or ten engineers or scientists
    to every one of ours.
        Mr. Mollohan. Along those lines, if the gentleman will
    yield.
        Mr. Culberson. Yes. Please, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. In your closing remarks, you indicate let us
    hope and resolve to make these new levels, referencing the
    stimulus, a baseline for further advancement.

                            STIMULUS PACKAGE FUNDING

        Mr. Cicerone. Well, the reason I say that is I am thinking
    ahead now to what Representative Culberson was just hinting at.
    If you put together a group of people whose judgment was strong
    and that you trusted, what they would be looking at is what
    kind of demand, what kind of capability do we have.
        So the stimulus package is going largely into meeting the
    unfunded top proposals that were ranked in the top line by NSF
    and the other agencies just in the past couple of years.
        You want to at least meet that level, and then the question
    is, can it continue and what is the mix of equipments and
    facilities and computers and people in the future. One way to
    keep track of that is the influx of highly competitive
    proposals.
        Now, at NSF, far too small a fraction of those are being
    funded and the size of the grants that are being given out is
    far too small. They have fallen far down from historic levels
    that could have been maintained and should have been
    maintained.
        I also read Science and Nature every week and the last
    issue I looked at from the week before last, the first nine
    papers were from--eight of them were from foreign countries and
    the ninth one had an American collaborator on it. That is what
    we are looking at in the physical sciences and engineering. We
    are in decline competitively.
        We probably cannot afford to be the best in all fields. We
    are going to have to decide which fields we really have to be
    the best at and go for those and then the other fields be good
    enough to recognize breakthroughs elsewhere.
        So the way to measure that would be to get these success
    rates back up at NIH and NSF, back up maybe to the one-third
    level at least.
        Mr. Culberson. Well, let me say in conclusion, the Chairman
    has been very generous with his time. I would like to work with
    you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee to find a
    way to make that $3 billion one-time shot in the arm a
    permanent increase in the baseline for NSF and then really
    think creatively outside the box about what do we do to ensure
    that we do not bounce around like this in years to come because
    that is one of the most destructive, certainly, would you not
    agree, it is destructive and damaging to the grants that you
    award for the numbers to, funding levels to bounce around from
    year to year without any predictability or stability?
        Mr. Cicerone. It is. And that creates the kind of
    management and leadership issue that you were talking about,
    how you can have the people in charge of the agencies working
    with the budget people to smooth things out instead of going
    through these boom and bust cycles.
        Mr. Culberson. I have really appreciated your time, Mr.
    Chairman.
        And I also want to say, Dr. Cicerone, we have not met
    before, but, and my colleagues know this, I am pleased to say I
    just earned another hundred percent perfect conservative rating
    from the American Conservative Union and my starting answer is
    no to almost all appropriations requests unless it is for the
    National Science Foundation, the NIH, or NASA.
        Mr. Cicerone. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Culberson. Your success, the success of America is
    contingent on the success of the National Science Foundation I
    am convinced.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                            AMERICA COMPETES' AGENDA

        Mr. Mollohan. I thank the gentleman.
        Following up a little bit on Mr. Culberson's line of
    questioning, NSF, NIST, DOE Office of Science, do you feel that
    beyond these agencies, do other agencies need significant
    increases? Should other agencies be a part of the America
    Competes' agenda? And, if not, why not? And if you could just
    discuss that.
        Mr. Cicerone. I think there are the same kinds of needs
    elsewhere. For example, at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
    There are emerging issues of food security, possibilities in
    plant biology butted up against the realities of climate change
    that are going to require more research than USDA has ever
    done. And I think a lot of it is going to have to be done more
    competitively than they have done before.
        It is going to have to involve research institutes and
    universities all over the country and not just at the
    agriculturally favored places.
        NASA, did you mention NASA, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, NASA and NOAA are under our
    jurisdiction. It is very interesting actually when we think
    about it in the context of climate change--the Department of
    Agriculture. I mean, I can see where they are very huge players
    in that arena.
        But we are obviously particularly interested in NASA and
    NOAA in regard to that question.
        Mr. Cicerone. And in the National Institutes of Health,
    there are a lot of indicators now that the capabilities that
    could be exploited are out there for the taking. We have got to
    encourage not only the young people but the established
    researchers who have been working for a long time to stay
    involved.
        And they are running up against funding difficulties now.
    Their success rates have lowered. The avenues they have to
    explore not only in basic biology but in a number of disease
    related specific issues are larger than the finances can
    provide for.
        The Department of Energy with its new leadership of Steven
    Chu, I think, is capable of doing a lot more than it has ever
    done before.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, let me ask you.
        Mr. Cicerone. And on the NASA side, they have more missions
    now than they did 40 years ago. NASA seems to be trying to do
    too many missions without enough funding. And the missions that
    have developed, I will give you two kind of polar opposites in
    the last 20 or 30 years.
        NASA has become a force in our whole research and higher
    education infrastructure around this country that I am not sure
    the NASA Administration understands how important the graduate
    students and postdoctoral people supported by NASA have become
    in this country.
        And it is not just about manned exploration. In fact, I am
    not so sure that the American public wants to stick with a
    decade or a multi-decadal commitment to manned exploration.
    Maybe they do.
        But NASA's importance in astrophysics and astronomy is just
    fantastic these days. In earth observing and in climate change,
    so much of what we have learned about sea level rise properly
    averaged over the whole earth, not just one ocean basin, but
    now properly averaged, the observation of global precipitation,
    what is happening to the ice cover and the ice amounts, the
    mass, the horizontal extent, the thickness of the ice over the
    Arctic and Antarctic would not have happened without those
    satellites.
        So these are all kind of new missions for NASA that have
    not been provided for.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, it sounds to me like you are making an
    argument for NASA being treated as is NSF or NIST or the DOE
    Office of Science with regard to our competitiveness agenda
    that NASA science----
        Mr. Cicerone. I think so.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Should be in the doubling and we
    should be in the business of trying to double NASA science as
    well as the other agencies.
        Mr. Cicerone. I think so. Frankly, I think it was an
    omission of our report Rising Above the Gathering Storm. We did
    not talk enough about NASA and NIST in that report nor even the
    Department of Defense basic research was not given enough play
    in that report. That report was written awfully quickly.
        But if you look at the impact on the American research
    enterprise, NASA is right in there.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, pointedly, is it your testimony that
    you think that NASA science ought to be treated the same as
    those agencies that are enjoying a doubling agenda?
        Mr. Cicerone. I think that NASA science should, yes. But
    the NASA science is not that large a part of the whole budget.
    So perhaps it is doable.
        Mr. Mollohan. I am not asking whether it is doable
    necessarily. I mean, that is another question. I am asking what
    is your opinion about what should happen.
        Mr. Cicerone. I am just trying to distinguish between the
    entire NASA budget and the NASA science where I think you can
    make a case that it is just as important to the country as
    these other agencies.
        Mr. Mollohan. Do you make that case here today?
        Mr. Cicerone. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Thank you.
        What about NOAA in those same terms?
        Mr. Cicerone. NOAA has much less to do with universities
    than some of the other agencies and, yet, what NOAA does is
    essential on the climate and weather side and the fisheries
    side. They actually provide services on which a lot of our
    commerce depends and it has to be done with first rate science.
    They have some amazing laboratories internal to NOAA.
        The impact on universities is not as evident except that it
    is places for people to go after they have finished at
    universities who then serve the rest of us. So I am very, very
    high on NOAA. I hope that the new administrator is confirmed
    quickly because she is dynamite. She has very high standards.
    You want to be on her side. She gets things done.
        Mr. Mollohan. Are there accounts within NOAA that you think
    should be treated in the same way and with the same goals as
    NSF and NIST with regard to a doubling of the funding?

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        Mr. Cicerone. I think the fleet of observing satellites for
    weather and climate is in real trouble with NOAA. That needs
    some quick attention and some serious attention. And there
    fortunately, I think most people understand how important they
    are because they see their TV shows about weather and they can
    figure out that it is coming from the National Weather Service
    and NOAA.
        On the climate side, it is even worse. We do not even have
    an appropriate national strategy for monitoring climate. We
    have been doing it a piece at a time. And the faster things
    change and the more we have learned, we really need a strategy
    more than ever and NOAA should be in the center of that
    observing the oceans. And the problem with ocean acidification
    as part of climate change has not even been taken into account
    yet.
        Mr. Mollohan. My sense is that this Administration is
    beginning to give a lot of attention to climate, to climate
    study, climate change, and that NOAA is at the center of that
    as you just mentioned.
        Can you tell us what you know about what is going on in the
    scientific community, what their attitudes are with regard to
    climate change, what responsibilities NOAA should be assuming
    with regard to that, and talk about it also in terms of
    funding?
        Mr. Cicerone. We assume a mixed portfolio which has been
    the case in this country for climate work over the years. The
    National Science Foundation, NASA, and NOAA and to some extent
    the Department of Energy have been the leaders with
    contributions from places like Agriculture, Interior, but the
    four big ones have been NASA, NOAA, NSF, and Department of
    Energy.
        And it has always been assumed that they work together.
    Each one of them brings something. But in terms of a national
    strategy, we really have a lot of catching up to do. The way
    things are unfolding and the premium put on the value of this
    information is very high now, partly as a national security
    issue, I might add. A number of reports from retired military
    people have made this plain in the last couple of years.
        Mr. Mollohan. This what plain?
        Mr. Cicerone. The value of recognizing climate change as an
    element in national security and, therefore, getting the
    information that we need, how fast are things happening, where
    do we expect them to happen, and how much extra stress are they
    going to put on different countries.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, looking at NOAA's responsibilities, it
    seems to me that that is a natural. And I understand there was
    a lot of discussion about NOAA's increasing responsibilities
    with regard to climate change.
        Mr. Cicerone. But they cannot do it without NASA and NSF.
    They absolutely cannot.
        Mr. Mollohan. Oh, no, of course not. But I guess you are
    talking about all these needs. How does that get pulled
    together and what are the funding, as you look at them, what
    are the funding requirements for those respective agencies that
    are going to have increased responsibilities with regard to
    climate change?
        Mr. Cicerone. I do not know what fraction of NOAA's total
    budget can or should go into climate because they have all of
    these other requirements on them at the same time, fisheries
    and weather service and so forth.
        But NOAA has been central certainly during the Bush
    Administration. All the way back to the early 1980s, NOAA has
    been central to our climate program and, yet, so many of the
    contributions have been due to NSF and NASA contributions that
    it is hard to separate them.
        Mr. Mollohan. No. I understand what you are saying. You may
    not be prepared to talk about it and being able to dice it out
    like that.
        Mr. Wolf.
        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I saw a film. I looked at it the other day. You ought to
    get a copy. I will try to get a copy for you. It is called
    IOUSA and Pete Peterson funded it.
        I think in the year 2030, there is nothing left, there is
    not one dime for anything else other than the entitlements and
    interest on the debt, nothing for cancer research, nothing for
    education, nothing for the sciences.
        And so the reality, this Congress is broken. This place
    does not work. And, I mean, just the other day, it took away
    tuition tax credits for young kids in the inner city who are
    trying to break out of the public schools, and I had a daughter
    who taught in the D.C. schools, trying to break out to get in
    where they can get a good education. And they are taken away
    from them.
        And so, you know, there is that Simon and Garfunkle song,
    The Boxer. You ever hear it? You know, man hears what he wants
    to hear and disregards the rest. We are really only hearing
    what we really want to hear.
        And so the sciences are going to be squeezed unless we can
    get some sense of kind of bringing this thing back. And so I
    really am not that optimistic because, frankly, every time this
    Congress does something, if the Republicans do something, the
    DCCC puts out a press release attacking them. If the Democrats
    do something, the Republican Campaign Committee puts out
    something attacking them. And pretty soon nobody does anything.
        And so really we can talk about how important we want to
    get these numbers up, but unless we come together and develop a
    mechanism, and now I am not speaking as a Congressman, I am
    speaking as a father and a grandfather, we are in serious,
    serious trouble.
        And so we can talk about how we have to spend, but how are
    we really going to do it? George Washington said deed is not
    just words and we need the deeds to demonstrate.
        And let me say for the record the Bush Administration did
    not do a good job in the science area. I said it when I was
    Chairman and I will say it here for the record. But the
    Congress has to not just criticize, but has to come up with how
    we are going to deal with this spending in so many other areas.
        Now, my staff pulled the report that I talked about. It was
    the Chronology of Higher Education. It said new grants for
    students fail to meet expectations. In the program's first,
    this is the STEM grants, academic, competitive, and national
    smart grant programs, in the programs for the first twelve
    months, the Department awarded roughly 430 million in grants, a
    far cry from the 790 million that lawmakers had appropriated
    for them based on the Department's projections. Some 361,000
    students received the award, significantly fewer than the
    505,000 the Department had estimated.
        So I think we need to do something to make sure that young
    people have this interest. And I guess the question I want to
    ask you is, it is very tough to sort of answer your question
    about having people who have experience. We have a robotic
    program in a high school in our area. Thomas Jefferson has
    another one.
        Should we not have more companies like Rockwell and
    Raytheon to give their top people to say one day or a half a
    day in the classroom so you are bringing people from SAIC or
    Raytheon or Lockheed Martin to really be coming in with
    practical hands-on experience that can kind of electrify, and I
    do not mean just twelfth graders, I mean fifth graders and
    sixth graders, and is much happening? Do you have any ideas
    about how we can do it and is it a good idea or what can we do
    to do that?
        Mr. Cicerone. Well, I think it is a great case because
    science and technology really have so much to offer. I think we
    have seen it now in a couple of ways.
        One is all the economists who have looked at the growth of
    the American economy, as Chairman Mollohan said, growth that
    surpasses the rate of population growth is where the surplus is
    generated.
        Every one of them, regardless of their political position
    on the spectrum, has concluded that the science and technology
    efforts in the United States have accounted for at least half
    of the economic growth in the last 50 or 60 years. So we know
    that intellectually.
        We also know from the debacle in the finance industry that
    is occurring that it is going to be pretty hard to run an
    economy based on a service industry, whether it is financial
    services, whether it is just tourism. We have got to get back
    to creating things and we are not going to be able to create
    things competitively with many other countries because of our
    labor costs, the standard of living we are all accustomed to.
        So what we are left with is the innovation agenda that you
    know so much about, Mr. Wolf. It is creating a whole population
    which is not only capable of innovating but working in
    industries which have not been created yet. And that gets all
    the way back to high school. You are absolutely right.
        So what I am hoping for is that the agenda is so positive
    in the first place that people can see it all. They know that
    individual opportunities depend on it and they know that our
    national future depends on it.
        We all have to dig into our own communities and take
    advantage of those companies that will let their people go out
    and do a day's work like that or volunteer work in the
    evenings, retired people, and then creating a new cadre of
    teachers who are better equipped, the things that are going on,
    for example, out in Texas, the UTeach Program, that is being--
    --
        Mr. Mollohan. What is that called?
        Mr. Cicerone. It is called UTeach, capital U capital T, U-T
    and then each after it, at Austin. They have created a way that
    their science schools on the campus are equipping young people
    who are getting science degrees to be certified teachers with
    just about six months extra instead of a year and a half or two
    extra in school and financial support to help them using the
    school district, using private philanthropy, using companies.
        And now California is imitating them. The University of
    California is imitating the UTeach Program. And several of the
    UC campuses are now turning out hundreds of new teachers who
    are certified. They are not emergency certified. They are
    certified to teach and they also have degrees in physics and
    chemistry and mathematics.
        So this is a start and it is the states doing things on
    their own. I think they are going to be imitated in the other
    big states.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well, thank you.
        Maybe, Mr. Chairman, we ought to ask the new Secretary of
    Education to come before the Committee. He has a great
    reputation. I have a daughter in education. She says people in
    education are very high on it. Maybe we should ask him to come
    and ask if he can lay out what they plan on doing, particularly
    with regard to the science, math and science and physics and
    chemistry and them.
        The last issue, I think we need targets because if you do
    not have targets, I mean, if you are trying to run the mile,
    you have got to know where you ought to be at every time and
    you ought to have targets.
        And I think what President Kennedy did on saying we were
    going to put a man on the moon was very, very positive. And I
    think the more we have targets so that we understand that we
    are either making those targets or we are falling behind, I
    think, is very helpful.
        I heard and I am going to ask NASA this, but I had heard
    that China may very well beat us back to the moon. Is that
    accurate that China could or will or potentially may beat us
    back to the moon and do you think that is very significant or
    do you think it is just an interesting story? What does this
    mean?
        But, one, have you heard that they may beat us back to the
    moon?
        Mr. Cicerone. Yes.
        Mr. Wolf. Yes. And what is the likelihood of that? Is it
    like one in a hundred or is it like they get a 50/50 shot at
    it?
        Mr. Cicerone. I would not bet against it. Of course, it
    partly depends on what we do. On the other hand, I would not be
    too worried about it.
        That could be an example of expensive programs where
    international cooperation is the way to get the job done, but
    also to minimize our own cost. There are lots of things that we
    have talked about today at NSF and NASA and NOAA that could be
    done cooperatively with other countries. For example, high
    energy physics.
        It would be nice to have some of the experiments here in
    the United States, but at least the Americans can use the new
    facilities that are being built in Europe. Certain space
    programs like Exploration could be done cooperatively.
        Where we have trouble is like with that instrument that Mr.
    Schiff mentioned, the orbiting carbon observatory. If we demand
    that we work with international cooperation on every space
    instrument, we are going to end up with needlessly complicated
    things instead of focused, targeted, cheaper things.
        But going back to the moon could be a goal that we could
    cooperate with other countries rather than turning NASA upside
    down trying to do it ourselves for unknown purposes. I would
    not be too upset if the Chinese went there themselves, but it
    would be nice if we could cooperate.
        Mr. Wolf. Of course, the problem with the Chinese, they are
    spying against us and they are stealing our secrets. And maybe
    that is not the best country to cooperate with. But they have
    about 30 Catholic Bishops in jail. They have a couple hundred
    Protestant Pastors in jail. They have plundered Tibet. They are
    persecuting the Muslims and they are killing people in prison
    and taking their blood type and selling the organs for $50,000.
    And they have stripped the computers of 17 congressional
    offices and other committees.
        So they may not be the one that we want to cooperate with,
    but I think you make a good case about cooperation.
        I have other questions, but I just think, you know, I will
    just thank you for your testimony. I urge you to really be bold
    and speak out and even be controversial in the sense because
    when people get within the Administration, the previous science
    advisor would never say very, very much and we just could not
    get him to say very much. And pretty soon, if you will not say
    very much what you really believe, why even ask you any
    questions because whatever you are going to get is not really
    the reality.
        So I think that since your salary is not paid for, in
    essence you are not a government employee, we need people like
    you and Norm Augustine and others to be very bold, to speak
    out, obviously in a very kind way. We are not attacking and
    criticizing people, but just say here is where America is. And
    I think your credibility is probably greater, particularly
    since you are not in government than if you were.
        So I would urge you, the Academy, and others like you to
    speak out, write editorials, do op-ed pages of pieces for the
    Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and others to sort
    of let America know really where we are at this time.
        And any thoughts you may have, and I am going to give you
    this----
        Mr. Cicerone. Please.
        Mr. Wolf [continuing]. If you could take a look at it, on
    what we do with regard to this because when we do talk about
    funding, here is the funding that laid on the table.
        Mr. Cicerone. IOUSA?
        Mr. Wolf. I am going to get you a copy. I am going to get
    you a copy. If you can have somebody come by, I will burn a
    copy off for you and get it for you by tomorrow.
        But also if you could just look into this STEM Grant thing,
    any thoughts you may have as to why so much money laid on the
    table.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Mr. Mollohan. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Wolf. Yes, I would be glad to yield.

                           INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

        Mr. Mollohan. I just want to follow-up on the gentleman's
    question about international cooperation since you raised the
    question and Dr. Cicerone spoke to it.
        There are a lot of scientific undertakings that are done
    through international cooperation. I would like for you to
    elaborate on Mr. Wolf's question.
        And how does that relate to our maintaining leadership in
    science and technology? Where is it appropriate to consider
    international cooperation and where not? And what about the
    issue of locating major scientific facilities in the United
    States or offshore?
        Mr. Cicerone. These questions are really more important
    than ever before. For example, in the physical sciences, we
    have heard a lot about the progress in China and India and
    Korea and, yet, the people who are probably beating us right
    now are Europeans. In many fields of physical sciences, they
    would still like to see our leadership, but they do not need
    it. They are quite willing to move ahead with big facilities
    without us. They would like to see us cooperating on, for
    example, high energy physics experiments, but other fields of
    physical sciences too.
        So it is these changes that bring those questions really up
    front. What can we do to advance the science to make sure that
    Americans are going to be part of it to enjoy their share of
    the discoveries and to including the ones that are going to
    have economic benefits when so much is being done elsewhere
    that we can no longer be in the lead in all fields? It is a new
    world. We cannot do it. I am being told this from everywhere I
    go.
        Mr. Wolf. Mr. Chairman, could I just follow-up on that
    then.
        Somebody from NSF who I will not say about two years ago
    said that Europe had a formal program of coming over here to
    encourage our engineers to go over. Like somebody would come
    and say, well, you are a German or you are Czech, come on back
    and work in your homeland for a couple years and you can go
    back.
        Is there a formal program? Are the Europeans coming over to
    take our engineers or was that just a story?
        Mr. Cicerone. I do not know if it is a formal program, but
    it is certainly happening. It is happening for a lot of
    reasons.
        One of the papers this morning talks about a young woman
    Russian Ph.D. working at MIT who cannot get her Visa extended
    to stay on and work with MIT in the company she has been
    working with. She is going to go back.
        A colleague of mine at Harvard I have known for many, many
    years, three of his last four Ph.D. students have gone to work
    in England and Germany instead of staying here.
        We are hearing more when we quiz entering graduate
    students, do you want to go back to your home country when you
    are finished or do you want to stay here. This is a question
    that the National Science Foundation has been asking graduate
    students off and on for about 25 years. There is more of a tilt
    now towards going back home because they have got opportunities
    like they never had before.
        But the United States still inspires people. People still,
    I think, would rather live in the United States. We have so
    much going for us that I think we can counter these trends by
    creating and maintaining the opportunities of the type you are
    talking about.
        But the international experiments, the international
    collaborations are here to stay and we are going to have to be
    strategic as to how we advance certain fields. For example, the
    international nuclear fusion experiments that are now being
    done in France instead of the United States.
        I certainly do not know whether that was the right thing to
    do, but it was a way for the United States to keep a hand in a
    kind of energy research that might pay off 30 or 40 years from
    now. Unfortunately, that is what people have been saying for 30
    or 40 years already.
        But it is so expensive that it seemed like the only way the
    United States could stay involved was to cooperate with several
    other countries, the so-called ITER Program, I-T-E-R, in
    France. There are going to be more decisions like that we are
    going to have to face. Can we go it alone or do we have to
    throw in with someone else and can we do some of them here
    instead of having them all going on overseas?
        Those are the questions we are looking at now, especially
    in the physical sciences.
        Mr. Mollohan. We will follow-up.
        Mr. Honda.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The last 45 minutes are pretty thoughtful and stimulating.
    The idea of having guaranteed funding for the sciences with a
    growth factor, of course, plus asking you to be honest and
    critical of the way we are doing this, I think, has food for
    thought because there is an old Chinese saying, be careful what
    you ask for. But I think that those are thought provoking
    things.
        The other comment you made earlier about India and China
    versus the United States, one of the things I have been telling
    my colleagues and just thinking about it is that when we use
    numbers, round numbers, but we are thinking specifically
    certain kinds of disciplines, we send the wrong message, I
    think.
        And I think what I heard you say was that there are all
    kinds of disciplines in science and technology whether it is in
    India, China, or here and that the system that we have makes a
    big difference in how we grow our youngsters from the different
    countries.
        And I think I heard you say that one of the things that we
    might want to look at is exercising more rigor in our
    instruction at the lower level. Higher education appears to be
    more desirable to imitate and I think that is because we filter
    through our system those that continue to go through our system
    where it encourages creativity and innovation and thinking
    outside the box. And I think that is the attraction that other
    countries when their cream of the crop starts to look at
    ``where can I go.''
        Through this discussion I heard, we might want to think
    about co-signing letters to the Administration about lifting
    some of the administrative barriers that we have on immigration
    so that we can provide this free flow of students and
    professors so that we do not lose out on that because I think
    in the long run, we do lose out. And the attraction of being
    here is still very strong.
        So we have some non-issues as far as this Committee is
    concerned, but I think there are some activities that we should
    be engaged in.
        On the issues around NASA and NOAA and NIST and the other
    agencies, they are scattered throughout different departments
    with different funding sources, but they are all integrated and
    necessary to work together so that we have comprehensive
    information.
        And given this atmosphere of wanting to look at stuff now,
    what would you recommend on how we could have NOAA and NASA and
    the other entities work together so that the outcome we will
    have is tools and technology and the knowledge and information
    that will be helpful for us to move forward in providing
    information on innovation, instruction, instructional
    strategies and innovation and having information on how to
    monitor and tell ourselves and give ourselves check points or
    touch points on controlling global warming?
        Mr. Cicerone. Did you say controlling----
        Mr. Honda. Understanding it better, monitor ourselves so
    that we can say, you know, we are off on this area and we need
    to pull in because my sense is that we have these ideas about
    combating global warming with talking about carbon
    sequestration, but, you know, I am not sure whether we are
    thinking about also how do we monitor that, how do we quantify
    it and allocate that to certain countries or activities.
        Mr. Cicerone. That particular task that you mention we have
    not given enough thought to yet and here we are on the verge of
    international agreements without probably a strategy for how we
    are going to monitor the agreements. That has to be done
    quickly. It is actually something we are working on behind the
    scenes now.
        But coordinating across these agencies, I remember some
    outstanding examples from the mid 1980s where the administrator
    of NASA, the administrator of NOAA and the director of NSF
    worked together, actually went to the Office of Management and
    Budget and suggested that their budgets be co-examined along
    the lines of what was called the United States Global Change
    Research Program.
        By starting at the very highest levels and by seeking co-
    examination of their budget packages, they sent a message to
    everybody that they were working together. And some of the
    things that flowed from that were to the benefit of everybody,
    including keeping the budget cost down.
        For example, instead of developing new satellite sensors,
    NOAA depended on NASA with the high tech capabilities in the
    NASA centers and NASA scientists and engineers to develop new
    concepts for and new packages for satellite instruments which
    can be very expensive.
        Now, I do not know whether they coordinated with the NRO or
    not because in those days, the National Reconnaissance Office
    was classified. The fact that it existed was classified. It was
    not very well known.
        But the point is they coordinated so that NASA developed
    the new capabilities and then NOAA used them in an operational
    sense and delivered the data in a very effective way that never
    would have happened if either one of them had worked alone.
        And then NSF was providing a lot of the intellectual raw
    material from universities, people who were working with all of
    those payloads and the mathematical models, the mathematical
    calculations, the data evaluations. And I think the fact that
    they agreed to go through OMB together helped.
        That was one example of how coordination can still happen.
    So getting people like the agency heads together along certain
    lines of national priority can work.
        Mr. Honda. Perhaps that is something that we might want to
    think about in terms of some sort of an administrative policy
    and practice so that these things do happen. We can eliminate
    duplications. We can encourage collaboration and communication
    so that the interagency interactions, there will be less
    friction or barriers in that. You know, we encourage that.
        And I would hope that that is something that we will move
    towards because I do not know that we can afford to be that
    loose with our money since we are really tight.
        Mr. Cicerone. That is right.
        Mr. Honda. But that sounds like a good suggestion.
        Mr. Cicerone. It is also true that we need all kinds. Just
    when you think you've got a perfect organization, somebody
    comes in from left field with a great idea that nobody thought
    of. And that is where NSF comes through again and again and
    again. They do not have these operational responsibilities, but
    they bring people in from all over who just come up with
    fascinating and fabulously important new ideas.
        Mr. Honda. How would you take all this new information that
    comes up so quickly and convert that into instruction for K-12
    or----
        Mr. Cicerone. That is especially hard, especially because
    we do not have this national system like I mentioned earlier.
    So much of our K through 12 education happens in every small
    locality. That is where the federal government can still set
    good examples.
        For example, each of the agencies that Chairman Mollohan
    mentioned, I believe, has its own educational components too.
    NOAA, for example, and NASA have fairly substantial efforts to
    work with K through 12 education around the country. They
    support programs that provide materials based on, for example,
    that wonderful wall hanging here that is actually real results
    from remote sensing instruments.
        These agencies provide educational materials to schools all
    over the country and summer workshops for teachers to enable
    them to work with those materials and, in some cases, some
    summer research opportunities for teachers.
        So the federal agencies can do things like that which in
    turn then seed activities out in school districts all around
    the country using really modern things like that.
        Mr. Honda. Rather than impose on ourselves, then we should
    look at maybe the Department of Education which could take on
    that responsibility of gleaning the information from all the
    other different agencies and making some sense into that and
    providing that from the federal level.
        Mr. Cicerone. My sense is the Department of Education is
    very good at distribution, but it would be perhaps wise to have
    the agencies with the real expertise in content matter provide
    the materials.
        Mr. Honda. And then your discussion on UT, that sounds like
    a good linkage also.
        Mr. Cicerone. I think it is fabulous from what I can see.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Doctor. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
        Mr. Culberson.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I as a Texan can provide the Subcommittee with more
    information on the UTeach Program. It is an innovation of the
    State Legislature I think there and I came out of the Texas
    House, so I will be happy to provide that.
        Mr. Honda. And California has no problem copying Texas.
        Mr. Culberson. What is one of the great things about this
    Subcommittee, Dr. Cicerone, is we are all truly on the same
    wavelength when it comes to the sciences.
        And I would like to volunteer, Mr. Chairman, to, if I
    could, come up with a draft idea on changes to law in the way
    that the recommended budget numbers come to this Committee from
    an independent panel of experts.
        I would like to work something out that we can circulate to
    think about making sure that there is a stable, predictable
    growing funding level for the National Science Foundation into
    the future because it is a real source of concern.
        Dr. Cicerone, I would really like to have your help and
    guidance on that because it is why Congress chartered you guys
    back in 1863 to advise the Congress.
        I once had and in thinking about designing this, if I could
    leave you with some good advice, someone, I think it was
    actually a City Council member once pointed out to me in
    Houston that the City Council makes decisions that will affect
    you next week and next month. The State Legislature makes
    decisions that will affect you next year. And the Congress
    makes decisions that will affect you for the next generation
    and generations to come.
        So in a very real sense, we really have an obligation, this
    Subcommittee, the whole Congress to think about the next 10,
    15, 20 years. We always do, but it is especially important now
    following up on Mr. Wolf's quite accurate point, it is an
    irrefutable fact that we are headed towards a path today that
    if we do not change, we are going to become like Argentina.
        The Comptroller of the United States said that by the year
    2020, the safest investment in the history of the world, U.S.
    treasury bonds, could very well be graded as junk bonds. That
    is just 11 years away.
        And as Mr. Wolf says, we are going to spend every dollar we
    take in by 2030 on the social programs.
        So really this becomes even more important, Mr. Chairman,
    that we find a way to wall off the National Science Foundation,
    National Institutes of Health, NASA, the science functions at
    NASA, NIST in a way that will protect them because they are so
    vital to national security, design them kind of like a castle
    keep, you know, the old medieval castles had several walls for
    defenses. We, I think, ought to think of a statutory way to
    design an innermost castle keep, you know, where we protect.
        The sciences are really one of the most important things we
    can do for future generations. It is a real source of concern
    and I really would like your advice and guidance, the advice of
    your staff.
        And, again, what I am thinking about is to have just a
    recommendation, Mr. Chairman. This Committee should always
    control what happens to the funding, the final amount of
    funding. But it would be wonderful if the recommendation for
    the initial budget number that we work with came from an
    independent panel of scientists and engineers with no political
    agenda that are separate entirely from the Office of Management
    and Budget that make a completely independent recommendation
    about here is where I think you ought to start as an
    Appropriations Committee and here is what needs to happen in
    the future so that it is objective, nonpolitical and stable and
    predictable in the years to come.
        And I would like to volunteer to help design something like
    that with your advice and guidance and something that the
    entire Subcommittee could enthusiastically get behind.
        Mr. Mollohan. Is the gentleman yielding back?
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir. I am done. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. I thank the gentleman for his ideas
    sincerely.
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir. You bet. You know how fired up I
    am about this.
        Mr. Mollohan. I do.
        I hear your testimony, Dr. Cicerone, that science funding,
    one of the goals should be to promote the development of
    scientists, engineers, that it is extremely important. And at
    the same time, it is important also to have the infrastructure
    that is necessary to do science.
        I wonder if as we think about this and we think about that
    and then our funding priorities, are there areas of research
    that we should emphasize one over the other on the basis that
    one area produces people, that the spending in that area goes
    more to developing people, the personnel, people infrastructure
    versus facilities infrastructure, which can be very expensive,
    and what is the balance between the two in your judgment?
        Mr. Cicerone. I do not know of any rigorous study, but I
    would favor producing people. Some of the infrastructure
    projects as important and as essential as they are probably
    have a shorter term benefit than producing people.
        I have heard a few economists talk about this and they
    generally agree that investment in people programs has more of
    a multiplier effect. And given the pipeline issues we have
    going down into the middle schools and high schools, I think
    again focusing on K through 12 education would be wonderful
    every time we got a chance.
        But it is surprising how sophisticated some of the children
    are. They are interested in cutting-edge issues and how you go
    about answering questions that we do not have to talk down to
    them very much.
        We have done a few things over the years that have helped.
    They are called decadal surveys of entire fields. One of the
    success stories is in the field of astronomy.
        For the past 40 or 50 years, the astronomers have gotten
    together every 10 or 12 years and it turns out they really go
    at each other and then they will produce a report on what is
    needed in the way of facilities and instruments. And they will
    methodically go down through the list and over a period of
    years get the high priority ones to be funded by working
    together and by demonstrating how important they are.
        We did a report three years ago on earth observations that
    was a landmark. It tried to bring together all the cats and
    dogs and the incomparable instruments and all the different
    things they were looking at and put some order to it. And they
    came up with several tiers of priorities. This is what is
    needed first. This is what is needed second. This is what is
    needed third and a time table.
        So to try to do that across fields and to therefore get
    back to your point of how you compare this kind of
    infrastructure investment instead of just providing broader
    support that is not so focused, we would have to go about it
    pretty methodically, I think.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, off the top of your head or for the
    record, given your answer that our funding should always take
    into consideration the impact on developing the personnel
    infrastructure, what are the essential facilities investments
    that we must make at the same time? Would you be more
    comfortable submitting that for the record or----
        [The information follows:]

        The National Academy of Sciences has looked at your question in
    various ways over the years. In some cases, we have examined a specific
    field, such as astronomy, to design a roadmap of investment over the
    next decade across a range of needs--human resources, new
    observatories, and the balance between U.S.-based facilities and those
    overseas. There is no simple formula, and indeed, we have revisited
    astronomy with some frequency to modify the plan to meet changing
    realities.
        Looking across the board at approaches to designing roadmaps for
    investments in infrastructure and personnel, we have conducted a number
    of studies that consistently emphasize a balanced set of criteria in
    both realms. For instance, in a 2004 study for NSF, Setting Priorities
    for Large Research Facility Projects supported by the National Science
    Foundation, two of the key criteria are ``which projects produce the
    greatest benefits in numbers of researchers, educators and students
    enabled?'' and ``which projects have the greatest potential for
    education and workforce development?'' In effect, it is essential that
    the criteria for investment in either equipment or training include the
    role of and impact on both. Likewise, in our 2006 report for NSF,
    Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities, the committee noted
    that ``instrumentation is a major pacing factor for research; the
    productivity of researchers is only as great as the tools they have
    available to observe, measure, and make sense of nature.'' After
    examining the approaches taken by all federal research-funding agencies
    to evaluating proposals for instrumentation, and finding them
    inconsistent and lacking in rigor, the committee recommended that
    ``each federal research agency should re-evaluate the appropriate
    balance between instrumentation and research grant, and, within
    instrumentation programs, the appropriate balance between small-,
    medium-, and large-scale instrumentation and facilities.'' The
    committee concluded that such a balance would vary by agency and by
    program field within each agency.
        Short of a field-by-field examination of the relative needs in each
    field, we could obtain quick estimates by asking NSF and other agencies
    for a tally of how many unfunded proposals, for example for equipment
    and facilities, have accumulated in each field, proposals which were
    rated highly but could not be funded in the last several years. This
    tally could present how much immediate investment could be absorbed
    easily and quickly. In reality, the demand is much higher because in
    some fields, there has been no competitive program to which
    investigators (at universities or elsewhere) could submit requests.

        Mr. Cicerone. I would. I think science has become so
    specialized that we really have to listen to experts from each
    field and then see what they have in common and see whether,
    for example, a regional facility which could serve, for
    example, one part of the country as opposed to being just in
    one person's back yard would work.
        And the only way to get there is by having people who
    understand each of the related fields saying, okay, we could
    share this facility. This one has to be tuned up in just such a
    way that it cannot be shared and that kind of tradeoff that has
    to be looked at to see how all the fields will develop.
        Mr. Mollohan. And certainly another aspect of that question
    is, how is that taken into consideration as we look at
    international cooperation?
        Mr. Cicerone. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. And perhaps you could discuss that in----
        Mr. Cicerone. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Your submission.
        Mr. Cicerone. I would be glad to try.
        [The information follows:]

        International sharing of costs and access to large facilities--
    there are some notable successes such as high-energy physics
    experimental facilities and astronomy observatories. I do not know of
    well accepted ways of deciding how much to use this method to support
    science but cases have been made that have led to international sharing
    of costs and benefits, mostly in the physical sciences. Hallmarks seem
    to be very high cost items whose benefits can be shared without
    diluting them too much; for example, by making observatories available
    to many scientists without reducing individual time shares to less than
    absolutely required for the goal at hand. From the point of view of
    science, however, we would not like to see valuable funds diverted to
    projects whose main virtue is encouraging international exchanges
    without scientific benefit--there should be high value to science.
    Inside the United States, some facilities have been created that can be
    shared in geographical regions so that students and investigators can
    use front line equipment without traveling abroad or even across the
    entire country.

        Mr. Mollohan. All right. Education, you notice every member
    of the Subcommittee just jumps right on it and it is in part at
    least because, and certainly so far as I am concerned, it is
    such a huge issue in our districts, certainly with regard to
    math and science and technology education. But it is a big
    issue for English and history and sociology and civics teaching
    as well.
        But looking at the STEM subjects for a moment, we are
    really yearning for the answer. And I am sure the folks that
    testify before the Committee are anxious to give us the answer.
        You are not responsible for K through 12 secondary
    education obviously. At the same time, your thoughts about its
    importance are extremely motivating to us to try to see how we
    can impact that in a positive way through your expertise,
    through NASA, as you point out, NASA is being very active in
    that, and through any other of the science accounts under our
    jurisdiction.
        But it seems to me there are two sides to this problem.
    When folks come up and testify that we are behind, sometimes I
    think that part of that testimony is to motivate us to spend
    more money in science generally. And certainly that is true
    because it is a part of any program you put forward or you
    initiate.
        But there are two pieces. Number one is the product that is
    produced in K through 12 and delivered to the universities and/
    or matriculates to the universities and then hopefully into
    graduate and postgraduates and docs and post-docs and all of
    that.
        Producing a sufficient pool of students or maximizing those
    who have a capability to aspire to graduate study in science,
    majoring in science at universities, producing that, finding
    those is one issue. How do you do that?
        And there is a lot of looking at how that happens, but
    there is very little of coming back and saying, okay, we have
    prototyped this and this is what really has to happen from
    kindergarten through post-doc to maximize the talent that
    exists in the United States.
        And it seems to me based on your testimony and everybody
    else's that that is increasingly important as other countries
    provide opportunities for their students who we have relied
    upon as you have testified.
        So while it has always been important, it is increasingly
    more important. And so I guess how do we maximize it? You are
    not the Department of Education, but you certainly have an
    interest in it.
        And Mr. Wolf asked questions about, you know, at what age
    are youngsters naturally interested in science and then when do
    they drop off and then you lose them forever.
        Those questions are very important for us to answer here on
    the Committee and also, I think, in the Education Committee.
        You have all kinds of reports that, well, scientists should
    teach science. Well, that probably works in the Washington
    area. It probably works around, I do not know, Princeton
    University. It does not work so well in a number of counties in
    my congressional district, probably about 20 out of the 21,
    because they are not there. That may be overstated.
        So it seems that we have to teach the teachers to know
    science and know mathematics when they go into the field. But
    it would be very helpful if we looked at that at your level.
        What does the educational system have to do in order to
    achieve this finding, identifying, mining, if you will, the
    minds that are able or capable and inclined to go into the
    higher sciences? You know, what does need to be there? Does the
    teacher who is coming out of the schools of education need also
    to have a major in biology if they are going to teach biology
    or biology and chemistry? What is needed?
        And so you can just tell the education departments' deans
    that if you are going to really get to kindergarten through
    twelfth grade, then the teachers who go there, not only do they
    have to be able to teach, but we cannot assume that because
    they have a teaching degree and they know how to teach that
    they can teach other things.
        So, look, it is a no-nonsense thing. You have to know
    chemistry if you are going to teach chemistry. So if you are
    graduating students who are interested in teaching the
    sciences, then these students have to have a science degree of
    some sort.
        That definitiveness, this is what is needed, would seem to
    me to be critical and maybe it is out there. I mean, maybe. I
    really do not know that. But I would just like your comments on
    that rambling.
        Mr. Cicerone. Well, I think you are on to something.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thinking.
        Mr. Cicerone. A lot of evidence shows that great teachers
    can teach almost any subject to children up to a certain age.
    There is argument about what that age is, but let us call it
    maybe fourth or fifth or sixth grade. But beyond that time, to
    be able to teach all the specialized subject, the teacher needs
    some specialized background himself or herself. That is kind of
    what you were getting at.
        And then most of the other evidence shows that the quality
    of the teacher is the biggest single thing that goes into
    success in school. Of course, the parental involvement probably
    still dominates. We just do not know how to measure that.
        Okay. So if you want to focus on teachers who have some
    specialization themselves or some content basis, the problem
    immediately arises that they have other job opportunities. So
    how can we attract them into teaching? How can we retain them?
    How can we give them a network of people who they can work
    with, where they can get extra materials, how they can stay up
    to date, how they can have summer research opportunities in
    companies and so forth?
        And those are the kinds of local actions that are taking
    place around the country, some of them very successful where
    there will be a group of citizens or a corporation that decides
    to basically see to it that teachers with those qualities are
    encouraged to stay for more than two or three years in
    teaching, that they are given, for example, extra summer
    employment and extra help.
        And unfortunately, because of our system in the United
    States, it is a patchwork, but there are hundreds and hundreds
    of good programs out there and some of them going off in
    special directions like, for example, computer-assisted
    instruction where there are now gifted, dedicated people
    developing kinds of software to teach children mathematics
    which will allow students to go off in all kinds of different
    directions using the same software, proceeding at their own
    pace and then providing feedback to the teachers to say did you
    know that your student X who is using this software is off
    doing that now.
        I have seen some fabulous developments recently. So we have
    got a thousand flowers blooming and it does not seem like we
    have any way to capture it all and to distill it and to take
    the best practice from here over to here. We have this
    patchwork that is hard to deal with.
        But lots of good things are happening out there to the
    benefit of thousands and thousands of students, but we look
    around and see other places where it is not happening at and it
    is very frustrating.
        [The information follows:]

        The major (or only) experience of which I am aware of a large
    increase in scientific funding which led later to discouragement
    amongst scientists is that of NIH in the last several years. Something
    similar might have happened immediately after Sputnik but I am not
    sure.
        At NIH, between the years 1998 and 2003, research funding was
    doubled so that biomedical investigators from American universities met
    with more success in competitions for NIH funds. A higher fraction of
    proposals succeeded and typical grant sizes increased. More
    investigators were encouraged to submit proposals to NIH. In addition,
    some of the awards were granted for longer periods of time, and
    simultaneously, NIH was given more tasks by the federal government.
    Consequently, after a relatively short time, little flexibility was
    left and both new and continuing investigators began to experience
    higher rejection rates. The current situation has discouraged many
    investigators and has probably led some young people to avoid entering
    biomedical fields. It might have been avoided if more attention had
    been paid to the demography of investigators and the duration, size and
    numbers of awards to them, and if funding to NIH and other roles for
    NIH had been more predictable, or if funding increases had continued.
        I am sure that NIH leaders can provide more detailed analysis.

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
        Would you for the record, if you feel comfortable doing
    this and it certainly would be helpful for the Committee, as we
    look at this increased funding for science and the accounts in
    our jurisdiction, we very much want to reach the balance point.
    We do not want to create a baseline and a commitment to a
    percentage increase that we cannot sustain.
        You alluded to the fact that NIH perhaps could not sustain
    the increases over a certain period of time. Could you for the
    record comment on that question and give us the guidance that
    you feel you are capable or able to do or comfortable doing
    with regard to the accounts that we have jurisdiction of. And
    if you would like to comment on that, I would invite you to do
    that.
        Mr. Cicerone. Just real quickly. I do not have enough of
    the numbers in my head. But where I would start would be to see
    where the backlog is of all the really valid and critically
    evaluated proposals that have come into these agencies and see
    where we stand after this stimulus spending and how to move
    into the future and then what the age distribution of those
    successful investigators is.
        Are we dealing with a lot of people who are just starting,
    who will presumably want to continue after three or four years?
    Are we dealing with a fraction of people who are at the end of
    their careers, to try to look at the demography of it? And it
    is hard to know exactly what number to say without going into
    those dynamics.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Wolf.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been a
    good hearing.
        And I know the Chairman knows this one Committee. We have a
    rural county in my district, Clark County, unbelievable school
    system, if you look at the U.S. News or World Report, and I
    think a lot of times, personnel is policy. They have had great
    leadership and, you know, they are doing terrific,
    unbelievably. You might just take a look at Clark County and
    look at the scores and look how they are rated.
        I wonder, and you do not have to answer this or if you want
    to, I would love to get you, I wonder if we could be losing the
    American work ethic to a certain degree.
        This past summer, you know, at the beach and the summer
    before down in Nags Head and one time in New Jersey, every
    young person working on the beach or working in the arcades or
    working, they were from Bulgaria, they were from Romania, they
    were from Russia. Well, gee, that is what I did and I worked
    construction for McClusky Construction. I did all these summer
    jobs.
        Now, I would like to hear maybe the kids are all at summer
    camp, at science summer camp working. And so if they are, then
    I am glad the Bulgarians are working. But if they are not, and
    it really troubles me.
        I had an experience. I was down at Nags Head and it was
    just when the Russians had invaded Soviet Georgia. And there
    was a big article there about Yeltsin, not Yeltsin, Putin, and
    there were two Russian young ladies there. And I said Putin and
    they made a comment pretty negative about Putin.
        But here everyone was from an eastern European foreign
    country hungry, doing good work. They were hungry because they
    wanted to earn. And I wonder if there has been some diminution
    of the work ethic in the country. If you have any thoughts on
    that.
        Mr. Cicerone. You and I should compare stories about where
    we have worked in our lives. I would love to do that.
        No. It is serious. It really is a question, can we change
    our behavior by looking at things rationally and seeing what is
    coming or does it take a crisis to change our behavior because
    I think there is some truth to what you just said.
        We have had it pretty easy here for a long time.
        Mr. Wolf. Yeah. Well, I thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, we are certainly facing a crisis.
        Mr. Cicerone. There is the opportunity.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Maybe that is the opportunity.
        Dr. Cicerone, thank you very much for your testimony and
    your good work. I know the Subcommittee has appreciated it. And
    as Mr. Wolf expressed, I think it has been an excellent hearing
    principally due to your fine testimony.
        Thank you for appearing before us today. And there will be
    a few questions submitted for the record which we will submit
    to you after the hearing, if you would be kind enough to
    consider answering them and be responsive to some of the
    requests during the hearing.
        Thank you very much to you and your fine organization for
    being here today and the good work you do every day.
        Mr. Cicerone. Thank you.
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.014

                                                Tuesday, March 3, 2009.

          THE PLACE OF NASA AND NSF IN THE OVERALL SCIENCE ENTERPRISE

                                   WITNESSES

    LENNARD FISK, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, FORMER NASA ASSOCIATE
        ADMINISTRATOR FOR SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS
    SAMUEL M. RANKIN, III, ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
        MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY

                     Opening Statement by Chairman Mollohan

        Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order. Good
    afternoon, Dr. Fisk and Dr. Rankin. And Dr. Rankin, as the only
    mathematician appearing before us today, or even the rest of
    the week, Happy Square Root Day.
        Mr. Rankin. The first time I have heard of it.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, it was not too long ago it was the
    first time I heard of it. And I understand if we do not
    celebrate today then we have to wait until April 4, 2016. So
    how are you going to celebrate?
        Mr. Rankin. I have not thought that far.
        Mr. Mollohan. Stumped you on the first question. Well,
    welcome to the hearing. This morning we received an overview of
    science in the United States. This afternoon we will examine
    the role of two research agencies under our jurisdiction, NASA
    and NSF.
        Following the issuance of the report, Rising Above the
    Gathering Storm, there has been a bipartisan effort to double
    the fiscal year 2006 funding of NSF, along with NIST, and the
    Department of Energy Office of Science over ten years. The
    stimulus funding provided in the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act of 2009 increased fiscal year 2009 funding for
    NSF by roughly 50 percent, while providing a roughly 8 percent
    boost to NASA science.
        Looking forward, it is important for this Subcommittee to
    understand the relative roles and status of the different
    research agencies, and we look forward to learning more from
    Dr. Fisk about NASA and from Dr. Rankin about NSF. Gentlemen,
    your statements respectively will be made a part of the record.
    And before asking you to testify I would like to call upon our
    Ranking Member Mr. Wolf.
        Mr. Wolf. No questions.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay, thank you. Gentlemen, if you will
    proceed? Dr. Fisk, will you go first?
        Mr. Fisk. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of
    the Subcommittee. Thank you very much for inviting me here
    today. For the record I am Lennard Fisk. I am the Thomas M.
    Donahue Distinguished University Professor of Space Science at
    the University of Michigan. And I also served from 1987 to 1993
    as the NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science and
    Application, and until last July as the Chair of the National
    Research Council Space Studies Board.
        There have been, as you noted in your opening remarks,
    there have been several legislative initiatives that recently
    have treated science in NASA as less important to the nation
    than other scientific pursuits. The highly acclaimed National
    Research Council report Rising Above the Gathering Storm, which
    called for substantial investments in the physical sciences,
    was effectively silent on NASA. The legislative initiatives
    that followed from this report, for example the America
    Competes Act, did not focus on NASA science. And recently, the
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was
    appropriately supportive of the National Science Foundation and
    the DOE Office of Science, and yet in NASA the only science
    discipline that received substantial funding was earth science.
    And then it provided only partial recovery from the disastrous
    decline in funding that had occurred in the previous decade.
        Now, as a practicing space scientist, and someone who
    throughout much of my career has been concerned with science
    policy, I can find no logic in the judgment that NASA science
    is of less importance than other scientific disciplines. And in
    my written testimony I have discussed the impact each of the
    disciplines of NASA science has had on society, and most
    important on our nation's future. These arguments can be
    repeated for many different science disciplines, and they are
    no less compelling for NASA science.
        Now, NASA science asks and is attempting to answer the most
    fundamental human questions. What is our place in the cosmos?
    Are we alone? NASA science is revealing the wonders of our own
    solar system and the resources it may hold for us. NASA science
    is attempting to understand the controlling body of our solar
    system, the sun, and the space environment through which we fly
    our satellites and send our human explorers. NASA science is
    attempting to make it possible for humans to live and work in
    space. And NASA science is attempting to answer the single most
    important question of our age. What is the future of the
    climate of the earth? And what are we as humans doing to it?
        We need to recognize that space has become part of the
    underlying infrastructure of our civilization. We have weather
    satellites. We communicate through satellites. Particularly the
    visual images of television that bring to each of us an
    awareness unprecedented in human history of what is happening
    everywhere in the world at all times. We have global
    positioning satellites which help us fly our airplanes and find
    our way in automobiles. We have remote sensing satellites that
    provide high resolution images from around the world. All this
    is simply part of the basic infrastructure of our civilization.
    We do not particularly marvel that it is available. We assume
    it will be and we think no further about it.
        Indeed, when we consider the impact of space on our society
    we have to look no further than the global interconnections
    that have flourished in the last few decades. We live in a
    global economy. Corporations are multinational. Manufacturing
    and trade are worldwide. Countries that in previous generations
    might have been suspicious enemies are now dependent upon each
    other for resources and for marketplaces for their manufactured
    goods. This has had a very real, stabilizing effect on world
    peace because detailed knowledge of what is happening
    everywhere in the world reduces fear and makes possible the
    full engagement among societies.
        We need to recognize that space is an integral part of our
    foreign policy. Our activities in space have profound impact on
    the image of our nation and provide extraordinary opportunities
    for us to be strategic leaders in a world that is increasingly
    judging space to be important.
        The peoples of the world are increasingly dependent upon
    space for their basic activities in their everyday lives. There
    are space races developing in Asia. And every nation that
    wishes to gain respect as an important player on the world
    stage has concluded that they need to acquire a recognized
    space capability.
        The United States has an opportunity to be a strategic
    leader in this worldwide effort to become a true space faring
    civilization and provided that we lead not by dominance but
    rather by example, and in cooperation we will realize our
    destiny as a great nation capable of making the world better
    for all the world's peoples.
        At the foundation of our space activities is science in
    NASA. Science often provides the initial reason why we explore
    a new region of space, or even a new region of the
    electromagnetic spectrum. The technology developed for space,
    for scientific exploration, enhances our other space activities
    and finds its way into our economy. The youth of our nation are
    inspired by the brilliance of our scientific achievements in
    space and encouraged to pursue careers in science and
    engineering.
        The people of the world ask the same fundamental questions
    that we do about our place in the cosmos. They expect the
    United States as a great nation to use its capability in space
    to enlighten. The people of the world are frightened by the
    pending changes in our climate and they expect the United
    States as a strategic leader to ensure that we create the
    capabilities in space to observe and to understand our changing
    climate.
        We invest in scientific research because it provides a
    foundation of knowledge on which we depend to advance our
    civilization. We invest in space because it is essential to the
    future of our nation, for the stewardship of our planet, and
    for the growth of our economy, and for our position as a world
    leader. It follows very simply, then, that the science of
    space, which is space and earth science in NASA, is as
    important to our nation's future as is any other scientific
    discipline.
        I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.
        [Written statement by Lennard A. Fisk follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.021

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Dr. Fisk. Dr. Rankin.
        Mr. Rankin. Thank you, Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member
    Wolf, and Committee members. I thought what I would try to do
    is give a little bit of an idea of what I think is the culture
    of the interaction between NSF and the scientific community.
        The National Science Foundation is the only federal agency
    that supports basic research across all fields in engineering,
    and all levels of science and engineering education. Although
    the agency's annual budget represents only 4 percent of federal
    R and D, it provides nearly half the support for non-medical
    basic research at colleges and universities. The main source of
    federal support for basic research at colleges and universities
    in the fields of mathematics, social sciences, non-medical
    biology, and computer science, comes from the NSF, as well as
    over 40 percent of support in the physical sciences,
    engineering, and the environmental sciences. Through the
    Directorate of Education and Human Resources the NSF supports
    activities that ensure a diverse, competitive, and globally
    engaged science, technology, engineering, and mathematics work
    force.
        An interesting number here is that the NSF invests over 90
    percent of its budget directly to support research at colleges
    and universities, in all fifty states. This support reaches
    over 2,000 institutions and nearly 200,000 researchers, post-
    doctoral fellows, trainees, teachers, and students every year.
    NSF receives well over 40,000 grant proposals each year, making
    over 11,000 awards, mostly to individual investigators at
    colleges and universities and other public and private
    institutions. Through its merit review process NSF identifies
    the best ideas and the people to develop these ideas, who
    through their work advance the frontiers of knowledge in
    science and engineering.
        There are six Research Directorates and one Education
    Directorate. Most of the funds for research are allocated to
    investigators through these directorates. Research proposals
    are received as a response to solicitations issued by
    disciplinary divisions within these directorates and NSF
    offices (few offices also distribute funds), or an individual
    investigator can submit an unsolicited proposal. In either
    case, the proposal goes through a merit review process which
    assesses the intellectual merit of the proposed project and the
    broader impacts of the project.
        It is through the directorates that the science and
    engineering disciplinary communities have most of their
    interaction with NSF. In fact, over 45,000 scientists and
    engineers serve on merit review panels or as proposal reviewers
    each year, and therefore have direct impact in setting
    standards for research. NSF also derives input from
    disciplinary communities through directorate and advisory
    committees, and committees of visitors. Advisory committees
    provide advice on program management and performance as well as
    input on the impacts of policies, programs and activities in
    the disciplines that are funded through the directorate.
    Committees of visitors provide input on the quality and
    integrity of program operations and program level technical and
    managerial matters pertaining to proposal decisions, and
    comments on how the outputs and outcomes generated by awardees
    have contributed to the attainment of NSF's mission and
    strategic outcome goals.
        This characteristic of continuing interaction with the
    science and engineering disciplinary communities allows NSF to
    keep abreast of research in disciplinary fields, understand the
    needs of the scientific community, and be responsive to it.
    Conversely, the science and engineering disciplinary
    communities believe that they are an integral part of the
    process in helping move U.S. research and innovation forward.
    This includes those investigators making transformational
    discoveries to those scientists and engineers establishing the
    needed infrastructure that makes scientific discovery possible.
        Community involvement has served the NSF well over the
    years, as research supported by the NSF has had a tremendous
    impact. Many new products, procedures, and methods have accrued
    from NSF investments in basic research, research performed over
    many years and not always predetermined toward a specific
    application. Society, unaware for the most part of how basic
    research impacts daily life, enjoys many benefits from NSF
    investments. These benefits include products such as Google,
    the favorite internet search engine; magnetic resonance
    imaging, MRI, used widely to detect cancer and internal tissue
    damage; geographic information systems, used by businesses,
    police departments, governments and others to respond to
    natural disasters, reduce crime, provide better services to
    customers; and many others.
        The NSF investments have enabled the U.S. to build a
    scientific infrastructure second to none, facilitated
    revolutionary research that pushes the frontiers of knowledge,
    and laid the groundwork for innovation that has been important
    to the U.S. economy and a high quality of life. Thank you.
        [Written statement by Samuel M. Rankin III follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.024

                              THE GATHERING STORM

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Dr. Rankin. Dr. Fisk, this morning
    we had testimony from Dr. Cicerone that indicated quite
    positively that NASA science was a science of equal quality of
    any of the sciences that are included in the competitiveness
    agenda, or that were recommended in The Gathering Storm Report.
    He indicated with not much other explanation that the reason
    for NASA being left out was that the Report was developed
    quickly. There has been a bipartisan effort to double the
    funding for NSF, NIST, and the DOE Office of Science. Should
    NASA science receive commensurate increases?
        Mr. Fisk. Yes. It would be good to do that. And I think you
    should always treat NASA science in the context of the space
    program as a whole, too. I mean, we should not lose sight of
    the fact that science is the foundation on which the Space
    Program is built. And so we also have to recognize the lack of
    adequate funding that the Space Program has received at the
    same time. You remember that on many occasions, and when I
    testified to this Committee earlier, when I was on the Space
    Studies Board we kept pointing out that NASA is asked to do too
    much with too little. And so there is a correction to the Space
    Program that is required. But in terms of the science that is
    in NASA, it is as important, and if we judge as a nation that
    we are to increase the scientific investments that we make,
    which is very much in our nation's future, then NASA science
    deserves to be there with everyone else. We can argue whether
    it is a factor of two or a factor of whatever you like, but the
    increases are required. Because we cannot, we are not
    accomplishing today what we could accomplish in the NASA
    science program.
        Mr. Mollohan. And as you allude, that should not be a zero
    sum game within NASA funding. NASA funding overall would be----
        Mr. Fisk. That is correct. I think it is important that it
    is not a zero sum game within NASA or within the NASA science
    disciplines. I mean, it is not a matter that you take from one
    and give to another. It is a matter of recognizing the
    importance of this scientific activity to the nation and
    supporting it in such a way that it contributes what it needs
    to contribute to the national endeavor.
        Mr. Mollohan. NASA science includes a wide range of science
    disciplines, including Earth science, astrophysics, planetary
    science, solar terrestrial physics, microgravity, and life
    sciences, as well as astronaut health. As you look at the
    current funding for NASA, are these different fields in
    relative balance? And if NASA science receives increases,
    should the disciplines receive them in the ratios as they are
    funded today?
        Mr. Fisk. No, I do not think so. Let me give you a fairly
    complicated answer to that, if you give me just a moment to
    talk about it.
        Let us take planetary, astrophysics, solar terrestrial
    physics. They had planned their programs on a larger amount of
    money than they are now receiving. I mean, they were in the
    past, in the nineties and others, tracking the growth in non-
    defense discretionary spending. And then that was curtailed
    when NASA was forced to make decisions about keeping the
    Shuttle flying, and building the rocket to go to the moon
    within their limited budget. But there is an opportunity to do
    so much more and important things in those programs.
        The other two programs that you mentioned, Earth science
    and life science and microgravity. Those programs have suffered
    far more disproportionately compared to the other science
    disciplines over that same time interval. In the case of Earth
    science, let us sort of review the bidding there. In the late
    eighties, early nineties, NASA embarked on a major program in
    Earth science--the Earth Observing System, Mission to Planet
    Earth, to really provide a comprehensive set of satellite
    observations of what the future of the planet would be, to make
    policy decisions on. In the mid nineties, a decision was made
    to curtail that program within NASA and transfer the main
    observing of Earth to NOAA and the NPOESS. And NPOESS, as you
    know, has been a major national embarrassment, a disaster. It
    is overbudget and it is not performing according to spec. And
    the climate measurements are hanging on by a thread, there.
        And then at the same time, the Earth science program,
    starting in about 2000 within NASA began a serious decline to
    where as it is now essentially a $500 million per year short of
    what it was even in 2000, within the NASA budget. So you now
    have an Earth science program for the country and a climate
    monitoring system for the country which is inadequate to meet
    the national need to understand the climate and what we are
    doing to it. We are dependent upon three aging satellites that
    were left over from the original Earth Observing System. They
    are still operating, but they are well beyond their design
    life. And there are very few other research missions that are
    underway. So that is a program that has suffered
    disproportionately separate from the space science.
        In the case of life science, in many ways it is an even
    more egregious case. We refer to the life science and
    microgravity science within NASA as NASA committed scientific
    genocide. It essentially destroyed a community that it was
    planning to use, in microgravity in particular and life science
    to a lesser extent. We are not really planning to use the space
    station and that was the community for the U.S. activities. And
    that community was dependent on the space station that, and the
    grants program, and the research program that went with it. And
    so that is a community and a program that has suffered even
    more strongly than Earth science.
        So if I rank these things, astrophysics, solar terrestrial
    physics, planetary, they need support. They need to grow. There
    are many, there are things that they need to do, they are
    planning to do. They need to be put back on a slope that they
    were on, which was the basis for the program that they were
    anticipating. In the case of Earth science, we have a national
    need to restore that program so we get what we need. In the
    case of life science and microgravity it is a decision we
    should make as a country as to whether or not we really are
    anticipating long duration human space flight, in which case we
    had better do the basic research necessary to do so.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, doctor. Dr. Rankin, following the
    Rising Above the Gathering Storm Report there has been a
    bipartisan effort to double the budgets of NSF, NIST, and DOE
    Office of Science. What effect is this having on NSF programs,
    and what are your expectations for the impact of the $3 billion
    provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act?
        Mr. Rankin. Well when these bills, like the American
    Competes Act were first passed, I think everyone was very
    excited about the statement that NSF funding should be doubled
    over the next ten years. However, a lot of us remembered that
    we also had a doubling bill in, I think, fiscal year 2002 that
    was supposed to double NSF's budget from 2003 to 2007. And I do
    not think we ever even started. So in the last few years we
    actually have not gotten, even though things looked good up to
    the final game, in the end much of the increase that we were
    anticipating along the way. So we have not had a chance to
    actually think about how it would be if we doubled the budget
    until now when we have received this $3 billion all of a
    sudden.
        I know one thing that the money, the $3 billion input into
    NSF, has done, is certainly build up the excitement and the
    morale, not only in the scientific community but actually, I
    think, at NSF as well. I think it will be an effort for the NSF
    to get this money out the door but I believe they can. I think
    most of the pressure will be more at the administrative end of
    getting the grants out the door than actually the program
    officers deciding who gets the grants. Because giving grants is
    a positive action rather than a negative one. When you are
    turning someone down it is a lot harder to turn someone down
    than it is to actually give a grant.
        So given that they have all this money I think there will
    be a lot of new people coming into the pipeline, which will be
    good. I think there will be a number of young people that will
    be able to enter the grant pipeline through this funding that
    previously were doing good enough research but because of the
    funding levels were not supported.
        So I believe overall this is going to be very, very
    important for science funded by the NSF and the scientific
    community. I believe a lot of good research will come out of
    this. My only concern about all this is what happens when this
    money goes away in the next few years? Will we be able to fund
    these folks that are in the pipeline, will we be able to fund
    them continually if they are doing good enough research?
        Mr. Mollohan. I am sure members want to know more about
    that, and will follow up in other questioning. Mr. Wolf?
        Mr. Wolf. If we had given science all the money we gave
    AIG, can you imagine how they would be doing? Is there anyone
    who is mentioned to be head of NASA? Are there any names
    circulating that you are hearing?
        Mr. Fisk. All I know I read on NASA Watch or something like
    that. No, it is, I mean there are a number of newspaper
    stories. But I have no data on.

                               NASA ADMINISTRATOR

        Mr. Wolf. Does it hurt NASA? The fact that there is not an
    administrator ready to come up.
        Mr. Fisk. I think it does. I mean, we are all very excited
    about the major policy shifts that are happening in our country
    at the moment. There are certainly many things going on at the
    moment. And NASA needs to be at the table when these decisions
    are being made, and when, frankly, when the money is being
    passed out.
        Mr. Wolf. Right.
        Mr. Fisk. And the person who is running NASA at the moment,
    the Acting Administrator, is a very capable person, it is Chris
    Scolese. But he is not the Administrator, and that is not the
    same.
        Mr. Wolf. How serious is the competition from China? And we
    had asked the question earlier in the day, would it make an
    impact if China beat us back to the moon? And what are the
    ramifications with regard to China and space, and their
    military use of lasers?
        Mr. Fisk. In the case of China, I mean, I think what we
    should avoid, let me put it this way. Let us not repeat the
    Cold War and have some sort of a race to someplace we have
    already been. I do think there must be an opportunity here. We
    live in a globalized world that most, so many things are
    manufactured in China that we buy, and so on.
        Mr. Wolf. Too many.
        Mr. Fisk. So it is a very different world than we used to
    live in. And somewhere within that globalized world there must
    be an opportunity for the United States to be a strategic
    leader in all of space activities, and to somehow include other
    nations, other space faring nations in the activities in such a
    way that all of us benefit, and it is not a Cold War, zero sum,
    we win, you lose sort of activity. That would be my preference,
    if we could do that.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, that may be a little difficult with China.
        Mr. Fisk. It may.
        Mr. Wolf. Yes.
        Mr. Fisk. It may.
        Mr. Wolf. Without getting into the reasons. But I mean, a
    lot of China's technology they now have because they spied on
    us and so it is different with other countries. But what are
    the concerns with regard to the funding, or the decrease of
    funding, with regard to aeronautics? It seems to me that we are
    falling behind, or are we falling behind? And what has the
    impact been on the failure to fund aeronautics to the degree
    that many think it should be funded, with regard to NASA. What
    does that mean with regard to jobs, technology, keeping ahead,
    America?
        Mr. Fisk. You know, like any good university professor I
    will answer a question on any subject, including ones I do not
    know that much about. But let us----
        Mr. Wolf. Well aeronautics, I mean, NASA is, that is the
    word. It is not just, that is pretty important.
        Mr. Fisk. Well I am just, I am trying.
        Mr. Wolf. Unless we are going to shut down the Jet
    Propulsion Laboratory out in Pasadena and doing some of those
    things. Aeronautics is really important for the nation, and
    important for jobs and everything else.
        Mr. Fisk. Yes, I am going to get there. But here is what
    has happened in the space agency over the last decade or so, or
    eight years or so. You, NASA, was directed to go build a rocket
    to go back to the moon and was not ever given the money
    necessary to do that. And so you have within the budget all of
    these sacrifices that were made. Somebody made a decision. You
    can argue whether it was the right decision or not. But the
    consequence as, as we mentioned, life science and microgravity,
    gone. Or really, reduced. Aeronautics, a fraction of what it
    was when the vision was first announced. I mean, back in 2004,
    2005. And there are consequences for those kinds of budget
    cuts. You do not do the things that the agency was charged to
    do, which is to help with the research necessary to have a
    competitive aeronautics industry in the United States. That was
    its job. And you cannot do it at one-quarter of the budget,
    which is basically where the budget for aeronautics went from
    back in the early part of 2000 or so to where it is now.
        Now I think everyone was delighted who cares about the
    aeronautics program within NASA that it was included in the
    stimulus bill. And it is my recollection it was a $150 million
    increase in aeronautics, which in effect doubles the research
    budget of the aeronautics program of NASA. It is a huge impact.
    It will be a very similar question to the NSF question. Was
    that a blip? Or is that a reset? If it is a reset, then there
    is an opportunity to bring the aeronautics program back to what
    it should be.
        Mr. Wolf. Well I was, I should not do this but I am going
    to do it anyway. If you look at the long term numbers, the
    money just is not going to be there. And it is unfortunate. Our
    entitlements are eating up the spending. I had mentioned to the
    witness earlier today that there is a movie out which I will
    get you a copy called IOUSA, put out by David Walker, who was
    head of GAO. I think in the year 2030 every dollar of taxpayer
    money that comes in will go for Medicare, Medicaid, social
    security, and interest on the debt. Nothing for cancer
    research, nothing for NSF, nothing for research on autism, on
    Alzheimer's, nothing on education, on math or science.
        So the nation I want it to be, I have always supported the
    sciences. I think it is a job creation. I think it is an
    opportunity. I think America ought to be, but you know, it is
    the, the reality of it is unless there is a dramatic change by
    this institution and by the governing authorities it will not
    be there because it almost cannot be there. China holds one out
    of every ten of our dollars. And Hilary Clinton went over to
    China and was literally with a tin cup begging the Chinese to
    buy our paper, and yet not raising the issue of human rights
    and religious freedom. Because there is great pressure that we
    need China to buy our paper. So I am not sure it is going to be
    there.
        The other thing, and maybe you can just comment, and Mr.
    Rankin I will get you in the second round. I think space is
    exciting. I can remember, you know, John Glenn and Shepard, and
    we all knew. When they went up we all knew who they were. We
    would stop where they were. In the classroom the teacher would
    have the television on. I would just challenge, on the last
    space shuttle, to name the names of the astronauts. And I would
    venture to guess that some could. You could. Most people would
    not even know who they were. And I think there has been
    something missing. So hopefully the next Administrator will be
    somebody who will be aggressive, can lay out the excitement and
    the importance whether it be on aeronautics, earth science,
    space, whereby. And I think do what President Kennedy did. And
    maybe here is where I will differ with you, that America will
    be competitive and we will do everything we can, and we will
    work to be number one wherever it may be. Because if we are not
    number one, probably the Chinese will be number one. And they
    are using their laser technology and others for things that are
    not very good for the world.
        So I think that is part of the problem. We just have not
    really, you know, it is not like Glenn and Shepard. And do you
    have any comments?
        Mr. Fisk. You know, I think there is, you are right that
    the excitement of the sixties is not being repeated. But I
    think the thing we should never lose sight of is that so much
    has happened in the space program since the sixties, and so on.
    We have created a space program that basically is part of our
    national future, part of our national infrastructure. I mean,
    we are completely dependent upon space as a nation. Our
    military requires space. Our economy is very dependent upon,
    the globalization of the world is dependent upon space. These
    are all issues that have happened while we were thinking about
    the astronauts. But meanwhile we have created a space endeavor
    in this country which is broadly based and extremely important
    to both our economy and our national future. And that is the
    space program we need to recognize today.
        Now, just so you do not misunderstand me about competition
    with the Chinese. I am a great believer that the United States
    should lead by example and in cooperation. By leading by
    example means we had better be the best.
        Mr. Wolf. I agree. And in closing, not a question, I saw a
    figure that we had 95,000 people in the space program,
    government employees and contractors. And China had over
    200,000. If those numbers are accurate, and I am going to ask
    my staff to check it out and we will put them in the record,
    that is very bad for our country. I thank you for your
    testimony.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. This is a good
    opportunity to state the Committee policy about calling on
    witnesses lest the audience, let alone members of the
    Committee, think that I have any bias toward our fine minority
    brethren on the Committee. We call upon members in order of
    seniority up until the time the hearing starts, and then in the
    order of members' arrival after that. And so in following that
    policy, which we follow and I think most Subcommittees follow,
    Mr. Bonner.
        Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the newest member
    of the Subcommittee, and the most junior member of the
    Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity. It pays to get
    here earlier. As Chairman Serrano will note, when I was on his
    Subcommittee last year I tried to get to the hearings early and
    often so that I could have this opportunity. I appreciate it. I
    will be brief.
        I asked the previous witness earlier today a question and I
    would like to pick your brains as well. And Mr. Wolf alluded to
    the fact that we all remember, or those of us old enough to,
    some of our guests today are too young to, but we remember
    sitting around our TV sets and literally stopping what we were
    doing to watch as NASA answered President Kennedy's challenge
    in the earlier 1960's. And yet, today we seen distressing
    numbers about interest in young people with math and science.
    What are we missing? What do we need to do? At what age do we
    need to prick the curiosity of young minds? And what role can
    NASA specifically play in helping to challenge young people to
    think beyond the current market opportunities?

                               SCIENCE EDUCATION

        Mr. Fisk. I am sure you are going to weigh in on this one
    as well, I hope. The, let us take NASA. I mean, you are
    absolutely right that we remember the astronauts, we remember
    John Glenn. And of course I am, I suspect I am older than you
    are because Sputnik to me was the thing that got me going in
    the world here, and challenged me to a, go into science and
    engineering, and the American response to it, obviously.
        Now, it is very hard to reproduce those kinds of singular
    events. I mean, the world was, we were in the middle of a Cold
    War. The Russians were challenging us on all sorts of fronts.
    This was considered to be a challenge of significance. And we
    responded as a country and people were excited about doing
    that. I mean, like many people of my age, I remember being
    called in by my guidance counselor and being told, ``You can
    add and you can subtract. You need to be, your country needs
    you, you need to be an engineer.'' And I said, ``Well, I
    thought I wanted to be a scientist.'' He said, ``Well, that is
    probably as good.'' But in any event.
        Now we cannot reproduce that. But I think, with the space
    program, there are three things that space is supposed to do
    for you, I think. One is the inspiration. It is that same
    inspiration that says we do challenging things in space. We
    make exciting discoveries in space. And it can mean not just
    astronauts. It can be rovers on Mars and it can be the Hubble
    Space Telescope, and a variety of other thing which our
    technically literate generation has great appreciation for. We,
    in fact, even note in the space business that the younger
    generation is actually, seems at times to be more excited about
    the technology, you know, rovers and things, than they are
    about astronauts. And it has to do with the fact that in their
    everyday lives they experience through their computers and
    their iPhones and other things, vicariously all sorts of
    pleasures. And they can imagine being there with the rovers
    themselves.
        NASA only has to be successful to do that. It has to do
    things. The second one is more direct. All the products of NASA
    need to get into the K through 12. I mean, they need to, the
    teachers need to have access to this. They have to be able to
    use them in the classroom in the inspirational way.
        And the third one is more focused on the aerospace
    workforce, which is NASA has a very important role to play in
    the education of the aerospace workforce. Now, here you catch
    them later in life. You catch them when they are in college,
    and when they are in grad school. And you train the next
    generation of the truly technical people that we are going to
    depend upon for our space program, and we use NASA, NASA
    resources, NASA supported universities to be able to do that.
        Mr. Rankin. I will just speak a little bit about the
    education issue. I think that kids are very, at least little
    kids that I have seen, are pretty inquisitive. And somehow we
    knock a lot of that out of them by the time we move them
    through school. Mathematics, for example, is something that
    kids need and all of us need to a certain extent. It is a
    discovery kind of thing, but I do not believe in school that
    they see it that way. A lot of math is taught by rote, or, this
    is the way you do it rather than working with kids to let them
    discover things.
        I think the best situations, or at least the times I have
    seen, where there is success with kids learning elementary
    level mathematics is when they are doing some discovery along
    with some rote learning. You do have to have some
    automaticity--this is a word that means you should be able to
    multiply, for example, two by three and get six. I mean, you
    ought to be able to do that. But on the other hand, that is not
    the only thing you want to do. And if that is all you practice
    all the time, your multiplication algorithms, for example, then
    you are probably not going to like math very much. But if you
    understand how math can be valuable to you, even in your young
    adult life, you will start paying attention to math and find
    value in it.
        And I think one of the things that may keep kids from going
    into mathematics and science is that they do not realize that
    in order to get to science you have to know some mathematics, a
    basic level of mathematics. If you do not know this, and if you
    don't figure this out until the ninth grade, then you have no
    chance of going into science or mathematics. So I think getting
    kids interested in math early on is important.
        Another way that we can help show this importance, not only
    though, but there are also lots of other discoveries that are
    made through science and mathematics. I believe the more that
    we can promulgate information about these discoveries and how
    science is involved, everyday things, for example the cell
    phone, or your computer, going on the internet, is important.
    It is science and mathematics. Yet, how many people really know
    this? And so, if we had a campaign to put out this information,
    and I think the NSF is starting to think about how to put out
    more information about some of the discoveries that are made
    under NSF funding, this is a way to help the general public
    understand that there is something good for society in funding
    science.
        Mr. Bonner. Mr. Chairman, I know I do not have time for
    another question. But to close with Dr. Rankin's point. I have
    a thirteen-year-old daughter and an eleven-year-old son. And I
    can assure you that if they thought every time they wished for
    a Blackberry, or a cell phone, or a new video game, that that
    technology was a product of NASA or NSF, or one of the other, I
    think it would renew their interest in math and science and
    help their ailing father try to help them be better math and
    science students. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Bonner. Mr. Aderholt.

                             PRICE OF NASA MISSIONS

        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be
    here with you and our guests here today. Thank you for being
    here. Much of the cost that is associated with NASA missions
    seem to be tied up in costs associated with getting a science
    payload launched into the orbit. Some estimates put those costs
    as high as $10,000 per pound. The question is, how do the
    current costs of launching science payloads into space limit
    our nation's scientific agenda? And how would a significant
    reduction in the cost of launching payloads into space benefit
    NASA's science programs?
        Mr. Fisk. There are a couple of answers to that. One of the
    principle cost growths in recent years has been on the launch
    vehicle side. And that is driving costs, making it less
    possible to do, to use your science budget to get science.
    There are fewer missions you can fly within the budget envelope
    you are stuck with.
        It is true, though, that the launch vehicle cost as a
    fraction of the mission cost is still reasonably low. In other
    words, the science satellite itself, and the data analysis and
    so forth that will come from it, is still a much bigger cost.
    In other words, we do not launch cheap missions on top of
    rockets. So the percentage cost saving that you can get for the
    total mission, simply by reducing the launch cost, is not
    insignificant but it is not major because of the cost of the
    satellite itself.
        But you say, ``Well, why are launch vehicles costs going
    up?'' Well, they are going up in large part because we do not
    fly very often. The launch vehicles providers are forced to
    maintain a infrastructure for the occasional purchase of a
    launch vehicle. And that makes the cost per vehicle much higher
    than it would be if you had a lot of launch vehicles being
    purchased. So, you know, to some extent, you know, the
    limitations on the science budget of NASA have reduced the
    number of missions, which have in turn driven up the cost of
    the launch vehicles, which has made you reduce the missions
    even a little more. Because the cost of the launch vehicle is
    not just putting that vehicle together. The cost of that launch
    vehicle also includes maintaining all of the infrastructure to
    be able to build the launch vehicle. If you purchase only one a
    year, you still had to maintain the factory and the workers
    that were capable of doing this thing. And therefore, your cost
    per vehicle has been going steadily up.
        Mr. Aderholt. Do you think there are basic science and
    engineering questions that remain unanswered regarding space
    transportation? If so, do you think that implementing a basic
    scientific research program focused on making progress on the
    unanswered science questions associated with space
    transportation is appropriate for the federal government?
        Mr. Fisk. The rocket equation is the rocket equation. We
    are not going, we are not going to necessarily invest something
    new to do something. I mean, in some ways our rockets look a
    lot like the ones Wernher von Braun built in the forties. It is
    always possible to make improvements in, particularly in the
    reliability of rockets, and the cost savings associated with
    them. That is worth an investment because you do not have a
    space program unless you can get to space. And this is true on
    the military side, it is true on the NASA side. And so we are
    dependent upon the reliability of our launch vehicles, the
    costs of our launch vehicles. And, the lower we can make this,
    the more reliable we can make this, the better the nation is in
    so many regards.
        And so that is worthy of a federal investment. I do not
    think that we should expect some magic breakthrough that comes
    from that. It will be an incremental improvement on launch
    vehicles that we have been building systematically since the
    beginning of the space program. Because of the, the basic
    technology is there. You can make it better, you can make it
    more reliable, and we should.
        Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Culberson.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much
    for your testimony. I am, as everyone on this Committee is,
    committed to doing all that we can to support the sciences, the
    National Science Foundation, NASA. If it were possible to split
    out just that piece of the stimulus, Mr. Chairman, that pumped
    money into NASA and the National Science Foundation I would
    happily have been able to vote for that part.
        This testimony you are giving us is vitally important, and
    I wanted to zero in on two areas and get your comments. Number
    one, of course I agree completely with you that the Bush
    administration did not adequately fund the goals that they set
    for NASA. They set this ambitious agenda out there and then did
    not provide the money through the Office of Management and
    Budget. That was a bad problem. That coupled with the, what
    appeared to be some unrealistic cost estimates on a lot of
    major flagship missions that inevitably they had cost overruns
    because the initial estimates were inadequate, did not help.
    And in particular the, I wanted to first of all ask about an
    area of astronomy, for example.

                                 DECADAL SURVEY

        The decadal survey, which is the, as we all know, the
    survey done every ten years among scientists to tell the
    Congress which projects are the most important and which should
    be funded, apparently the, I am looking at an article from the
    Journal of Science, January 30, this year, the top priority
    from the 1991 survey, an infrared satellite observatory called
    Spitzer did not fly until August 2003. And virtually all of the
    cost estimates in the 2001 survey turned out to be too low.
    Quoting from the article, ``So this time officials at the U.S.
    National Science Foundation, NASA, and the Department of Energy
    want the numbers to stick.'' Are you familiar, either one of
    you, with what the agencies are doing to try to make sure that
    we do not lose some of these missions and they get realistic
    cost estimates that the Subcommittee and the Congress can rely
    on?
        Mr. Fisk. Yes, I am familiar because of my previous role as
    the Space Studies Board Chair. The agency, remember the decadal
    surveys are an academy document. They are generated by the
    National Research Council.
        Mr. Culberson. Right. But used by this Committee and the
    Congress----
        Mr. Fisk. Absolutely.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. And the agencies, as we should.
        Mr. Fisk. Absolutely. But in terms----
        Mr. Culberson. As a roadmap.
        Mr. Fisk. But the cost estimation, NASA provides numbers
    but the academy has got to do a better job than it did in
    previous surveys in making sure those numbers are realistic. So
    in the Astro 2010, which is the next astronomy survey, just now
    starting, the Academy will in fact engage official cost
    estimation processes, industrial models, for being able to
    predict more reliably what the costs are going to be. It is not
    easy. Because you are always dealing with a mission that really
    is not that well defined. I mean, no one has agreed to go ahead
    with this mission. It is basically something that is intended
    to be started within the decade. And so, the planning process
    is early. And that gets you almost inherently into trouble.
        But we, it should be possible to actually bracket more
    effectively the costs than was done in previous surveys. There
    was the most egregious case, as you noticed, the astronomy
    survey, in 2001.
        Mr. Culberson. Yeah, the Webb, the Webb Telescope.
        Mr. Fisk. That is correct.
        Mr. Culberson. Which is a great instrument, and it needs to
    fly. But the cost overruns are just unbelievable. It has gone
    from I think, what is it, about $1 billion to maybe about $4.5
    billion before it is through.
        Mr. Fisk. Yeah.
        Mr. Culberson. And, you know, and an example also for the
    Subcommittee of a project that is at the very top of the
    decadal survey list that has hit every, I believe, cost
    estimate, hit every target, met every goal, is the Space
    Interferometry Mission out of Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the
    SIM Mission, where they, which is so vital to allow the next
    generation of space telescope to identify habitable planets. We
    have got to fly it. Yet, you know, Griffin and NASA kept trying
    to chop it. This Subcommittee restored it and I thank the
    Chairman and the Ranking Member for their help with it.
        We are committed to making sure that the decadal survey
    missions get flown. We do want to make sure, the Subcommittee,
    I know, wants to make sure that we are getting realistic cost
    estimates so we know that the, we will do whatever we can to
    avoid these cost overruns. In fact, the Science article points
    out that the National Science Foundation is going to hire cost
    contractors who will independently estimate the cost of the
    various proposals. It says Marcia Rieke, an astronomer at the
    University of Arizona, so you basically have an outside check
    and balance on some of these.
        Mr. Fisk. It is not the NSF. It is the National Research
    Council, I think.
        Mr. Culberson. That prepares the decadal survey?
        Mr. Fisk. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. That actually prepares the decadal survey.
        Mr. Fisk. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. We, I think I would also like to ask,
    finally, Mr. Chairman, your advice and guidance as I am going
    to move forward. I volunteered earlier in the previous hearing
    and I am going to put this together as a proposal for the whole
    Subcommittee to look at. A mechanism for recommending to the
    Congress and the Appropriations Committee a level of funding
    for the National Science Foundation, NASA Science, and maybe we
    need to include NIH at some point. But start with the sciences,
    NASA Science, NSF. It seems to be we ought to have an outside
    panel of experts, scientists, unrelated to, with absolutely no
    political influence outside of the administration, to give us a
    budget recommendation. Because I frankly do not trust OMB. I do
    not care who is the President. They, the bureaucrats at OMB are
    not scientists and they are driven by forces other than
    science. And they do not, I do not even know if they even pay
    attention to the decadal survey. And it would be nice to have
    as a Subcommittee an objective, realistic estimate of what the
    National Science Foundation and Science at NASA actually needs
    from an outside source that we would then use as a starting
    point for the work of this Subcommittee. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Culberson. We are pleased to
    welcome back to the Subcommittee Mr. Serrano who was its
    Ranking Member I think for four years, or six years?
        Mr. Serrano. Six years.
        Mr. Mollohan. Six years, three congresses. Served the
    Committee extremely well during a period when Mr. Wolf was the
    Chairman of the Subcommittee.
        Mr. Serrano. And Mr. Rogers.
        Mr. Mollohan. And Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Welcome to the
    Subcommittee, Jose. Mr. Serrano.

                           KIDS INTERESTED IN SCIENCE

        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much,
    and it is a pleasure to be back. Joseph Michael Acaba, Joe
    Acaba. So this is in answer to Mr. Wolf's comments that we do
    not know who the astronauts are any longer. If you have an
    agenda like I do, you do know that name. Because a couple of
    years ago I sat next to you, Mr. Chairman, and I said to the
    NASA Administrator, I said, ``You know, we live in a society,
    for good or bad, where ethnic and racial pride and community
    pride are very much a part of who we are. And how nice it would
    be for children in Puerto Rico and in the Puerto Rican
    community throughout the fifty states to see someone who
    identifies with that community.'' So maybe the Committee had
    something to do with it. Joe Acaba is assigned to the crew of
    STS-119, as Mission Specialist Educator, tentatively scheduled
    to launch on March 12, 2009 to deliver the final set of solar
    arrays to the International Space Station. Just remember that
    name. Anyway.
        What I wanted to talk about was brought up by a lot of
    members. And that is this whole issue of how to get young
    people interested in the sciences. And the exciting way to do
    it, I think, in many ways, is through space travel. And I thank
    NASA, in absentia, for the fact that they work in the Bronx,
    New York and the schools and do a lot of work in this area. But
    the public discourse on space programs tends to take a tone of
    days gone by, as if the public's interest in space technology
    had waned since the days of Apollo. I would be interested to
    hear your thoughts on how NASA's space and science programs
    might go about reestablishing, or repositioning their programs,
    in a way that remains relevant to everyday Americans. And are
    there ways to further bridge the gap in terms of how space
    science relates to issues such as climate change and green
    technology? The short answer may be that we have gotten so used
    to spaceships taking off that we no longer think it is a big
    deal. And Mr. Wolf is correct, when we were younger this was a
    big issue. And you remember these names, and you really rooted
    for them. So is there a way to bring that feeling back? Is
    there a way to get Americans to pay more attention and be
    interested in it? And is there a way to begin to tie in to
    space travel with all the other sciences and the research that
    has to be done?
        Mr. Fisk. I think there is. It is NASA and our national
    leaders, and all that must participate in this process. I live
    in Michigan. I live in the middle of the country, right? And
    now Ann Arbor is a special place. But five miles out of town
    there are normal people. And if you ask them about NASA they
    say, ``Oh, are they not going to the moon? Did we not do
    that?'' You know. ``Why are we spending money on that?'' And
    they do not recognize how much of their everyday lives are in
    fact touched by space. And we need very much to somehow do
    that. To communicate that thought. I mean, there are the famous
    stories about, you know, I think it was a congressman who said
    to someone from the Weather Service. You know, why do I need
    the satellites? I get my forecast from the----
        Mr. Mollohan. Now, come on. Come on. That was not a
    congressman.
        Mr. Fisk. It is an urban myth.
        Mr. Mollohan. That was not a congressman.
        Mr. Fisk. It is an urban myth. But----
        Mr. Serrano. It is the same congressman who asked me about
    currency from Puerto Rico one day.
        Mr. Fisk. But the point I think is that we do not recognize
    how pervasive civil space is. Now, the issue of climate change,
    which is of serious concern to the entire world, we will
    understand climate change and what it is going to be and what
    humans are doing to it, and what we should be adapting to, and
    what we should be worrying about, only through space. I mean,
    period. I mean, it is a flat out statement. You need the global
    perspective of space to be able to do that. So everyday lives
    are going to be influenced. And we have to keep telling people.
    It is your space program that is doing this thing. It is not an
    accident that this is happening. I mean, this is not something
    that is different from your space program. This is what your
    space program is doing. It is doing climate change. It is
    creating new technologies. It is answering basic human
    questions. It is doing all these things.
        That is why the science program at NASA actually has great
    importance. Because it touches the lives far more directly than
    simply going to space with humans, which is very important to
    the future of the country, and all those good things. But the
    everyday lives are more touched by the science program of NASA
    than any other program.
        Mr. Serrano. So is it that it has lost its novelty?
        Mr. Fisk. I think there is some of that.
        Mr. Serrano. Or we have gotten used to such technological
    successes that we do not think it is that important anymore?
        Mr. Fisk. I think we do not recognize where things come
    from. I mean, and I think that is all our faults. Because we do
    not remind people that is what it is that is happening. And it
    is, you know, essentially your government supporting an
    activity which is benefitting your lives, and we should talk
    about those things. But I also think the agency has its faults
    here as well. Because in an effort to command the resources
    necessary to do the things that they think they were directed
    to do, like human space flight, they have put more of their
    emphasis on that than, and not recognized that in fact the
    other parts of the program are what are really impacting
    people.
        Mr. Serrano. Yes.
        Mr. Rankin. I would just say that, looking at young people
    today they have different ideas about things. And I do not know
    that it is actually reasonable to think that they are going to
    go back to the 1960's and have the same feeling we had when we
    shot the space rocket up in the atmosphere. But there are lots
    of things that are affecting everyone. And I think it will
    affect younger people even more so because they are just now
    coming through life. Climate change is one thing that has
    already been mentioned. But energy conservation is another, and
    clean water is another. And it seems to me that these are the
    kinds of things that people could get interested in, especially
    if they see how these things could possibly affect them in
    negative ways if we do not look at these areas and think about
    how to improve our situations. So I think I would suggest that
    we try to find the things that are happening today that might
    be on the minds of young people. A lot of young people these
    days are interested in conservation and ecology and things like
    that. And I think we can take advantage of these kinds of
    things, and there is science behind all of these. You know, you
    can always find science and mathematics in all of these
    endeavors.
        Mr. Serrano. I would agree, and that was my point. To get
    them interested in the space program by understanding what role
    it plays in the other issues that they are interested in now.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. Mr. Schiff.
        Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to raise a
    similar point. But before I do, Mr. Chairman, I saw you on the
    NBC Nightly News last night. Apropos of your original comments
    today, there was segment on the changing face of America. It
    focused on a Latino family in Wisconsin. But in profiling the
    changing face of America they showed your face, and Nydia
    Velazquez. Did you happen to see that?
        Mr. Serrano. No, I did not.

                                  NASA SCIENCE

        Mr. Schiff. Yeah, NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams. You
    know, Dr. Fisk, I appreciate very much your testimony today.
    And the case you make for NASA science. I am not sure we are
    diagnosing the problem correctly, though. And, because I have
    wrestled with this, too, with the view that NASA is a luxury
    that we cannot afford in difficult times. I think there is the
    same fascination of when we were kids with the manned space
    flight. I mean, I see it reflected in different ways. I see it
    reflected in the billions of hits on the website when the Mars
    rover lands and starts roving. I see an interest, you know, not
    only here but around the world. But somehow that interest seems
    to get lost between there and this Capitol, and the White
    House.
        And I think there are two scientific questions that are
    really the preeminent questions that not only the American
    people but everyone has. Probably the first is, what can
    science do to improve my health and the health of my family?
    That is probably the most pressing scientific question that
    people have. But only second to that, I think, is the question
    are we alone? And when I, you know, read your testimony, Dr.
    Fisk, and I read statements like this. ``We have observed the
    remnant radiation from the Big Bang that began our universe. We
    have found that the universe has continued to expand, driven by
    a force that we do not yet understand. We have discovered that
    there is a matter in the universe, a lot of it which we cannot
    yet observe. We have seen galaxies forming at the beginning of
    the universe and stars forming in our own galaxy. We have
    discovered planets around other stars, many of them. So many
    that it is ever more likely that there are other earths and
    perhaps other civilizations comparable to our own.''
        How can you fail to be fascinated by that? And I do not
    know what we need to do differently. But people are inherently
    interested in that question. And there is no more popular
    person I bring to my district than an astronaut. And the
    interest is out there. You know, I labor, like we all do on
    this Committee, to justify our NASA expenditures in other ways,
    and tell people, ``Well, your cell phone technology came from
    NASA. A lot of improvements in medicine came from NASA.'' But I
    think that the, you know, the fascination with space and with
    the fact we may not be alone is the most powerful driver. You
    know, it is the old kind of exploring frontier ethic. And I
    think we need to find a way to make sure that is not lost
    between there and here.
        Mr. Fisk. I could not agree more. There are so many
    dimensions to that problem from my thinking. I have this belief
    that the United States chooses to be a great nation and has a
    reason for that. That is our destiny. And I considered it one
    of the responsibilities of a great nation to try and answer
    some of these basic human questions. So there is that dimension
    to it.
        This is innate in us. We have been asking those questions
    in some form since the beginning of civilization. I mean, this
    is a basic set of human questions we try and answer. And you
    can fascinate people. I mean, even those people in Ann Arbor
    and outside of Ann Arbor I can fascinate with those kinds of
    conversations. And you say, ``Now why is it that that does not
    come through somehow when we get closer to the Treasury?''
        I do not know. We do not have some great spokesman,
    particularly. You know? I mean, every now and then I wish Carl
    Sagan were still alive. We need people who somehow personify
    this. It is not just an esoteric thing. There is a face that
    goes with this when we think about this. And we have not
    created those kinds of spokespersons in our society that people
    can identify with when they ask the questions. I mean, they can
    be fascinated by the discussion but they want to have the
    discussion with a person. And that may be in some ways what we
    are missing more than anything else.

                            PLANETARY DECADAL SURVEY

        Mr. Schiff. Let me ask you just a follow up on a very small
    subset of space science issues. NASA recently decided on the
    sequencing for the outer planet flagship missions. Europa,
    followed by Titan. That order, I think, is consistent with the
    planetary decadal survey, which has always ranked Europa as the
    highest priority. Nonetheless there has been this continuing
    debate, at least in the past. Are we settled now on Europa? Can
    we go forward and not have to keep revisiting this?
        Mr. Fisk. Yes, the answer is I think so. That is a question
    you probably ought to direct to NASA. I mean, the debate has
    been going on. Europa was highest in the decadal. Enceladus,
    you know, came from behind and was looking promising. And but
    I, all I know on that subject is what I have been told. And I
    think the debate has been settled but I, yeah.
        Mr. Culberson. They just completed the survey.
        Mr. Fisk. Right.
        Mr. Culberson. They picked Europa.
        Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Fisk. Good choice, by the way.
        Mr. Culberson. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. Mr. Honda.

                         FINANCING SCIENCE AT AGENCIES

        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, and
    pleased to hear your thoughts and your testimony. It is
    refreshing. And I know that a lot of comments have been made
    about costs and money and comparing one thing to the other. But
    I think that we have to look at the history of how we finance
    all this stuff and how we finance it and how we budget it is
    really a reflection of our values. And we have a chance now to
    look at it again. And in that context, and perhaps this
    question was asked before I got here, but in the context of the
    change in the possibility of looking at rearranging some of our
    programs and priorities, what would be your recommendation as
    to reshaping, revamping, refocusing on this whole area that we
    look at when we think about NASA, NOAA, and the other agencies?
        Mr. Fisk. The, Congressman Wolf asked me earlier about the
    future and the budgets and so forth, and whether the country
    could afford it. I guess I have a point of view, too, that says
    we invest in science and technology because the only hope for
    the future of the country, and for our civilization, and for
    our economy, is the investments in science and technology were
    made so that we will in fact benefit from it. Our economy will
    expand, our civilization will be better off, and we will
    survive as a planet and a civilization.
        And so the investment is not an option. It is essential to
    the future. And the question is how much investment do you
    need? I think we all recognize that the investment that has
    been made to date is inadequate. And that the growth in our
    economy and the growth in our standard of living and so forth
    will require a larger investment in science and technology. And
    then you sort of work your way down. I mean, the NSF had a plan
    that says, you know, they need to double. And they are well on
    the way to that, I think, with the budgets and so forth. And
    NASA is the same, the space program is equally as essential to
    our future in the broadest sense, not just the science portion.
    And the science portion within it, in the sense it is of
    growing importance to the space program because it is the part
    of the space program which touches people's lives more directly
    these days than other parts. Aeronautics as well.
        And so you basically say, what you want to have happen is
    this reset. The stimulus package was not a blip, but it was a
    reset. And in the case of NASA it was under what it should have
    been to be even a blip. It needs to be a bigger blip, and then
    it needs to be a reset so that there is a continuation of this
    investment. And I think that is what you have accomplished with
    your stimulus package. You have corrected the problem from the
    past, the underinvestment. But now there has to be a continuity
    that extends that into the future so because science is not
    done in a year. I mean, the investment is not going to be done
    at the end of October 2010. The question is, is how do you go
    forward from that making the investment necessary to have the
    economy grow, the civilization be better off? And that is what
    we need to do?
        Mr. Honda. The opportunity to do this is here. And having
    spoken with the previous witness the question came up, with all
    these agencies dealing with science and research, whether it is
    earth science, oceanographic, NOAA, space, they are all
    related. And it does not seem that we should be dividing them
    up and trying to see which is a priority but rather see how
    they work together so that the information comes together in a
    sensible format so that we say we are getting the most bang for
    our bucks. And then also, you know, commercializing it in
    different ways.
        But looking at our budget in the future, is there a group
    out there that can look at this approach and recommend a way to
    fund our programs adequately so that we can be aligned and on
    time on the core mission of each agency, and also provide the
    information necessary to, you know, move things along.
        Mr. Fisk. I think it is going to vary somewhat from
    discipline to discipline. In disciplines that are contained in
    an agency, astronomy from space is contained in NASA. There is
    astronomy in the NSF but it is more research and ground based
    astronomy. They need to work together, but to some extent. So
    when the decadal survey, which was mentioned earlier, is done
    by the Academy, it plans for everybody. It plans for NASA, it
    plans for the NSF, it plans for the Department of Energy, which
    participates in the nation's astronomy program. And that gives
    you an answer to what you should do in that particular
    discipline.
        Earth science is always the outlier because it touches so
    many different agencies. We have a decadal survey in earth
    science, which is a National Academy document. But it deals
    primarily with NASA and NOAA. It does not deal with the
    Department of Energy, it does not deal with USGS particularly,
    or only to some extent, and so on. And so you need to, and the
    government has done coordination in the past on these issues,
    usually done through the Office of the OSTP, the Science
    Advisor. And so to some extent the coordination on earth
    science, so that all the agencies play in a program that is
    able to do the nation's things. That has to be, I think, one of
    the most effective things is to ask the President's Science
    Advisor to do as we have in the past, to give you that kind of
    coordination. And essentially present to you, as the
    Appropriations people, this is what is required for this agency
    to play in the national science program. That was actually done
    in the eighties and the nineties, and has been done less so
    recently.
        Mr. Honda. Right. I think that we were trying to starve
    them, or we were not adequately funding them, so.
        Mr. Fisk. Yes.
        Mr. Honda. To answer a question on a personal basis about
    interest in science and space. I thought about that really for
    a moment. And it seems to me that we probably have, this is not
    a slam against TV or anything else like that, or light
    pollution. But it seemed to me that ancient people had done a
    lot of staring at the skies and wondering. And through
    generations it seems to me that they came up with the idea of
    astronomy, math, science, timing, and things like that, even
    came up with the concept of zero. Perhaps we do not look in the
    skies enough to touch that part of our humanness of wondering.
    Are we alone?
        Mr. Fisk. Yes. I think there is a lot to be said for that.
        Mr. Honda. Yes. Well, thank you very much for your
    testimony.

                               OFFICE OF SCIENCE

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Honda. Mr. Rankin, Dr. Rankin,
    following longstanding practice the Office of Science at the
    Department of Energy funds high energy physics and nuclear
    physics, although the current focus of research in these fields
    is basic research addressing fundamental questions such as the
    nature of matter and the fundamental forces of nature. Is this
    appropriate? And does this placement of an area of fundamental
    research in an agency other than NSF result in an overemphasis
    in this area? Or any other concerns?
        Mr. Rankin. I personally do not see a concern with it. I
    mean, this kind of thing happens all the time. I know when I
    was a program officer for a while at AFOSR and I used to
    collaborate with folks at NSF in funding folks to do research.
    So I actually look at it as a positive thing, that it is a way
    of leveraging money. If both agencies have support for the same
    area of research then it is a way that they can collaborate or
    share funding of various projects. And in that sense make their
    money go further, and have more people involved in the
    research.
        I would suggest that program officers should try to
    collaborate and let each know what the other is doing and who
    is being funded. Sometimes this happens on the program officer
    level automatically. I mean back when, as I said, when I was at
    AFOSR I just worked with another program officer over at NSF
    and we knew that we had certain people that were applying to
    both agencies. So we decided to split the cost and that way he
    could use half his money for something else and I could use my
    half for another investigator.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Dr. Fisk, what is the status of
    space biology and space physical sciences at NASA?
        Mr. Fisk. The space biology, I mean, both space biology,
    the physical sciences and the microgravity environment, those
    sorts of things, they were of course transferred into the
    Exploration Office, Exploration Systems Mission Directorate,
    ESMD. It has not been a happy time for them there because that
    office's primary responsibility has been to build the Aries
    launch vehicle, and Orion, and so on. And there has been a
    systematic scale back. I mean, that was my earlier comment. It
    was only a few years ago that during one September basically
    all the grant program was canceled and 500 scientists, post
    docs, or graduate students and undergraduates were laid off.
    And so there has been a tremendous scale back that occurred in
    those disciplines.
        Would I have made the same decision? I mean, it is hard, it
    is hard to say. I mean, you cannot get to space, you do not
    need these programs. But you need a rocket to get to space. You
    go through that argument that says, well, building the rocket
    is the priority when you have limited funding. But the
    consequence is your long term future.
        First of all, why are you going to space if you are not
    planning to use it in some ways, whether it is in the
    microgravity environment, or if you are not planning to have
    humans be able to live and work in space? And that requires
    some discoveries in basic research and biology. This is not, we
    do not know enough today to say that the human can go into
    space for long duration space flight in a radiation
    environment, which is what would be required if we are going to
    the moon, going to Mars, going someplace else. We do not know
    enough to do that today. And it will be basic research which
    gives us that and that program has suffered more than any other
    science discipline within NASA.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, and without those programs or that
    study at some point you would not know the challenges, and you
    would not know how to deal with them. Is this a matter of
    timing? Are these issues that can be put off to another day
    because----
        Mr. Fisk. They can to some extent. We have obviously been
    to the moon and we can get there. We know we can get there and
    you can spend three days, or whatever it is. And there is a
    partial gravity on the moon if we are wandering around there.
    We are not so clear about the radiation environment that will
    also be an issue on the moon, and so on. So you are going to
    need this.
        But I think there is another thing that just is not
    recognized in this. You do not turn science disciplines on and
    off like a faucet. And basically, particularly in the life
    science and the microgravity, or life science in particular and
    microgravity to a somewhat less extent, the best and the
    brightest in that field have choices as to what they do. If you
    are a space, if you are doing space biology you may be also
    working for the NIH on basic human health issues. If you are
    doing microgravity in space you may be a material scientist
    that is working with the NSF or the Department of Defense. So
    NASA turns you off. And in fact, in some cases, NASA not only
    turned people off they forced them to lay off their graduate
    students precipitously. Those folks are not coming back. They
    said enough of this.
        Mr. Mollohan. What is the consequence of that?
        Mr. Fisk. I sense if we are really serious about doing this
    research and you want to turn this back on because we need the
    answers, we are going to have to rebuild again. You are going
    to have to go out and convince people. I mean, to some extent,
    some of these people treat this like Lucy and the football, you
    know? You teed me up once and you, and this is not a new event
    for NASA. They have had this community go up and down over
    time. You put the football there and you go to kick it, and you
    pull it away. They are not Charlie Brown. They are not going to
    come back and try again. And I think, you know, the first thing
    that is going to have to happen when somebody says yes we
    really needed that answer, is somebody is going to proactively
    have to, and it is going to be a sales job. They are going to
    have to say, okay, why are you serious this time that you were
    not serious the last time, or the time before that?
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, what is your recommendation in this
    regard? And what is the timing?
        Mr. Fisk. I think the damage is done to some extent. I
    guess I am troubled by the fact that we built the Space Station
    and we do not plan to use it. And, you know, the number of NASA
    experiments on the Space Station is very small. Basically, the
    Europeans and the Japanese are having a wonderful time, and we
    are doing less and less. We do not have a community that does
    this thing. And so, it seems to me that was a bad choice.

                              BUDGETARY DECISIONS

        Mr. Mollohan. Is that driven by a budgetary decisions
    alone?
        Mr. Fisk. Strictly budgetary, it is basically, we cannot
    afford it. And we have ended up in a somewhat silly position.
    Basically we have to fly the Shuttle to finish the Space
    Station because of our international commitments. The Shuttle
    money is coming out of the rest of the NASA program and we
    cannot afford to use the Space Station. And you say, gee, tell
    me again why that was? If you tell NASA you have $17 billion,
    and these are all the things you have to do, and this is your
    highest priority, you know, namely replace the Shuttle, what
    else are you going to do? I mean, you are going to make these
    choices. But the, there are long term consequences for those
    near term decisions. And it would be wise if somebody,
    especially if we are trying to redress some of this money that
    is available, that somebody says, hey, maybe it is not too
    late. Call that guy up, you know, that you fired and laid off
    and don't have him----
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, if you were to do that, there would
    have to be corresponding decisions you would have to make with
    regard to station and access to station.
        Mr. Fisk. Right.
        Mr. Mollohan. What would those be?
        Mr. Fisk. Well, we continue to fly the shuttle until 2010.
    And we have resupply contracts now in place. There are two
    competitors who have been awarded contracts to fly autonomous
    ELVs to the space station, not the shuttle, for resupply.
        We are going to be dependent upon the Russians as it is
    now. And while the gap still exists until an American launch
    vehicle is available, we are not abandoning the space station.
        Mr. Mollohan. No, we're not.
        Mr. Fisk. We are just not using it.
        Mr. Mollohan. We are not abandoning it. But transportation
    is a real limiting issue here, is it not? Would you be able to
    turn on microgravity and space biology research, as you
    suggested, before being able to access the station in ways
    other than----
        Mr. Fisk. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Resupply?
        Mr. Fisk. I don't think that is so much the issue. There is
    an issue of down mass, which is the question of bringing things
    back from. You know, if you do experiments on the station you
    may want to bring something back. And so you would have to make
    sure that the resupply that you have is safe.
        But there are going to be people on the station. And those
    people can do this research if there are payloads. And you will
    have to ask, you know, can I get--make sure I get the payloads
    there? But I--and, you know, you really have to ask NASA the
    question. But my understanding is that the resupply that is
    being--has been contracted for has the capability to take
    experiments up there, not just stuff, you know, supplies.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay, thank you.
        Dr. Rankin, in the President's budget, he speaks of
    encouraging exploratory and high-risk research through NSF.
    First, let me ask you in the peer review process is there a
    tendency at NSF toward conservatism?
        Mr. Rankin. Well, I think that can happen.
        Mr. Mollohan. Is it typical? Is it a defining
    characteristic of the peer review process?
        Mr. Rankin. I don't know that I would say it is a
    characteristic. I think--I have heard NIH folks mention this
    quite a bit more than I have folks from NSF. But I think it is
    natural in times when money is tight that people want to make
    sure they spend the money well. Although that doesn't mean that
    they actually do all the time. But I think the peer review
    process has worked pretty well at NSF.
        Over 180 Nobel Prize winners have at one time in their
    career received NSF money. I have mentioned some of the
    innovations that have come from NSF Support, and there are many
    other innovations. This means that at least the process is
    picking good people working on good science.
        I think if you are talking about doing transformative
    research, I think we have to make--I think it would be good if
    the NSF director would create a culture of that within the
    agency. And I think it should start with going down to the
    directorates. This is where it is going to happen and with the
    program officers. Maybe there has to be some training of
    program officers of how to work with the community to build
    this idea of transformative research. But I think it can be
    done.
        Mr. Mollohan. But it is not necessarily there now?
        Mr. Rankin. Well, yes, there has obviously been
    transformative research.
        Mr. Mollohan. No, there has been. But people are concerned
    about this. And they are talking about it, and----
        Mr. Rankin. Well, I think because there is so much money
    now that is coming in. I think generally the scientific
    community is worried that we are sort of stuck in a rut and
    that we need to move forward with new discoveries.
        I think what the rhetoric is about is that we want to
    create an environment where we are looking at these high-risk
    projects. But calculate the risk and see if they are
    worthwhile. If the projects are worthwhile and we can pick the
    right people to work on these, then I think it is probably
    something we ought to do.
        Mr. Mollohan. If it becomes a policy directive so to speak
    and money is associated with it, you are suggesting that the
    adjustment to the extent NSF would have to make an adjustment
    through the peer review process wouldn't be something that----
        Mr. Rankin. I think, they could--I think they should have
    information sessions where they talk to reviewers, but I think
    program officers need to go through this as well, because the
    program officers in the end make the final judgement. They take
    the advice of the panels or the reviewers, but in the end they
    make a recommendation based on these reviews. But there may be
    other things that program officers know about that causes them
    to make a different kind of decision.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Mr. Wolf.
        Mr. Wolf. I'll pass, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Aderholt. I'm sorry, Mr. Culberson yes. I
    thought you left.

                                 FUNDING LEVELS

        Mr. Culberson. I had a phone call, excuse me. Sorry. Thank
    you. Thank you very much.
        Let me if I could ask both of the witnesses what you would
    think of--just food for thought. In order to provide stability,
    predictability at the funding levels for National Science
    Foundation, which is the root of much of the problem we have
    had, if the--because I am going to put together a proposal for
    this Subcommittee to make a serious effort at adopting into law
    that we remove--take OMB out of the loop when it comes to
    making funding recommendations for the National Science
    Foundation and NASA for that matter. And put that in the hands
    of an independent board of experts. What about the National
    Science Board? I think Dr. Ray Bowen is the Chairman and former
    President of Texas A&M.
        Mr. Rankin. Not now. Steven Bearing.
        Mr. Culberson. Isn't that--who is the President?
        Mr. Rankin. Steve Bearing is the current Chair.
        Mr. Culberson. Frank Bowen was the Chairman?
        Mr. Rankin. I think maybe a while back.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay. Who is the Chairman now?
        Mr. Rankin. Steven Bearing.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        Mr. Rankin. Steven Bearing.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay. What would you think about that? Let
    them make the budget recommendation to us on the funding level
    that is necessary for the National Science Foundation and NASA
    to do the job that they are entrusted with to have a panel like
    the National Science Board make that budget recommendation to
    the Appropriations Committee formally instead of the Office of
    Management and Budget.
        Mr. Rankin. I don't know. I haven't thought about that. The
    Science board already has oversight of the NSF.
        Mr. Culberson. Yeah, policy.
        Mr. Rankin. The policy of the NSF.
        Mr. Culberson. I just frankly get sick and tired of OMB
    short-sticking NASA. I get tired of them short-sticking NSF
    over the years. We all know the Bush Administration did not
    give adequate funding to NASA or the National Science
    Foundation. The Bush Administration loaded up NASA with a lot
    of projects then did not give them the money.
        Mr. Rankin. Well----
        Mr. Culberson. And then it was up to this Committee to try
    to find a way to make it up. And it was tough.
        Mr. Rankin. Well I don't know--I mean personally I would
    like to see science--I will talk about the NSF. I would like to
    see the NSF, and you can say this about all science, funded in
    a way that we know what to expect year over year.
        I mean, we talk about doubling these different agencies,
    doubling the NSF.
        Mr. Culberson. Right.
        Mr. Rankin. But the fact of the matter is that this is
    tough to do. And on the other hand if you do do it, it gives
    you a sense that you have accomplished the job.
        Mr. Culberson. Yeah.
        Mr. Rankin. And, therefore, you stop. If you look at the
    example with NIH, they doubled from 1998 to 2003. Then bang,
    they stopped, NIH got no more money.
        Mr. Culberson. Right. We have got a vote going on. I want
    to make sure to submit any comments or questions. If I could
    then would you both agree then the most important message to
    leave with the Chairman of this Committee is that we find a way
    to provide stable, predictable funding levels to NSF?
        Mr. Rankin. On an uptake.
        Mr. Culberson. Stable and predictable, I think I know how
    to help you do that. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your--thank you all
    for being here. And thanks for having this hearing by the way.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well being able to vote and return and keep
    the hearing going is a benefit of having a hearing room----
        Mr. Fisk. I am impressed.

                        MATHEMATICS IN THE UNITED STATES

        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. In the Capitol. You trade off.
    Use the small space for that.
        Dr. Rankin, as the only mathematician who is appearing this
    week actually as a witness, please give us a brief picture of
    the overall support environment for mathematics in the United
    States.
        Mr. Rankin. Well, the NSF is the major supporter of
    mathematics in the U.S. It represents about 47.6 percent of
    overall funding. However, if you look at just the federal
    funding for basic research in mathematics in universities and
    colleges, then the NSF represents about 60 percent of that
    funding. The remainder of the funding for mathematics comes
    from the Department of Defense, it is about 17.9 percent, the
    Department of Energy, 18.4 percent, and NIH is about 16.1
    percent.
        These numbers have changed over the years. It used to be
    that NSF was clearly 50 percent or more of the funding for
    mathematics. Then DOD took a big slice and then DOE. Over the
    last ten years there has been a change. And also the fact that
    NIH is now becoming more of a player.
        There are quite a few mathematicians now that get funding
    out of NIH, usually working with a biomedical scientist. And
    there is this program through the Division of Mathematical
    Sciences at NSF and the National Institutes for General Medical
    Sciences where they--I think the way it works is that NSF puts
    in a dollar and NIGMS puts in two dollars.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
        Mr. Aderholt.

                         NASA CIVIL SERVANT SCIENTISTS

        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my
    understanding that under NASA's implementation of full cost
    accounting, scientists working as NASA's civil servants are
    increasingly being asked to seek funding to cover the full
    costs of their salaries. Yet NASA scientists are civil
    servants. And furthermore they are not always permitted to
    compete for funds external to NASA, such as those made
    available by the National Science Foundation.
        This situation creates anxiety and stress among current
    NASA civil servant scientists. And at a time when the average
    age of the agency's scientific workforce is increasing, this
    does not establish NASA as an attractive career option for the
    next generation of our nation's biggest scientists.
        The question would be science makes advances through
    competition of ideas. And NASA civil servants as well the
    agency benefit from scientific competition. But from your
    perspective does it make sense that NASA scientists who are
    civil servants also compete for their salary? Just your--both
    of your thoughts on that.
        Mr. Fisk. I think what is important is that they compete.
    And this is not a new issue. I mean, you want a--you want to
    have science done by the people that are best able to do it.
    And I think that it is important that NASA scientists. And they
    have for the tradition of, you know, the whole history of the
    space science program dating back, you know, as far as I know.
    I mean, NASA science people had to submit proposals for
    research support. The only difference is whether their salaries
    were in it or not. I mean, any other costs that they had
    associated with this had to be won competitively in competition
    with the universities and all the other people.
        So that part I think is all right. And I also think to some
    extent having their salaries in this is not--is not an issue. I
    think--and, you know, this is a question where you really ought
    have the NASA person here. I can't--I still--even though I
    haven't been an associate administrator in decades, I still
    somehow think I answer questions for the agency.
        But the--it seems to me that one of the most difficult
    parts in competition over the years was the overhead rates at
    centers, because it was not only scientists competing for their
    salaries. But then there was an overhead charge on that which
    was exorbitant compared to their competitors. And that was in
    part because not every NASA civil servant could win in
    competitive things. And yet they still had to be funded, and
    the centers had to be funded, and all these other things.
        And I think, and I would encourage you to ask the NASA
    people this, that they have in fact corrected that situation
    where the overhead is now paid out of some general account some
    place. And the competition is now for salaries and other costs
    of doing the research.
        And that is not an unreasonable place for NASA scientists
    to be, because actually they now even have a competitive
    advantage to the universities. Even though university overhead
    rates were lower than the center overhead rates, there are
    still overhead rates at the universities.
        So the NASA scientists have the sort of competitive
    advantage if they are only being charged for the--for their
    salaries and their research. And that is a good trade I think
    in my judgement between asking them to not compete and asking,
    you know--and making sure their salaries are adequately
    covered.
        But you are correct in one very important point. It is
    absolutely essential that we revitalize the NASA workforce.
        Mr. Aderholt. Dr. Rankin, do you have anything else?
        Mr. Rankin. I didn't realize that these folks are employed
    by NASA but they have to apply for grants?
        Mr. Fisk. From NASA.
        Mr. Rankin. I didn't realize that went on. It doesn't
    strike me as a good situation. If they are employed by NASA, it
    seems to me that they should work for NASA. And if NASA wants
    to have them work on research, that seems like a good thing. I
    don't quite understand why they would apply for grant support
    if they are already paid by NASA.
        Mr. Aderholt. Let us go back to the history as you were
    talking.
        Mr. Fisk. Well the--I mean one of the things that NASA has
    worried about it in its past, it worries about it less these
    days, is the relative balance between universities and NASA
    centers. And people--you know, it--when I was Associate
    Administrator, I considered it my job to make sure that that
    balance was correct, because we have to think not of just NASA
    centers when we think of the space program. We have to think of
    the infrastructure of the country to do space. And space
    science is done at universities and government labs, and it is
    done in certain kinds of industries some places and so on. And
    that is the entire thing.
        And we need to create a system, which gets the maximum for
    the country out of this. Not just is it done in this center so
    let us look at the country as a whole. And one of the ways that
    that was maintained over the years was to have competition
    between the university scientists and the NASA scientists as to
    the support.
        And the traditional model, until full-cost accounting was
    put into effect, was that the NASA scientist had to vie for
    grants to give them support beyond their salaries, just things
    they were going to do, things they were going to build.
        And now with full-cost accounting, we went to the other
    extreme, which was not only their salaries with the overhead.
    And I think they are back to a system, which is just their
    salaries and their support.
        And often I think it is a way for NASA headquarters to make
    sure that the country's best are applied to this, regardless of
    whether they are in a center or the university. And frankly I
    think that is healthy.
        Mr. Aderholt. Why can't you have interchanging between the
    centers and the universities of personnel? It seems like that
    would be--I mean people do that all the time in other
    situations we see.
        Mr. Fisk. You are into--I mean, do you want to do IPAs or
    something?
        Mr. Aderholt. Yeah, sure.
        Mr. Fisk. Yeah, but no. I mean, those are minor events. I
    mean, there is a whole cadre of scientists at Goddard and JPL.
    And JPL by the way has always done it this way with the
    salaries. I mean, JPL is an FFRDC. The salary support for the
    scientists at JPL is won by--as part of the JPL contract or
    through competitive grants and contracts. It is only the NASA
    civil service centers where this issue arises.
        Mr. Aderholt. And JPL is a part of CalTech.
        Mr. Fisk. Yeah.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                               SATELLITE MISSIONS

        Mr. Mollohan. The satellite missions are often done in
    cooperation with other nations and the Multinational European
    Space Agency. Is the U.S. contributing its fair share in these
    efforts? And how does the cooperation work in terms of
    sustaining U.S. science technology, engineering, and its
    leadership?
        Mr. Fisk. Again, it is a somewhat complicated answer. I
    mean, we talk about Earth science for example. Since we have
    let our capability in Earth science slip dramatically, it is
    very hard for us to be this leader that says let us get the
    world together, and figure out what is happening to the
    climate, and use the best of everyone's capabilities to do so.
        So when you want to lead by example and in cooperation, you
    better make sure you are bringing something to the table that
    you are capable of. And in certain fields we are not.
        In other fields we are such clear leaders, you know,
    planetary exploration, astrophysics. That when we cooperate, we
    do so because there is an advantage, a national advantage. We
    bring in some technologies from other countries and so forth.
    But there is a case where we are in some ways so far ahead that
    it is not--you know, our cooperation is important and it is
    good for scientific collaborations, good for our image, as a
    country, as a leader, and so on.
        But let us--you can't have a discussion about international
    cooperation unless you want to have an ITAR discussion, because
    the number one impediment to any meaningful international
    collaboration in space is ITAR.
        Now you can have missions where they do something and we do
    something. We share the data in the scientific literature. That
    is okay. But if we actually want to do something together, a
    spacecraft, you contribute, your nation contributes, we
    contribute, unless somebody fixes ITAR, it is not a workable
    system.
        And so you have got competing national policies here. If we
    think it is in our interest as a country to collaborate and--on
    scientific issues, not military, scientific issues, then the
    ITAR rules have somehow got to change and become commensurate
    with what we are trying to do as a country.
        Mr. Mollohan. Have you thought about that enough to give us
    your opinion on how that should change?
        Mr. Fisk. Yeah. I mean, I will fall back on mine. I have an
    opinion on it. Like all good university professors I have an
    opinion on everything. I mean, one of the things that I would
    explore--I mean, there is a law first of all, which, you know,
    you will have to deal with here. But within the law as I
    understand it, there is a question of what is on the ITAR list?
    What is on the controlled list?
        Even if you say we are going to have exactly the same law,
    I mean, somebody decides what is a controlled technology. And
    if we can make that restricted to things that are really
    essential for the national interest, you know, the national
    security as opposed to the kinds of stuff that is there now,
    which you can buy in the world anywhere in lots of cases.
        Mr. Mollohan. Those decision are based on fear for the
    national security.
        Mr. Fisk. Oh, no, they are not. I mean----
        Mr. Mollohan. Can you give it to me in an exact--off the
    top of your head?
        Mr. Fisk. The question is whether you can control
    technology. You would have to assume we had it and someone
    didn't. And yet in many cases the capabilities that are on the
    ITAR list can be purchased in other countries in even more
    capability than we have--you know, we are talking about
    electronics here. We are talking about basic kinds of things.
        There have been--there have been hearings. And I was not
    part of them where, you know, some--there was someone as I
    recall in one of these, in a House hearing, someone came in and
    said, ``I bought all these pieces in Radio Shack. And I put
    them in a satellite. And now they are an ITAR controlled
    item.''
        And so, you know, there is a silliness to the listed
    controlled technologies--it is comprehensive. It is too
    comprehensive. Somebody should simply go in and say, okay, tell
    me exactly what technologies we have to control in the
    interests of our national interests and take everything else
    off. I mean, that would be my simple solution.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay, thank you. Dr. Fisk and Dr. Rankin, we
    want to thank you very much for appearing here today. We are in
    a series of votes. I think it has been a fine hearing. I think
    we learned a lot. And we especially appreciate each of you
    appearing and giving us the benefit of your expertise and
    answers to the questions. We look forward to seeing you again
    in the future. We have some questions submitted, which we would
    appreciate your answering them.
        Mr. Fisk. Sure.
        Mr. Mollohan. It won't be burdensome.
        Mr. Fisk. Sure.
        Mr. Mollohan. We appreciate the time that you have given us
    today.
        Mr. Fisk. Well thank you very much. I have enjoyed it
    immensely.
        Mr. Rankin. I wanted to also thank you for your efforts on
    behalf of the science community, the NSF in particular, in the
    stimulus bill and also in the fiscal year 2009 appropriations.
    Thank you very much.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Fisk. Thank you.

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.026

                                              Wednesday, March 4, 2009.

           THE PLACE OF NOAA & NIST IN THE OVERALL SCIENCE ENTERPRISE

                                   WITNESSES

    DR. JAMES SERUM, PRESIDENT, SCITEK VENTURES
    DR. SUSAN K. AVERY, PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR, WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC
        INSTITUTE

                     Opening Statement By Chairman Mollohan

        Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order.
        Good afternoon, Dr. Avery, Dr. Serum. Yesterday we received
    an overview of science in the United States and examined the
    role of NASA and NSF in the overall science enterprise.
        This afternoon, we will examine the role of two other
    research agencies under our jurisdiction, NOAA and NIST, both
    of which are included in the Department of Commerce.
        Following the issuance of the report, Rising Above the
    Gathering Storm, there has been a bipartisan effort to double
    the fiscal year 2006 funding of NIST along with NSF and the
    Department of Energy Office of Science over a ten year period.
        The stimulus funding provided in ``The American Recovery
    and Reinvestment Act of 2009'' increased fiscal year 2009
    funding for NIST by roughly 70 percent while providing a
    roughly 20 percent boost to NOAA.
        Looking forward, it is important for this Subcommittee to
    understand the relative roles and status of the different
    research agencies. We look forward to learning more from Dr.
    Avery about NOAA and from Dr. Serum about NIST.
        We would like to welcome you to the hearing, letting you
    know that your written statement will made a part of the record
    and you can proceed with your testimony as you will.
        But first, I would like to call upon the Ranking Member,
    Mr. Culberson, for any comments he might have.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I just want to say once again how much I appreciate the way
    you have structured these hearings. All of us on the Committee
    appreciate the outside perspective, the independent objective.
    Outside perspective is very important to us and we appreciate
    very much your being here today to help us in our effort to
    make sure the sciences are fully funded as they should be.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, John.
        Let us proceed with Dr. Serum.
        Mr. Serum. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Mollohan. Your written statement will be made a part of
    the record, please proceed as you like.
        Mr. Serum. Thank you, Chairman Mollohan and Ranking Member
    Wolf, for the opportunity to testify about the role of NIST in
    the overall science enterprise.
        My name is James Serum and I am the President of SciTek
    Ventures, a science and technology consulting firm. I have been
    deeply engaged in developing and commercializing measurement
    technologies and applications for over 40 years.
        I have been associated with NIST for the past ten years,
    serving first as a member of the National Research Council
    Assessment Panel for the NIST Chemistry Lab and since 2004 as
    an elected member of NIST's Visiting Committee on Advanced
    Technology, VCAT. I am currently the Chair of that federal
    advisory committee.
        From my long association with NIST, I can tell you that
    NIST is a unique research agency and a critical element to this
    nation's scientific enterprise. NIST is the only federal agency
    that I am aware of that is specifically focused on promoting
    U.S. economic competitiveness. Unlike other government research
    agencies, the primary stakeholder of all NIST programs is
    industry.
        Today I hope to show you that whether it is through
    technology research, the development of advanced precision
    measurements, or the creation of standards that NIST provides
    the tools essential to increase the productivity and efficiency
    of industry, accelerate the adoption of new technology, and
    enable fair trade.
        Measurement science and standards are the foundation for
    technological innovation. The measurement science performed at
    NIST is often at the cutting edge of science, providing the
    foundation for many new technological innovations. This is
    important because if you cannot measure something, you cannot
    control it. And if you cannot control it, you cannot reliably
    manufacture it.
        NIST's unique role is to advance measurements and standards
    so that the next innovation can be realized and commercialized.
    The impacts of NIST measurement science research are numerous.
        For example, the work of one of NIST's Nobel Laureates, Dr.
    Jan Hall, was focused on the precise measurement of the
    wavelength or color of light. An unprecedented accuracy and
    precision of the technology pioneered by Dr. Hall has been the
    foundation upon which numerous technological advancements have
    been built, including the development of extremely accurate
    atomic clocks, increased capacity of fiberoptic communications,
    new methods to rapidly diagnose disease, and ways to identify
    trace chemical species in the environment.
        NIST research also provides industry with critical tools
    that help overcome such challenges as cleaner and renewable
    sources of energy.
        NIST measurements have led to improvements in fuel cell
    design, helping large and small companies such as auto makers,
    Dupont, and Plug Power to improve the efficiency and durability
    of fuel cells for zero carbon emission vehicles.
        Another critical element to NIST's role is the development
    of standards which provide the common language in commerce.
    NIST standards enable U.S. manufacturers to design and build
    products to one standard or a set of standards with an outcome
    of increasing their competitiveness in the world market and
    facilitating global trade.
        In addition to NIST's role in measurement science and
    standards, the Technology Innovation Program, TIP, and the
    Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, provide critical
    support and services to America's competitive backbone, its
    small businesses. These help to foster collaboration across
    diverse technology partners and to develop transformational
    technologies.
        TIP created by ``America Competes Act'' provides NIST with
    the capability to overcome the barriers to successful
    innovation by investing in high risk, high reward science that
    address critical national needs.
        This year, TIP addressed the nation's critical need for
    improvement in the nation's physical infrastructure. I am
    convinced that TIP will be a key part of the federal portfolio
    that helps accelerate American innovation.
        The Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, is a unique
    partnering program of manufacturers, states, and federal
    government to increase the competitiveness of U.S. small
    manufacturers. The MEP network bridges the productivity gap for
    small manufacturers by identifying opportunities for growth and
    profitability by encouraging technology development and
    providing services that reduce manufacturer's bottom line
    expenses, increase efficiencies, and build capacity.
        These are just a few examples of the important role that
    NIST plays in the overall science enterprise. Founded on
    precise measurements, NIST programs have a high impact and
    benefit to entire industries by enabling innovation.
        I applaud the Subcommittee on its leadership in writing the
    fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill that provides NIST with
    the resources outlined by the ``Competes Act.''
        I would urge Congress to continue to show a strong
    commitment to NIST and not overlook the important and essential
    role it plays in our nation's scientific enterprise.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I
    look forward to answering your questions.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Dr. Serum.
        [Written statement by James W. Serum, Scitek Ventures
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.031

        Ms. Avery. Good afternoon, Chairman Mollohan and members of
    the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with
    you today about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration.
        My name is Susan Avery and I am President and Director, of
    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Woods Hole,
    Massachusetts.
        My primary message today is that NOAA is critical to our
    nation's research effort to understand our planet as an
    integrated system in which the ocean, atmosphere, and
    terrestrial environments interact in a highly complex fashion.
        These are areas of inquiry that have both immediate and
    global implications for long-term social and economic well-
    being of all peoples and nations. As such, they require
    integrated, intellectual approaches and close collaboration
    among researchers across disciplines, agencies throughout our
    government, and governments around the world.
        Both the ocean and the atmosphere are shared globally and
    we must have international cooperation to address such issues
    as natural hazards, environmental quality, collapsing
    fisheries, and adaptation to and mitigation of global climate
    change.
        NOAA has proven its ability to pursue such cooperation in
    numerous ways over many decades. Especially notable in recent
    years was its key role in providing scientific expertise and
    data to the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change. NOAA's
    climate modeling capability is considered one of the best in
    the world and its models helped form the basis for the IPCC
    reports.
        In many ways, NOAA is unusual among our government's
    science agencies. It is a mission agency responsible for
    monitoring both the atmosphere and the ocean, from predicting
    hurricanes to protecting fisheries. It works to conserve and
    manage coastal resources and environments where 14 of our
    country's 20 largest urban areas are located and where more
    than half the population lives.
        Additionally, however, NOAA funds scientific research. It
    not only forecasts weather, it seeks to understand and predict
    climate. In effect, it makes a science investment in order to
    develop unified modeling, understanding, and prediction across
    atmosphere, fresh water, and ocean ecosystems.
        One example is so obvious that we tend more to ignore it or
    take it for granted and that is the National Weather Service.
    NOAA forecast warnings and the associated responses produce
    approximately $3 billion in savings during the typical
    hurricane season.
        With respect to forecasting the impacts of short- to long-
    term climate variability, NOAA has been a leader in detecting,
    predicting, and understanding the effects of El Nino southern
    oscillation or ENSO, which occurs every three to seven years.
    The often severe results of such events can include drought or
    floods, colder or warmer than usual winters, more or fewer
    hurricanes and typhoons.
        Research has estimated an ENSO forecast to benefit the
    decision making of U.S. agriculture between 500 and $900
    million a year. These examples are a startling measure of
    NOAA's importance.
        The annual economic return to the United States economy of
    the ENSO observing system is between 13 and 26 percent, more
    than double OMB's specified minimum rate of return for federal
    projects. Yet, consider the ENSO observing system spread out
    across the vast reaches of the southern Pacific Ocean is
    anchored by only 700 moored ocean buoys supplemented by free-
    drifting floats and ship-based observations.
        By contrast, in Maryland and Virginia alone, there are 84
    land-based weather stations. In short, a greater investment in
    NOAA's research operations and services, including its many
    academic and industrial research partners, could bring a
    commensurate increase in return on that investment. Again,
    broad collaboration is essential.
        These examples illustrate the scope of NOAA's
    responsibilities to the nation encompassing ocean, land, and
    atmosphere and their connections and collective effect on our
    planetary environment and global society.
        I want to emphasize that the extramural research conducted
    by NOAA and its partners is critical to the agency's own
    success.
        Research leads to understanding that refines the models
    that improve prediction, that informs policy, and, therefore,
    helps determine the ultimate economic benefit. In short, it is
    essential that all of NOAA's operations and services be based
    on science.
        In summary, my recommendation is simple. They echo those of
    Rising Above the Gathering Storm report. Given the breadth of
    its mission portfolio, the wide range of science needed to
    support that mission, and the ever increasing demand for its
    products and services, I believe certainly a doubling of NOAA's
    research budget is required to carry out its missions.
        As things stand, the scope of NOAA's mission far exceeds
    the dollars devoted to it. The budget as yet does not allow for
    the establishment of the much needed National Climate Service.
    And additionally, many of NOAA's facilities and operations are
    partially paid for out of its research budget, shortchanging
    the various science and partnerships that support and inform
    those services and operations and that contribute so greatly to
    NOAA's national value.
        In fact, the total research component of NOAA's 2009 budget
    request, $537 million, is only 14 percent of its total budget.
    That mismatch between funding for services and operations and
    funding for research can only in turn shortchange sound policy
    and decision support.
        Increasing NOAA's research budget and recalibrating that
    balance will be in line with this Administration's
    determination to restore the voice of science to the
    collaborative formation of national environmental policy and
    improve decision making. This will be good for NOAA, good for
    science, and, most of all, beneficial for the nation.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Dr. Avery.
        [Written statement by Dr. Susan K. Avery, President and
    Director, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.036

                     NOAA AND BASIC SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES

        Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Avery, NOAA is fundamentally an
    operational agency, as you pointed out, providing environmental
    forecasts and maintaining extensive observing systems for
    weather and climate and to assess marine biota in support of
    fisheries management.
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. In what ways does NOAA play a role in basic
    scientific discoveries and exploration?
        Ms. Avery. Okay. NOAA plays a major role through research
    that is conducted within their own national laboratories,
    through the cooperative institutes that are really long-term,
    sustained relationships between NOAA and academic and research
    entities and, of course, through individual grants and
    contracts that go to individual scientists throughout the
    research enterprise.
        This sort of interesting collaboration of research really
    provides and enables NOAA to access the best expertise for
    specific needs that then help form and improve the products and
    operations and services that NOAA provides.
        Mr. Mollohan. And how about NOAA's role with regard to
    scientific education?
        Ms. Avery. Yes. NOAA has taken an increasing role in
    scientific education. Of course, it is by having these
    partnerships with the extramural community, you inherently
    already have a built-in educational component associated with
    training undergraduate and graduate students.
        Additionally, many of those partners and universities and
    research organizations have outreach programs that are
    associated with K through 12 efforts. NOAA sponsored something,
    the Ocean Sciences Bowl, which is always a wonderful tool to
    get K through 12 communities engaged. And NOAA has engaged
    itself more broadly with educational opportunities.
        So it has that connection through its extramural
    constituencies and that training is vital for training the
    future of NOAA's workforce actually.
        Mr. Mollohan. What is the scope of those programs?
        Ms. Avery. The scope?
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Where do they exist; how broadly? How
    available are those opportunities, and to whom?
        Ms. Avery. The cooperative institutes are spread across the
    country and I do not know the exact number of them now. I would
    have to get back to you on that. They span research and
    education from atmosphere, ocean, and coastal areas, marine
    areas to fisheries and other important areas.
        But the cooperative institutes alone are not the only
    access to education and training for the future. Also through
    support of individual principal investigators at other
    universities who do not have cooperative institutes, you get a
    vital connection with educational enterprise.
        Mr. Mollohan. You referenced Regional Integrated Science
    and Assessment programs in your testimony, which reach out to
    stakeholders to incorporate more science into resources
    management in order to improve how communities, planners,
    managers, and end users, such as farmers and public utilities
    prepare for and adapt to changing climate.
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. Where are those partnerships?
        Ms. Avery. The partnerships at the University of Colorado,
    University of--these are the headquarters. They actually
    develop a lot of partners. But University of Colorado,
    University of Arizona, University of Washington, University of
    California, out in Hawaii, University of Florida or Florida
    State. I am showing an embarrassing glitch there that I do not
    recognize.
        Mr. Mollohan. No. No, no, no, no, no, not at all.
        Ms. Avery. But basically it is actually a fairly small
    program, but a very innovative program that NOAA put together
    in developing experimental sort of pilot projects that more
    actively, if you will, structure engagement of scientists with
    stakeholders in a very problem focused area that allows
    stakeholders who have decisions to make that are important,
    have important stressors associated with climate and climate
    variability or climate change to really help develop the right
    science, the right information, the right decision tools that
    can help, for example, manage the west water resources or
    manage an ecosystem in the marine environment.
        Mr. Mollohan. What is interesting about that program is
    that it is an inland focused program, is it not?
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. I mean, it looks like it is focused on a
    western water problem.
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. How did NOAA get to that issue in the middle
    of the country?
        Ms. Avery. I think that is a good question.
        Mr. Mollohan. I know, which I applaud you for. I just want
    to understand how you got to that.
        Ms. Avery. Yes. It got to that, it emerged out of the
    climate program within NOAA, okay, and looking at the
    intersection of where climate information could have a
    tremendous impact on the economy.
        And if you look at western water, it is one of the key
    economic drivers. It is the natural resource that is a key
    economic driver for the west.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Ms. Avery. And so there is sort of a natural fit between
    the universities and their scientific expertise and their
    public outreach missions with NOAA's climate and then----
        Mr. Mollohan. Expertise.
        Ms. Avery. The expertise. And it occurred at the same time
    that NOAA's ENSO predictive capability was beginning to mature
    to a sufficient stage that there was some skill, if you will,
    in predictive ENSO capability.
        In fact, a lot of the initial resources were dedicated to
    really looking at climate variability on ENSO scales rather
    than global climate change.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Ms. Avery. That is evolving, of course, as the science
    evolves as well. But you are right. I have often questioned it
    myself and I would think that there would be a need for
    additional RISA efforts that might encompass coastal city
    environments, marine environments.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, for those of us who are in-landers, it
    is actually encouraging because we think that we have these
    kinds of climate issues, these kinds of water issues, and we
    are the headwaters of everything that gets to your coastal
    jurisdictions.
        Ms. Avery. That is right.
        Mr. Mollohan. So I actually applaud that. But this program
    looks like it is facilitating the competing interests of
    stakeholders and trying to accommodate them in some way.
        Does it get down to that level of detail or are you simply
    providing data?
        Ms. Avery. No, no, no. That is what is really unique. By
    the way, prior to Woods Hole, I was at the University of
    Colorado, so I was an in-lander too.
        Mr. Mollohan. Oh, well, now we start understanding.
        Ms. Avery. And, actually, I have helped with the
    development of the RISA.
        Mr. Mollohan. I bet you did.
        Ms. Avery. And the interesting thing that I found about the
    whole development of this program was it restructured the way
    researchers think and scientists think. And it is not just that
    I am going to develop information and give it to you. It really
    is sitting down and developing sustainable stakeholder
    communities and sustainable user interactions understanding how
    decisions are made.
        One of the first things that the RISA Program in Colorado
    did was actually sit down with water managers and look at a
    water decision calendar. What time do you make decisions about
    managing water? What kinds of scientific information would be
    needed at what point in the year?
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Ms. Avery. And then from that, that helped kind of inform
    what kind of science really needed to be done. So taking
    something as simple as looking at water--scientists often look
    at water and display data about water on a calendar year
    instead of on a water year.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Ms. Avery. And the water year in the west begins in the
    fall and goes through the summer. So something like that.
        But then also, it also helped inform what kind of process
    questions that we really do not know in order to address some
    of those scientific products that the stakeholders could use
    within their decision calendar.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Ms. Avery. That is a typical example, but it has been very
    active and they have grown tremendously with little money
    actually, very little money.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, great. All the better. Thank you,
    Doctor.
        Ms. Avery. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Culberson.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We are delighted that you are here today. This Committee is
    unified in our passion for investing in the sciences and, as I
    said, really do appreciate your independent objective opinions
    here today, Dr. Avery and Dr. Serum.
        I represent west Houston. I am here today on behalf of Mr.
    Wolf who has a conflict and cannot join us, Mr. Chairman, so I
    thank you for the time.
        I want to touch on a couple of areas. I cannot begin,
    however, without--I want to pass this on to you, Mr. Chairman.
    This is a quantum wire from Reich University and I have already
    given one, I think, to Adam. I need to give one to each member
    of the Committee.
        A particular passion of mine is nanotechnology which NIST
    has been especially key in. That is a single wall carbon nano
    tube, Mr. Chairman, that they are working, they are weaving
    them together into a wire. And a carbon nano tube is
    essentially a hollow structure of carbon 60 molecules that
    electricity is transmitted ballistically without any resistance
    down the wire.
        And once they weave that into a wire, and NIST has been a
    key part of this, they will be able to transmit theoretically a
    hundred million but they prefer I say a million times the
    electricity carried in those gigantic steel power lines that we
    see today running along freeways in a wire about the width of
    your little finger from New York to Los Angeles with zero loss
    of electrons because there is no heat resistance. There is no
    loss to electromagnetic radiation. And this revolutionizes, Mr.
    Chairman and Committee members, not only the transmission of
    electricity but the storage of electricity.
        And using a distributed system that the scientists at Reich
    University developed, a device the size of a washing machine,
    essentially a household appliance, using carbon nano tube
    technology could store enough electricity--you could buy it off
    the grid at night, store it in your electrical storage device
    in your laundry room, and then run your entire house and charge
    up your electric car and have enough electricity left over to
    sell back to the grid.
        In a distributed network like that, you could make the
    United States completely free of foreign oil, tell Saudi Arabia
    to jump off a cliff, the Middle East, or any of them. And it
    would be a magnificent achievement. And NIST has been a key
    part of this, Mr. Chairman.
        And the standards that you establish, I think that the
    Alliance for Nano Health, you have been working with some of
    our scientists at Reich University.
        Mr. Serum. Yes, we have. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. And Dr. Mauro Ferrari. They are not only
    helping us make us energy independent but also identifying
    cancer when it first appears, a few cells, and be able to zap
    the cancer cells with gold nano shells literally killing every
    cancer cell in your body no matter where it is hiding without
    drugs, without surgery, without side effect, without
    chemotherapy, taking out every cancer cell in your body,
    instantaneously cauterizing them.
        Essentially it is the difference between a carpet bombing
    with a B52, which is what we are doing today with chemotherapy,
    and precision surgical strikes taking out Saddam Hussein
    without even singing the eyebrows of the general next to him.
        And this is all possible because----
        Mr. Honda. We have seen.
        Mr. Culberson. Right. It is coming, though, Mike. And you
    guys are doing some of that on the West Coast as well at
    Stanford and up in Palo Alto. I do not mean to neglect New York
    and the work that is being done on the East Coast.
        Mr. Serrano, you may be doing some of this as well, but it
    is----
        Mr. Honda. He is from Wisconsin.

                             CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

        Mr. Culberson. Well, it is an important chance to brag on
    NIST not only for the work you do on nanotechnology and also on
    NOAA. And I appreciate very much the work that you do at Woods
    Hole.
        And let me ask a couple of, if I could, quick questions
    because we are voting and we will be rotating in and out during
    this vote.
        The work that NOAA does, and you have in particular, Dr.
    Avery, worked both with NOAA and the Climate Change Science
    Program, it would be very helpful from your perspective on the
    outside from Woods Hole, if you could give the Committee your
    assessment how the federal government's Climate Science Program
    needs to change to deal with the challenges we are going to see
    in the future. What should the Committee be thinking about
    doing to enhance, change our Climate Science Program?
        Ms. Avery. Okay. I think that the Climate Change Science
    Program, which has done wonderful things over the last couple
    decades, is evolving to not only looking at the impacts
    associated with policy that would lead to mitigation efforts,
    primarily associated with our use of energy, but I think it
    needs to probably expand its focus a little bit more, do more
    work in the adaptation area as well.
        I think you probably are poised for the modeling to get
    down to a regional scale with more skill. And I think most
    importantly is the real need to get an observing system.
        Mr. Culberson. Well, you say we only have 70 buoys in the
    ocean.
        Ms. Avery. That is right.
        Mr. Culberson. And so we need to expand the number of
    buoys. And when you say get down to regional modeling, that is
    modeling both the atmosphere and the ocean. So clearly we need
    more ocean buoys. We need to expand that program.
        Ms. Avery. Yeah. If you think about it, I like to think
    about it this way, I think sometimes people think of climate as
    only an atmosphere problem. Climate is really, the climate
    system is atmosphere, ocean, and land.
        Mr. Culberson. Yes.
        Ms. Avery. Okay. And the climate is going to respond. It
    does not say, oh, this is an atmosphere part of the problem or
    this is the ocean part of the problem, this is the land part of
    the problem. It is an integrated response.
        Mr. Culberson. But the oceans are the primary carbon sink--
    --
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. On the planet. That was, in
    fact, one of the questions when I get back to my second round,
    Mr. Chairman, I want to ask you about to be thinking about, to
    talk to us about the work that you have done in researching
    fertilizing the ocean with powdered, I would suggest, nano
    particles of iron oxide in order to--because the oceans are,
    Mr. Chairman, soaking out--this is an article from February
    9th, 2007 of the Journal of Science--the uptake, natural uptake
    of carbon dioxide by the ocean combined with the dissolution of
    marine carbonate will absorb 90 percent of the carbon dioxide
    released by human activities. So it really is--this is 90
    percent. The carbon sinks on earth are going to come from the
    ocean, right?
        Ms. Avery. It is really impressive. If you look at a map of
    where the carbon uptake of the oceans is occurring, the largest
    peaks are in the north Atlantic and in the southern oceans.
        Mr. Culberson. And then they also discover the Bay of
    Bengal too----
        Ms. Avery. That is right.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. The Ganges Rivers.
        Ms. Avery. Yeah. And, you know, the oceans, in many ways,
    you can almost say perhaps they are the first victims of
    climate change because of acidification issues, the dead zones
    that we are seeing in the oceans.
        Mr. Culberson. Unless you use iron oxide, powdered.
        Ms. Avery. We will talk about iron oxide.
        Mr. Culberson. Acidify the ocean.
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. Right?
        Ms. Avery. We need to actually do some further studies to
    see if----
        Mr. Culberson. We will talk about this on my second round,
    Mr. Chairman, but it is something I do want you to be thinking
    about. But the Committee does need guidance. We are voting and
    I will pass the witness. But we do need guidance, if we could,
    about what we need to do to change the Climate Science Program
    to make it allow us to do better modeling.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Avery. Wonderful.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Culberson.
        Mr. Schiff.

                     NOAA PARTNERSHIP WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES

        Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Avery, as you know, NOAA undertakes a wide variety of
    research related to climate, but NOAA does not always have the
    in-house expertise or the technological capability. In
    particular, satellites provide some of the most useful global
    data for climate change research and are key to NOAA's
    missions.
        Do you think NOAA has taken the right steps to partner with
    NASA and other federal science agencies on climate change, in
    particular when it comes to gathering weather and climate
    related satellite data? What do you think the appropriate roles
    are for NOAA operated satellites versus NASA operated
    satellites versus the purchase of data from private satellite
    operators?
        Ms. Avery. Good question. And certainly there have been
    many Academy studies that look at the NASA/NOAA relationship.
        NASA has primarily been the source of research missions
    that help us in a way define research tools, to look at
    understanding of the planet Earth. But in that context, they
    often have a very important link to, a potential link to an
    operational entity.
        So you see any numbers of observations that were from
    satellites initially developed within the NASA framework and
    then have been proved being of great operational importance,
    whether it is an infusion into a data simulation that
    initializes a model, such as a weather model, or whatever.
        That transition from a research sort of satellite to an
    operational satellite is a difficult transition. And there have
    been a number of studies that have suggested ways to make that
    transition a little bit smoother, ways to make sure that the
    data gets there or gets into an operational framework.
        The problem is a lot of times, there is not necessarily the
    expertise to hand it off or necessarily the resources to hand a
    research satellite over into an operational entity. And that
    has been basically some of the problems.
        And I worked on the Decadal Study, the NASA Decadal Study
    for Earth satellite observations. And at that time, one of the
    critical things that we were looking at is the future of NPOES
    and where was NPOES going. And a number of key what we would
    call climate variables or climate observations were getting
    thrown off NPOES because of budgetary constraints. And I do not
    know what the status of that is right now, but it is a
    difficult thing.
        You do not want to just look at satellites though. In situ
    observations are important, too, and particularly for observing
    the ocean in the climate system. Remember the ocean--satellites
    you can only get near the surface of the ocean. You can only
    measure the surface of the ocean. You cannot penetrate the
    depths of the ocean because electromagnetic wave radiation will
    not penetrate and that is the primary sensing mechanism.
        So it is a difficult problem. I think it is an important
    problem. I think it is very important that NASA and NOAA
    partner together.
        On the private side, the question really becomes, and I
    have asked this question myself, should NOAA put out a request
    for data or should NOAA actually operate its own infrastructure
    and what can the private sector provide?
        And the real question, the stumbling block is when you are
    looking at weather, when you are looking at climate, when you
    are looking at ecosystem management, it is the continuity of
    the data and whether the private sector can provide that
    continuity in economic times where the industry may come and go
    would be the question that one would have to ask.
        Mr. Schiff. One other micro question. The unsuccessful
    launch of the orbiting carbon observatory.
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Schiff. What is your thought? Is that a must replace
    situation?
        Ms. Avery. Well, it certainly was in many scientists' minds
    and my own sort of the key component of taking that next step
    and understanding our carbon balance in the climate system and
    on the planet.
        That combined with a lot of programs that were being
    discussed in terms of complementing that satellite program with
    in situ observations was really key. So the loss of that
    satellite was devastating and it would be, I think, highly
    desirable to see if it could be replaced.
        Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                               SATELLITE PROGRAM

        Mr. Mollohan. Well, just following up, what would be a
    substitute for the satellite?
        Ms. Avery. To get the global coverage, you would need the
    satellite program. The satellite program was a stand-alone
    program. It was granted then, but it would get the surface sort
    of carbon budget and then there is talk about looking at the
    ocean imbedded carbon that is deeper down in the ocean that you
    would not get from a satellite observatory.
        Mr. Mollohan. You may have answered Mr. Schiff's question
    just exactly the way he wanted the answer. But, do you
    recommend it be replaced or do you think it is essential that
    it happen?
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Serum. Yes.
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Avery, I know that as a Director of the Woods Hole
    Institution, you have had a long relationship with NOAA that
    has included important NOAA funded research.
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Serrano. NOAA through its Educational Partnership
    Program and its cooperative science centers at minority serving
    institutions has been at the forefront of training and
    encouraging our next generation of minority students.
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Serrano. But I also know that you have a fellowship
    program at your institution. Could you share with the Committee
    how that program works and what lessons we have learned that
    could be used by NOAA in general as we move forward?
        Ms. Avery. Okay. Yes. We have been very, very fortunate to
    have a very active fellowship program for students beginning at
    the undergraduate level. We have a summer sort of scholarship
    internship program that brings students to Woods Hole,
    undergraduate students to Woods Hole for a summer experience.
        They have a month of intensive classes and then two months
    of the opportunity to do research. Some are able to actually go
    to sea. And it swells Woods Hole, let us say, in the
    summertime. It complements the tourists there as well.
        That program has been really essential in many ways of
    exciting undergraduate students about the possibilities of
    doing graduate work in ocean sciences or in geosciences more
    broadly. Often undergraduates do not necessarily get an
    exposure in their undergraduate curriculum to atmospheric
    science, ocean science because they are more traditionally the
    physics, chemistry, and biology efforts in the universities.
        And a lot of students who go through that summer program
    actually become excited and actually go on to graduate school
    in ocean sciences around the country.
        Woods Hole happens to also have its own graduate degree
    program as well.
        We are really also seeking opportunities to work more
    closely with minority serving institutions, particularly during
    the academic year on a longer time scale that allows us to
    develop partnerships with faculty at minority serving
    institutions and our scientists here. And that is a program
    that is in the development stage and we have got some initial
    seed funding for that and some partnerships that we are going
    to be working on.
        Mr. Serrano. Well, how do these students come to you?
        Ms. Avery. They apply. We have a very well advertised
    program on the web. We certainly get the information out there
    as much as possible through our network of university
    colleagues. And then they basically apply.
        Mr. Serrano. Well, I encourage the work you are doing and I
    support it. I encourage it.
        I think that too often in our society, we tend to tell some
    students to go in certain directions, most students in certain
    directions, but we do not encourage students who ordinarily
    would not know about certain professions or certain work, of
    the role they can play.
        And I think more and more of working with minority serving
    institutions to say, you know, aside from everything else that
    is available in study, here is something different and exciting
    and how you can play a role within the society.
        And I think that we always talk about diversity in this
    society, but it is also diversity of what you want people to be
    involved in----
        Ms. Avery. That is right.
        Mr. Serrano [continuing]. You know, to move it around, not
    just to keep certain people in certain places. So I encourage
    and I support your work.
        Ms. Avery. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Mollohan. Do you want to go now?
        Mr. Honda. Yes. I have real quick questions.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Mr. Honda.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        A couple of quick questions. And if we do not have time for
    a response, maybe get a written response. But to follow-up on
    the orbital carbon observatory, launching of the satellite was
    based upon the failure of the rocket. But the cost of a
    satellite is probably tremendous.
        Were there multiple functions on that satellite that could
    have been distributed to other satellites so when expiration of
    satellites occurred that you do not have all the functions
    expire at once and it just does not seem like a smart thing to
    do?
        Ms. Avery. Yes. That is a good question. And,
    unfortunately, I do not know enough details about the specific
    payload and the sensors and whether they could be split up or
    launched on other platforms. So I could take a note and get
    back to you on that.
        Mr. Honda. I would appreciate that.
        The other quick question is, there was a collaboration
    agreement between NOAA and NASA on calibration and other
    things. One agency was not able to do it because they had no
    money.
        Is that plan coming together again for this go around and,
    if so, are there sufficient funds? If not, why not?
        Ms. Avery. I will have to again find out more information
    about that for you.
        Mr. Honda. And one other area that NOAA works with is San
    Jose State University. They have got some projects with the
    Navy postgraduate school.
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Honda. My question related to that is, taking that kind
    of collaboration and working together and the information that
    comes out of it and looking at demonstration programs, is there
    any thought of extracting instructional materials for pre-
    school to postgraduate in helping us teach information in a
    consistent, ongoing way so that by the time a youngster is out
    of school, either six, eight, high school or graduate school,
    that they are a critical consumer and a user of energy so that
    we grow not only individuals but a community or a nation of
    folks that will be sensitive to the carbon footprint and then
    start demanding these kinds of activities from people like
    ourselves?
        Ms. Avery. Yes. Certainly the potential is there. There is
    a wealth of information, consistent information and scientific
    information that can be used in that educational pipeline and
    in that public mission of educating people to become informed
    citizens on these difficult problems.
        Mr. Honda. Those are obvious kinds of things, but is there
    anything that is being thought of in order to execute and make
    it happen because we are talking about innovation, we are
    talking about, you know, continuous growth?
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Honda. If we look at Moore's law, we want to make sure
    that Moore's law continues.
        Ms. Avery. Yes. I do not know if there is one sort of
    integrating strategic plan that is pulling it all together.
    There are pockets, if you will.
        So you could say, for example, the Regional Integrated
    Science Assessment, the information that is coming out of that
    activity basically is coming out in user friendly information
    reports that are transmitted widely, that are on the web, that
    can be part of the education opportunity. And it is one of
    their goals.
        Mr. Honda. And perhaps you have someone in these inter-
    agencies that you could ask and say would you guys conjugate
    about it and get back to us on a conceptual framework or a
    possible scenario that we can look at to put forward so that we
    can fund it and make it happen.
        Ms. Avery. Right.
        Mr. Honda. It would be a crime to let this information and
    opportunity pass buy.
        Ms. Avery. Yes. And I know that NOAA has a major education
    effort going on. I just do not know if they are doing something
    at that level or not.
        Mr. Honda. All right. Thank you.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mike.
        If I could, I would like to ask each one of you to give us
    your opinion on what, from your perspective, would be the best
    use--for example, Dr. Avery, NOAA received about $600 million
    in the stimulus bill for construction, reading from the report,
    general guidance said for construction, repair of NOAA
    facilities, ships, and equipment, that could certainly include
    buoys, facilities, ships, and equipment, comma, for the purpose
    of to improve weather forecasting and support satellite
    development, period.
        And out of that 600 million, 170 million shall address
    critical gaps and climate modeling and establish climate data
    records for continuing research into the cause, effects, and
    ways to mitigate climate change.
        Ms. Avery. Yes.

                                 STIMULUS MONEY

        Mr. Culberson. Could you share with us, Dr. Avery, first.
        And then, Dr. Serum, for NIST, could you tell the Chairman
    and the Committee what in your opinion would be the best use of
    that money, for example, that NOAA received, the $600 million
    in the stimulus.
        Ms. Avery. Okay. So there is already, I think, $170 million
    targeted, as you said, for the modeling capability. And NOAA
    has been----
        Mr. Culberson. That is broad.
        Ms. Avery. It is gone.
        Mr. Culberson. I am sorry?
        Ms. Avery. The 170 million?
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Avery. Was for the computing.
        Mr. Culberson. For critical gaps. It is just the only
    guidance that Congress has given is to say shall address
    critical gaps in climate modeling and establish climate data
    records--
        Ms. Avery. Yeah.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. For continuing research. So
    within that, that reasonably gives NOAA some discretion.
        Ms. Avery. Yeah.
        Mr. Culberson. How should they use that?
        Ms. Avery. I think one of the things that they have been
    sorely needing is a computing capability, enhanced computing
    capability for their models. As the modeling effort goes to
    higher and higher resolution to try to incorporate more systems
    approach as well as a resolution that gets to the regional
    scale, you are going to need more computer power.
        And NOAA has been hurting, if you will, for that
    computational power. So investment in that computational power
    would be----

                                SUPER COMPUTING

        Mr. Culberson. Now, rather than NOAA buying one of those
    computers, because I have seen the IBM blue jean computer up in
    the Watson Labs--my brother builds IBM super computers to model
    seismic data for the oil and gas industry in Houston.
        And they are extraordinary, Mr. Chairman. They can actually
    with these massive computers that run so fast create three-
    dimensional color images that you can wear three-dimensional
    goggles and get inside the geologic formation and see it,
    similar to what you are talking about.
        Because those things change so fast, they have to buy new
    ones about every three, four, six months to keep up. Would it
    be better for NOAA to contract that work out because that is
    what essentially the big oil companies are doing? They hire
    companies like this one my brother--my brother works for IBM.
    He subcontracts to a company called Western Geophysical and
    then Western Geo, you know, Exxon will hire them, Shell,
    Contico will hire Western Geo or some other company with giant
    super computers who can give Contico the best value for our
    dollar.
        Shouldn't NOAA approach it the same way and simply contract
    out that work for giant super computer modeling?
        Ms. Avery. I think it depends----
        Mr. Culberson. It would be cheaper and more effective and
    efficient; would it not?
        Ms. Avery. Yes. I think it depends on what the end product
    might be, because a lot of the super computer, the modeling
    work that is being done is still a tool for the research effort
    itself. So you need that close connection between the
    researcher and the computational code, if you will, the models
    that are being generated. It is not like there is a set model
    there that you could just hand off to someone to run, to do
    several runs.
        So I think it depends. I think I would need to know more
    and to weigh whether a contracting arrangement would be better
    than actually purchasing.
        Mr. Culberson. Atmospheric modeling data you are saying is
    different from seismic data and you could not just hand that
    data over as the oil industry does to a company like Western
    Geo? They just give them a big slug of seismic data and they
    crunch it over a couple of days and then give them the
    visualization. That is what you are talking about.
        Ms. Avery. Oh, okay. You are talking about the data aspect
    of it?
        Mr. Culberson. Couldn't the modeling data simply be, the
    atmospheric data be handed over to a private company like that
    that does really top-notch work with cutting edge computers and
    do it at a far better, cheaper price for the taxpayers and
    better computational power at a better price?
        Ms. Avery. I do not know. You would have to do an analysis,
    I guess, and determine which way would be the best.
        Most of the time that I look at, as I see scientists
    working with modeling and data in the super computer, a lot of
    that work is basically still in the research phase and they are
    still developing the models or they are still developing the
    data sets.
        If the data sets were already there or the models were
    already done and were all agreed upon and there was no further
    research, in other words they were set, you could then probably
    hand it off. In your case, the oil companies, did the oil
    companies have the models themselves----
        Mr. Culberson. It is raw data.
        Ms. Avery. It is just raw data?
        Mr. Culberson. I mean, it is what you are talking about.
        Literally it is raw data, Mr. Chairman, that the oil
    companies, and literally it is a competition. That is what my
    brother does for IBM. Western Geo has HP and IBM building these
    things.
        Is it the second vote?
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. I am going to run down and vote. He is very
    generous with his time allowing me.
        Ms. Avery. He is. I see.
        Mr. Culberson. But we would love to hear from you. I know
    he would too. And I will quit interrupting with questions. How
    should NOAA spend the money and how should NIST spend that
    money?
        Ms. Avery. Okay.
        Mr. Culberson. And I will go vote. Thank you for your
    generosity with the time.

                              U.S. COMPETITIVENESS

        Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Serum, this mission is to promote U.S.
    innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing
    measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that
    enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.
        Which segments of our economy depend on NIST research
    products and services?
        Mr. Serum. It turns out that almost every industrial
    segment that one can think of that NIST affects in one way or
    another, one can consider from the standards that are defined
    for mixing cement for durability, hardness, longevity and so
    forth, all the way up to healthcare and doing research in the
    latest biotechnology, DNA array technology.
        And the fundamental aspect of NIST, of course, is making
    accurate measurements so that industries can use standards that
    can be measured. And so it really is just about every industry
    that I can think of NIST touches in some fashion.
        Mr. Mollohan. And give us your thinking about how NIST
    impacts the lives of ordinary citizens. Give us a relevant
    statement of NIST for the ordinary population.
        Mr. Serum. Well, you mentioned in the mission that their
    focus is on improving the quality of life. And so perhaps one
    might begin with the field of healthcare.
        One can cite many examples, but all the way back in the, I
    think it was something like 1917, NIST, there was a lot of
    problems with dental amalgams and NIST got involved in
    healthcare way back then to define a standard for mercury
    amalgams in dental fillings.
        As one moves along, one can talk about standards for
    glucose measurements, the little meters that measure a
    diabetic. There are standards for defining that. The
    cholesterol test, there is a standard. And NIST has worked
    those out.
        And certainly in healthcare, last but not least, all of the
    diagnostics that back in the early 1990s when the world
    transformed to DNA measurements as a diagnostic, it turns out
    that, and I was part of that at Hewlett Packard, that the
    arrays were not very accurate and depending on whose one used,
    you could get different results, different interpretations. And
    NIST had undertaken an effort to work out accurate measurements
    of DNA and working towards standardization of those devices.
        I can mention things like fire safety. NIST defines the
    fire retardant requirements for----
        Mr. Mollohan. Let me interrupt----
        Mr. Serum. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. You for just a moment. We have
    two more votes. These are five minute votes. This vote has 33
    more seconds. We will vote this vote, vote the next vote, and
    we will resume. And the hearing will be in recess until we do
    that.
        [Recess.]

                             NIST SETTING STANDARDS

        Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order.
        Following up, Dr. Serum, on those questions. So one of the
    big benefits, of course, NIST sets standards. And those
    standards are followed. Certainly the United States has
    standards for everything, I guess, almost.
        Mr. Serum. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. What has been the experience with standards
    setting around the world and to what extent has NIST provided
    leadership in that area?
        Mr. Serum. Actually, NIST is a very, very highly respected
    agency throughout the world. The French organization, I think
    it is called System Internationale, SI, holds the world's
    standards on things like the meter and the kilogram and things
    like that.
        And I had the opportunity to participate in an
    international conference that was related to what are the most
    critical measurement needs as we look forward in the 21st
    century related to bioscience measurements and healthcare. And
    it was an international meeting and it was important enough to
    other international agencies that they sent their directors,
    the heads of the agencies from around the world, the
    Netherlands, over in the Middle East, and France and Germany
    and so forth.
        And a number of them knowing that I was the Chairman of the
    Visiting Committee came up to me and told me what phenomenal
    respect they had for NIST as a standards setting body.
        In addition, it is probably worthy of comment that NIST
    acts as sort of a mentor to developing standards organizations
    in South America and places where they do not have a lot of
    experience and they look to NIST as both a model and a mentor.
    NIST has hosted people for that.
        And, of course, we are a global economy and global
    standards are absolutely necessary and for people to adopt
    standards globally that NIST promotes and develops is extremely
    important for U.S. industry.
        Mr. Mollohan. So in addition to being a model and a mentor,
    NIST is a guide?
        Mr. Serum. Absolutely, yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. And the standards are followed?
        Mr. Serum. Yes. The process of standardization is not an
    easy one. I was involved in a variety of standards activities
    in software and hardware while I was in Hewlett Packard. And it
    is a little like pushing on a rope. You do not know where it is
    going exactly and you have to have quite a bit of patience.
        But, yet, a lot of leadership demonstrating why the
    standard is necessary and then convincing organizations to do
    it because there is nobody holding the whip that says they have
    to do it, each country is sovereign, and so it is only by
    respect and by the quality of the standard and the details that
    NIST standards are adopted and respected.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, just as a general proposition, what is
    the trend line? I guess what I am trying to get at is the
    relationship between standards setting for products and
    processes and the acceptance of those standards and processes
    by other economies, by other governments, and the importance of
    that acceptance to our economy.
        If I am understanding your statement, in the past, the
    United States has typically been followed in many areas. Please
    mention some cases where it was not, and is this true looking
    forward or are there any concerns that U.S. leadership in
    standards will not be followed? Are we ceding leadership in
    this area and is there any aspect of standards setting with
    which we should be concerned and looking at?
        Mr. Serum. Well, based on my interaction with NIST, I guess
    I could answer that maybe in two different ways. One, there are
    standards that involve international trade that may be somewhat
    mundane, may have very strong opinions by other countries,
    Germany, France, Netherlands, and so forth, in which the United
    States has good respect and plenty of leadership, but not a
    dominant role.
        The other point that I would make is NIST is fundamentally
    a research organization and it goes about developing standards
    from the foundation of very accurate measurement that can be
    developed upon which a standard is based.
        And as I look across NIST and to answer your question about
    what does the future look like, I would say I would expect NIST
    to take an even greater role internationally because of the
    role of technology and the rapid changes that are occurring.
        Mr. Culberson talked about nano particles now or tubes,
    nano materials. I recently saw an expert opinion that as much
    as 50 percent of all future technology-based products will
    involve nano materials.
        And that is one of the reasons why the great amount of work
    on toxicity of nano materials because should the horse get out
    of the barn and then one finds toxicological effects after the
    fact, it could be devastating to the economy. And so NIST has
    taken a very major role in the toxicology of nano particles.
        Mr. Mollohan. And how does that relate to standards
    setting?
        Mr. Serum. Well, again, that is basic research. But when
    one thinks of nano particles, the way one's body ingests
    material, nano particles will be in everything you can think
    of.
        Mr. Mollohan. Exposure standards?
        Mr. Serum. Exposure. So the dimensioning, the size, the
    geometry, the chemical properties of a nano particle right now
    cannot be predicted a priori. The science just is not known. So
    doing fundamental science in that work, trying to relate
    structure and composition of nano particles to toxicity is
    really important.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
        The 2010 suggested budget request is .8 billion. And that
    is notionally broken down for NIST. And there are additional
    resources provided in ``The Recovery Act'' which we would add
    to the 2009 funding.
        Looking forward, Dr. Marburger, the President's science
    advisor last year, testified before this Committee in response
    to some question to the effect that if you had additional
    dollars, where would you spend them in science, and he said
    NIST.
        Mr. Serum. Good for him.
        Mr. Mollohan. And so he was asked what kind of numbers are
    you talking about. And I am not going to say exactly because I
    would be guessing, but it was a really surprising multiple of
    the NIST funding. Say it was twice or three times. And,
    actually, I think it was some multiple higher than that.
        But whatever the multiple, do you agree with that and why?
        Mr. Serum. Yes, I----
        Mr. Mollohan. Now, this is vis-a-vis other science
    accounts.

                            THE AMERICA COMPETES ACT

        Mr. Serum. Yes. I understand. Yes, I do agree with it. In
    fact, I have said privately to people that when one talks about
    ``The America Competes Act'' and talk about doubling the
    budget, that represents about a seven percent per year growth.
    And I have said in response to that we are very grateful for
    that because of the challenges.
        Mr. Mollohan. That is the right thing to say first.
        Mr. Serum. Yes. But I could easily see the NIST budget
    doubling and enabling them to make very good use of those
    funds.
        When one looks at the challenges that NIST is involved in
    related to fuel cell research and energy, the energy grid, and
    that is an easy word to say and it is an extremely complex
    problem to solve, you do not----
        Mr. Mollohan. The energy grid?
        Mr. Serum. The energy grid.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Mr. Serum. You do not just plug all the grids together and
    you have an energy grid. You have to have a whole new
    infrastructure of security management. You need to have
    standardized equipment that knows how to measure energy as it
    is moved around.
        And then in the context of alternative energy sources, one
    faces a whole new set of measurements to assure that as energy
    moves around on a new grid that it does so and is managed in a
    secure fashion, in an accurate fashion.
        When one looks at healthcare, the way NIST has managed
    their research, which I enthusiastically support, is they have
    these main thrusts of we have a deliverable to make and we have
    to make progress. And they are full of ideas, full of new
    technological ideas that are just waiting to be nurtured.
        And what they do is they have a competitive sort of
    evaluation each year in which they nurture some of the more
    promising ideas just enough to keep the germ alive but not
    enough critical mass to actually fund them.
        There are many, many of those that have been worked on and
    are waiting to blossom. There are very, very outstanding ideas
    for transfer of technology to industry related to energy and
    infrastructure and information technology. A complex system you
    are talking about, NOAA, and the management of that data.
        When one looks at climate change, one of the big problems
    is knowing that there are so many variables that actually
    exist. NIST has a lot of competency in complex systems
    information science.
        And so I could go on and on about germinating ideas that
    could utilize that money almost instantaneously.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, I may let you do that because I am very
    interested.
        Mr. Bonner has not had a chance to ask questions.
        Mr. Bonner.
        Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am sorry that I
    was not here at the beginning for the opening testimony.
        Mr. Mollohan. You made a point of being here early before.

                              GULF COAST AND NOAA

        Mr. Bonner. I had some constituents that I needed to see.
    But you may have covered this, Dr. Avery. I know it is in part
    of your written statement. But first of all, a compliment. I
    think I am the only member of the Subcommittee that actually
    lives on the Gulf of Mexico. And we have had, as you know,
    quite frequent occasion to use the talents and the services of
    NOAA, the National Weather Service, and others who have come to
    our rescue before the storms have come and certainly afterward.
    Ivan, Katrina, Rita, a lot of damage, in fact, with Katrina
    obviously the worst natural disaster in U.S. history. So thank
    you for the wonderful work that is done there. Red tide, living
    on the water and actually seeing how something that has an
    innocent enough name can do so much damage and destruction is
    something that, again, I give hats off to NOAA.
        On the National Marine Fisheries Service, however, I will
    have to ask you, and I am doing it in a respectful way. Based
    on your experience, is there room for new thinking within the
    processes by which MNFS considers all the data with regard to
    putting fish population on a list? An example. The Gulf Coast
    charter industry is a $650 million a year industry in my
    district. These are small, family businesses. Mom and Pop take
    out a loan to get a million and a half, $2 million boat. And
    when they are told, when scientists in our own academic
    universities with marine biology degrees are saying that the
    red snapper population is ample, or has enlarged in the last
    ten years. And then they are told by National Marine Fisheries
    people that no, it has not. It is over fished and it is
    endangered. You cannot expect a family to go down and charter a
    boat for $5,000 to go out and catch two snapper. And so my
    question to you is, based on your experience, does the mind set
    at MNFS allow for new ideas and new information that could help
    perhaps bring a more balanced perspective on something such as
    listing a fish?
        Ms. Avery. That is a good question. I think that you will
    see right now a growing awareness that sometimes managing
    fisheries in terms of a single stock works, more often it does
    not. And it is because you are looking at the, you really need
    to look at the entire ecosystem that supports that particular
    species. And that is what we mean by ecosystem based
    management. And that approach to fisheries I think is one that
    should increasingly become something that NOAA looks at. I
    think there is even an interesting twist on it, now, in that
    whereas before without the climate problem one might have
    looked at that ecosystem from a stationary climate perspective,
    nowadays you have the additional stress that that ecosystem
    could be stressed by climate change. NOAA is the right agency
    to kind of merge that marine effort, fishery effort, the
    ecosystem based management effort with the climate effort to
    come up with something that has new ideas on how to actually
    get good, sound, consistent information out. But it is a
    wonderful topic that NOAA is positioned to do. Or should be
    positioned to do.
        Mr. Bonner. Well, we look forward to working with NOAA.
        Ms. Avery. That is good.
        Mr. Bonner. In that conversation.
        Ms. Avery. That is great.
        Mr. Bonner. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Bonner. Mr. Culberson.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, would
    it be possible for me to have, maybe, two, may I ask two sets
    of questions? Do I have time for, one on, I wanted to ask them
    about how did----
        Mr. Mollohan. For a reasonable length of time, you can
    ask----
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir. I wanted to make sure I did not
    run out. I want to ask you about----
        Mr. Mollohan. But you may run out----
        Mr. Culberson. I will be prudent.
        Mr. Mollohan. All right.

                             FERTILIZING THE OCEAN

        Mr. Culberson. I will be prudent. Thank you, sir. If I
    could ask you very briefly and succinctly, because I want to
    get to a second set of questions with you, Dr. Avery in
    particular, about fertilizing the oceans. Could you tell us in
    your own opinion how, what would be your best recommendation,
    again short and succinct, on how NIST and NOAA should spend the
    additional stimulus money?
        Mr. Serum. Yes. I think that one of the things that
    happened this year in the NIST planning activity was a matrix
    between the feedback that they had gotten in all of their
    programs related to priorities and comparing it to the new
    administration's priorities. And there was actually an
    excellent amount of overlap related to moving ahead in energy
    field, in healthcare, in infrastructure. And so I believe that,
    well, I would say the visiting committee supported those
    initiatives and many are just starting as initiatives.
        Mr. Culberson. You know, NIST has very broad discretion----
        Mr. Serum. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. In how that money is used.
        Mr. Serum. Yes. So the way I would answer it is, we believe
    that those are excellent priorities related to accurate
    measurements in climate change, moving ahead in understanding
    fuel cell function more effectively, photovoltaics.
        Mr. Culberson. Especially with carbon nanotubes.
        Mr. Serum. Yes. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. Because they make photo cells up to 60 to 70
    percent efficient.
        Mr. Serum. By the way, I post-doc'ed at Rice in 1970.
        Mr. Culberson. Did you?
        Mr. Serum. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. Did you work with Dr. Rick Smalley? Was he
    there at the time?
        Mr. Serum. Oh, yes. He was an undergraduate partner of
    mine.
        Mr. Culberson. Did you get to meet him?
        Mr. Serum. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. Extraordinary, brilliant man.
        Mr. Serum. So I think that making real headway in many of
    these areas, cyber security, making sure that all the
    transactions that are conducted on the internet are really
    secure, personal identity protection, things like that. Those
    are all easy to say. They are not so easy to implement. And a
    lot of effort has to go into them. And if it were, if it is up
    to me I am consistent with those priorities that have been
    established.
        Mr. Culberson. And then before I move on to Dr. Avery, are
    the research, is the research work done by NIST awarded, peer
    reviewed, competitively based research grants?
        Mr. Serum. I want to make sure I understand you correctly.
    Do you mean like the National Science Foundation?
        Mr. Culberson. Yes. Do you all farm out the grant money? Is
    it----
        Mr. Serum. No. Mostly not.
        Mr. Culberson. It is all done in house by in house
    scientists?
        Mr. Serum. It is mostly in house or partnered. If, for
    example, since you are very interested in nanoparticles, I have
    been quite insistent that they do not develop a whole
    toxicological department for that. But they partner with some
    world class organization to do that. They are the measurers and
    the developers of the technology and so forth.
        Mr. Culberson. Right. Texas Medical Center is ready to do
    that, through the Alliance for Nano Health.
        Mr. Serum. All right.
        Mr. Culberson. They have got a huge patient base, as well.
        Mr. Serum. So they will either do it themselves or they
    will partner to do it. And that is primarily their approach.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Then Dr. Avery, very quickly if
    you could, and then Chairman, I may, I may have one brief
    follow up after the Chairman. How should NOAA use the stimulus
    money?
        Ms. Avery. Okay. So we talked about the computation of
    resources.
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Avery. And, you know, in many ways you get the
    petaflops necessary to do the job with the right architecture.
    And how you get there, the cheapest way is probably what you
    need whether it is contract or elsewhere.
        Mr. Culberson. More computing power?
        Ms. Avery. Yes. More computing power, right architecture,
    satisfy the research needs. That is basically what you need.
    And the other areas for, in terms of facilities, certainly
    NOAA's ship, its research ships, could use an upgrade. And
    clearly the ocean observing system that they are poised to put
    in place would be another area that one could look at. And, I
    would also take a look at what other facilities that need major
    renovation that would lead to enhanced research services and
    operations.
        Mr. Culberson. What about the satellite that was lost,
    number one?
        Ms. Avery. Okay, yeah.
        Mr. Culberson. And number two, why doesn't NOAA or NASA
    carry insurance on those satellites like the Europeans do?
        Ms. Avery. Oh, I do not know. Self-insured, government
    self-insured, I guess. But that is the other question on the
    facility thing. Is it also for rescuing some of the satellite
    programs that have been lost? Or making sure that the
    satellites get up? I do not know if there is a separate budget
    in the stimulus package for the satellite programs or not on
    that.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Thank you. I have one extra area
    but I will wait until you are through. Or whenever you want me
    to do it. May I? Thank you, you are very gracious. The Chairman
    really is very generous with the time and it really is a joy
    working with you on the sciences. He knows how passionate I am
    about the sciences.
        Ms. Avery. That is great.
        Mr. Mollohan. It is obvious.
        Ms. Avery. It is obvious.
        Mr. Culberson. And, do you remember in the movie ``The
    Graduate'' where the young man, remember Dustin Hoffman they
    said, Mr. Chairman, at one point, the father of a friend
    approaches him and said, ``Young man, the word is plastics.''
    Today, if that movie were remade the word would be nano.
        Mr. Serum. I agree.
        Mr. Culberson. No doubt. It will be nano in everything we
    touch, see, and hear.
        Ms. Avery. Can I interject?
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Avery. On the nano piece. There is a wonderful
    opportunity for a NIST/NOAA collaboration associated with the
    nano particles and the toxicity. Because it is not just
    toxicity to humans. It is also a real concern, I think, in the
    ocean sciences community of how these particles, if they get
    into the ocean, how they interact with a very unique life
    environment.
        Mr. Culberson. No question.
        Ms. Avery. And so the marine side is, in toxicity----
        Mr. Culberson. Let me say at the outset, there is
    absolutely no evidence that it is toxic to anybody.
        Mr. Serum. No.
        Ms. Avery. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Culberson. Because they are so small. I do not want to
    leave the Chairman or the Committee with the wrong impression.
    It needs to be explored.
        Ms. Avery. That is right.
        Mr. Culberson. Because it is brand new.
        Ms. Avery. That is right.
        Mr. Culberson. There is zero evidence, unless you, you
    know, it is like with Sweet 'n Low. Unless you inject the poor
    mouse with about a gallon of Sweet 'n Low it might be toxic.
        Mr. Serum. Incidentally, there is a, the Hollings Marine
    Biology Group in South Carolina, in Charleston, is, we went
    down there this past year and did a full day review on the
    work. And they are doing just outstanding cooperative work. It
    is an excellent relationship.
        Mr. Culberson. Well, if I could, Mr. Chairman, the one area
    I want to explore and then I will pass, and you have been so
    kind with your time, in light of the fact that we do know that
    the oceans are responsible for absorbing up to 90 percent of
    all carbon in the atmosphere. The oceans, you know, the good
    Lord designed this natural sink, and the dust storms, Mr.
    Chairman, off Africa a scientist I think at Woods Hole?
        Ms. Avery. Yes.

                                PLANKTON BLOOMS

        Mr. Culberson. Noticed that whenever there was a dust storm
    in Africa and it blew all that dust out over the Mid-Atlantic
    that there were these huge plankton blooms. Because it is my
    understanding that a cubic yard of mid-ocean water contains
    less life than a cubic yard of Sahara Desert sand. Is that
    roughly correct?
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. Because that is why the water is clear. And
    when the dust settled in the ocean the plankton bloomed. He
    noticed that there was this vast reduction in carbon dioxide,
    release of oxygen. He put two and two together. And I have been
    following this closely. I have been a subscriber to the
    journals Nature and Science for about twenty years. And he was
    unable, of course, to get permission from the United States. So
    he went to Peru, off the coast of South America, rented an
    iron, a freighter. Put powdered iron ore in it, and hired some
    guys I guess with snow shovels, Mr. Chairman, like a lawn
    fertilizer. And just drove back and forth over the ocean. And
    correct me at any point if I am wrong. And just fertilized the
    ocean off the coast of South America. Measured the results, and
    it was dramatic.
        And correct me again if I am wrong. But I do not remember
    his name, I would love to know his name, number one. And we are
    going to have hearings week after next on climate change. But
    if you could tell us, the Chairman in particular, the
    scientist's name? And then correct me if I am wrong. He says
    that if you give him a tanker of iron ore he will give you an
    Ice Age. You know, and he is very serious about it. I mean, you
    really have to be careful with this stuff. So carbon
    sequestration is a terrific idea. We are trying to get, you
    know, the Chinese? They could care less. They are building vast
    numbers of coal, they have doubled, the Chinese have doubled
    the amount of carbon dioxide they are pumping into the
    atmosphere in ten years. And if you look at a satellite image,
    Mr. Chairman, of the, taken over the Pacific Ocean, look at the
    pollution bloom? It is appalling. I have had friends that went
    to China that are runners? They cannot even run in any of the
    cities in China. The pollution is so bad you cannot see across
    the street.
        So the Chinese are pouring out carbon dioxide. We are not
    going to get them to do it. The Indians are pouring out carbon
    dioxide. You know, we really need to be careful before we
    handcuff America. But in the meantime, when we are debating
    that, could you please tell the Chairman about the work that
    Woods Hole has done on fertilizing the ocean using, and again,
    nanoparticles of iron oxide, you do not have the acid problem.
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. The plankton can take it up more quickly.
    There is no acidity. I have already had Rice University
    graduate students helping me look at this.
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. And I would very much, Mr. Chairman, if I
    could I will throw out an open ended question and then close. I
    like, if I could, Dr. Avery to help work with us during the
    carbon, the week that we have some hearings on climate change.
    Come talk to us about carbon sequestration, in particular
    fertilizing the ocean. That is a natural for NOAA to do and
    Woods Hole is the world's expert on it. Talk to us about
    fertilizing the ocean and what effect that can have as a carbon
    sink and helping us reverse the carbon in the atmosphere, and
    how careful we have to be because we could trigger an Ice Age.
        Ms. Avery. Okay. I think, first of all, Woods Hole's effort
    in all of this, of course, is to understand the underlying
    basic premises or processes associated with the idea of iron
    fertilization as a means for carbon sequestration. And there is
    still a lot of work to be done. Research currently is focused
    on whether iron stimulates a bloom. And as Mr. Culberson said,
    it does.
        Mr. Culberson. My description was accurate.
        Ms. Avery. Yes. It stimulates a bloom. There is no question
    it stimulates a bloom. Where there has, where the research has
    not taken us yet, and where we do not know, is whether the
    carbon is ultimately buried and for how long it remains buried
    before it might come up again. And that is sort of the next
    stage of research that needs to be done. The other thing that
    needs to be done is taking some of these what we would call
    small scale pilot examples.
        Mr. Culberson. Like the fertilizing the ocean off of Peru.
        Ms. Avery. Like off of Peru. What happens when you expand
    it to larger scales? Industrial level scales? That particular
    question has not been answered. WHOI did do, sponsored a
    workshop.
        Mr. Culberson. Who?
        Ms. Avery. WHOI, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
    I am sorry. I speak in acronyms and I should not.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
        Ms. Avery. We call it WHOI.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
        Ms. Avery. We did do a workshop about a year and a half
    ago, or a couple of years ago, bringing a number of experts
    together to just focus on the iron fertilization issue to try
    to get it all out on the stage. What has worked? What do we
    know? What do we not know? What needs to be done? And there is
    a report on that workshop that we published in our Oceanus. So
    I will be happy to get that to the Committee because I think it
    is a very nice, done in public understanding language that
    would be helpful. And then I would be happy to give you a list
    of some of our scientists who might be able to come and really
    talk to you in more detail.
        Mr. Culberson. Week after next?
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. Week after next, and this finally, ten
    seconds, just this could be an area I think, Mr. Chairman, if
    we could look at giving some money, designating money within
    NOAA to help do this research as a really important way of
    getting carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere very rapidly. And
    I think the plankton, they all, it turns to limestone.
        Ms. Avery. Yeah.
        Mr. Culberson. It is buried forever.
        Ms. Avery. The question is how it gets buried. Yeah. I do
    not know if it is going to stay there forever. We do not know
    yet.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
    indulgence.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Culberson. Welcome, Mr.
    Ruppersberger.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Sorry. We have other hearings also, so
    you try to jump from one to the other. How is your friend WHOI
    doing, by the way?
        Ms. Avery. My friend WHOI is doing well.

                            RESEARCH AND NOAA BUDGET

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay, that is good. The one, and only
    just one question, and if it has been addressed then just let
    me know. In your prepared statement you describe the inequity
    between the dollars allocated for research and the rest of
    NOAA's budget. And that has been a trend for a while, and it is
    unfortunate but hopefully we will be able to turn that around.
    In your opinion, do you think NOAA is capable of adequately
    addressing some of the most pressing issues, I think, of what
    we deal with in this country, if not the world. Which includes
    the impact of climate change on sea levels, drinking water
    supplies, and our environmental concerns that can impact the
    entire world. If you could address those three, and if you
    feel, again, the question, do you feel that NOAA is capable, if
    more money, money does not always solve a problem.
        Ms. Avery. That is right.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. And you have to have your priorities,
    you have to have your staff in place. And so if you can get
    into a little bit of detail on those three?
        Ms. Avery. Yes. The answer to your question is yes. But
    NOAA cannot do it all internally. NOAA has to basically make
    sure that, in tackling these problems, it puts together the
    expertise base from the entire country, if you will, to
    actually tackle some of these problems.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. That is pretty broad. What do you mean
    by that?
        Ms. Avery. Well, what I mean by it is, you know, NOAA has
    its, I talked a little bit about this, it has its own in house
    research scientists group. But it also partners with
    universities in getting additional expertise and collaboration
    on some of these.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. And that is a very good point.
        Ms. Avery. And that is a very important strategy. And so
    NOAA's research, if you will, is almost leveraged in many ways
    by seeking these partnerships throughout the country that allow
    them to leverage those facilities, those minds, that expertise,
    that student base, etcetera, to tackle these problems. But yes.
    NOAA can play a tremendous role in the adaptation agenda. The
    climate impacts and adaptation, your issue of sea level rise.
    An important sort of modeling effort, observational effort,
    that is needed. A process understanding with the thermal
    expansion of the ocean, getting that pinned down a little bit
    more. Its work with stakeholders on some of these issues is
    going to be critical in investing more effort into some of the
    regionally integrated science assessment and similar programs
    that they already have there would be useful.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. You talked about academia, which I think
    is extremely important. Those partnerships. And you can do a
    lot of the research that is needed in those arenas. And a lot
    of the people in the colleges are going to be our future people
    working in this area.
        Ms. Avery. That is right.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. How about in the business community?
        Ms. Avery. Yeah. I think, you know, NOAA has been, actually
    NOAA has developed a real nice partnership, or it has evolved.
    And there is always a little bit of tension. But it is really
    working very well now with the private sector. And they have
    done a lot of work with the value added that is associated with
    the private sector. You know, when we talk about a national
    climate service and how it can reach any number of sectors of
    decision makers, there is probably a very key role for the
    private sector in producing what we would call value added
    information and working with that, with that service with the
    research community to develop that. You are going to need to
    have some discussions on, and policy discussions, on what is
    sort of a public service and what belongs in the private
    sector.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. When you are an appropriator, or you are
    an administrator, or whatever, there is not enough money for
    everything. So, you know, you have got to look at requests, you
    have got to prioritize and then decide where you go. And
    sometimes you cannot do it all. But if you were to, if you were
    appropriator and you were focusing on NOAA, where would you
    prioritize the money to go?
        Ms. Avery. Oh, man.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Knowing that, well, you are the expert
    and knowing that they, knowing that you need staff, you need
    the infrastructure and the resources probably that exist
    already so that we can make sure what we do do we do it the
    right way. And after that I am finished.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, there is always Woods Hole.
        Ms. Avery. Yeah, really. I can think of triple the budget.
    Are you, that is a big question. Do you, can I narrow it?
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Can your friend WHOI handle that?
        Ms. Avery. WHOI could handle that, yeah. Or some of it. We
    would probably reach out to others, though. Are we talking
    about in the research house specifically? Or do you want me to
    get----

                                  WATER SUPPLY

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Why do you not talk about the issues of
    sea level, drinking water supplies, and the environmental
    impact on other countries in this hemisphere, in South America
    and Canada, and where does the wind go. You know, I happen to
    be from Baltimore but I understand all of our bad air comes
    from Ohio.
        Ms. Avery. Well, certainly sea level rise is a critical
    research area and there is a critical need to get the
    observations that will help us understand better the processes
    associated with sea level rise. As we all know, the accelerated
    ice melt in the arctic is a key sort of climate issue that
    impacts us all. The research area associated with sea level
    rise and why, we are perhaps, not capturing that adequately in
    models yet, is probably associated with the dynamics of the
    thermal expansion of the oceans. And we do not have enough
    observations to actually help us with that. So that is a key
    question that gets to can I do sea level rise, and how are my
    coasts going to respond to sea level rise?
        The drinking water, key, and the National Integrated
    Drought Information Service was one step but the whole issue of
    looking at water resource availability and being able to work
    with models that help decision makers, help cities, help
    agriculture people decide how you are going to manage water in
    the, fresh water in the future is, again, a key thing that NOAA
    could be doing. And environmental quality in general is going
    to be key.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay, thank you.

                                      NIST

        Mr. Mollohan. I want to revisit just a little bit the line
    of questioning that I was pursuing with you and Dr. Serum
    before the vote. Staff handed me the quote from Dr. Marburger
    last year and let me just read it. ``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.'' And
    the question was, where would you spend additional money for
    science research if you had additional money? So that was quite
    a ringing endorsement for NIST.
        Mr. Serum. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. And you were sounding just like Dr. Marburger
    did when you were answering my question. I do not know whether
    you had finished and I think I interrupted you in the middle of
    your answer. So, I wanted to give you an opportunity to
    elaborate on that. If we are going to increase spending for
    research in the area of science, as this administration has
    signaled it wants to, then we would like to hear every case
    made for different research opportunities.
        Mr. Serum. Yes. So, just continuing, I think that, you
    know, I started out by saying I think that the budget could be
    doubled immediately and they would know how to deal with it.
    There are a couple of things that are important there. NIST is
    an unbelievably conservative organization. It goes through the
    management of their funds as well as their self-aggrandizement
    in the publicity, and so forth. And I used to complain about
    that. But the fact is that their response was, if you cannot
    measure it then you had better not brag about it. And if they
    cannot exactly measure the contribution, which I felt was
    enormous in many industry segments, then we should not speak
    about it. So they are very careful. And in that carefulness and
    that conservative approach, they manage, I have observed them
    in my ten years managing on the up side of money and on the
    down side of money very effectively. And when, I think the last
    two years they were on a continuation budget most of the time.
    And I watched them reprioritize to make sure that the most
    critical programs were moving ahead as planned and as
    committed.
        Their ability to respond quickly, I can think of two
    things. One is the World Trade Center bombing in which NIST
    immediately dedicated resources to not only understanding the
    cause of the collapse, and on our review board we went through
    that in gory detail, in which they recommended whole, entire
    new tower structure construction regulations or guidelines in
    order to accomplish that. That was not on their vision plan.
    The American Voting Act, or whatever the official name was, how
    do you, every American has the right to vote, you want to make
    sure that all the votes count correctly and just once. And that
    is a question of accuracy of voting machines. They jumped into
    that and immediately made recommendations for it. Those are
    not, that latter one is not large. But it is an example of how
    they can jump into something quickly and know how to deal with
    it and how to deliver a result.
        As far as my priorities, when I look at energy, when I came
    into the Chairmanship I was thinking about where I would put my
    dollars if it were up to me. And in my, sort of my inaugural
    address on my first, in our first meeting, I spoke about the
    importance of energy independence and the many, many areas of
    contribution that NIST can make in that regard. And therefore,
    I would make energy, and again I say it goes to the measurement
    of energy. It goes to developing new sources. They have ideas
    on much more efficient solar panels. They have very good ideas
    on more efficient fuel cells, for hydrogen fuel cells. They
    have, they have been working in research on battery optimizing,
    or improving the performance of batteries so that the GM
    product when it comes out can get more then forty miles on a
    single charge. Those are critical to our energy independence.
    And I believe is very important for NIST to take on. And they
    recognize that. And they listed that in their three-year plan
    as one of the most important.
        And again, I have not seen the number in the last year. But
    the amount we spend on healthcare is probably something like
    $1.4 trillion or $1.5 trillion now. It just, I can hardly even
    begin to speak to the impact that some of these diagnostic
    measures can make. At this international conference, bioimaging
    was determined to be one of the most critical contributions
    that one can make. NIST is doing several initiatives in
    bioimaging. The problem is one of sensitivity and specificity
    in order to do a diagnostic at the very, very early stage. And
    so NIST has the, if it were funded appropriately, NIST could
    probably make some significant contributions in bioimaging and
    that is one of the very important areas.
        And I have already spoken about the field I have gotten
    into in the last fifteen years is really biotechnology, and
    understanding the role of both DNA, RNA and proteins in the
    cause of disease. NIST is working on structure function
    relationships and proteins for understanding that kind of
    disease. Each one of these has absolutely a stochastic impact
    on human health, quality of life, and so forth.
        Mr. Mollohan. Let me ask you to focus that just a little
    bit. If NIST were to receive additional funding, which you
    already have and if the President's signaling is an indication
    we can expect additional requests for funding, prioritize, say,
    through the top three or four what you think would be
    appropriate. Two, three, or four areas that you feel that that
    money ought to, where that money ought to go.
        Mr. Serum. Well, as I mentioned, and let me just----
        Mr. Mollohan. You mentioned a lot of different exciting
    areas.
        Mr. Serum. I would, let me say one other thing in a moment,
    is when one lists climate change, and energy, and
    infrastructure, and manufacturing technologies, and so forth,
    it is certainly true that NIST cannot do all of those with a
    high degree of quality. So I think that one of the challenges
    that I listed in our annual report that you will be getting
    almost momentarily, I made the recommendation that they had to
    prioritize those according to, one, their core competencies,
    two, according to their ability to make a significant
    contribution as measured by the impact on competitiveness or
    the economy.
        Personally, I believe that energy is at the top of that
    list. And I would probably say, I would rate healthcare next.
    Now, they have a huge impact to make on infrastructure as well.
    I pooh-poohed their work in cement standardization when I first
    got involved. Well, if you look now at what is wrong with our
    infrastructure it is that things like cement are falling apart.
    And NIST has some initiatives underway that look at new
    standards to assure that cement bridges that are constructed
    now will last to a much greater time into the future.
        NIST has underway initiatives that they want to expand on
    with regard to catastrophic weather damage. How do you
    construct a building on the Gulf Coast so that it is actually
    resistant to hurricane?
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, I am looking for the priority. But you
    are suggesting that, your prioritization. But you are
    suggesting that this report that will do that is imminent?
        Mr. Serum. What we did, they listed about six areas. And
    our statement, my statement was that they should go back and
    reassess that. They stated that in their three-year report and
    they did not prioritize those six. My statement was they
    cannot, they do not have the same core competencies in all six.
    The impact of the outcomes is not the same in all cases. And
    therefore, I asked them to go back and reevaluate those on the
    basis of those parameters.

                             INVESTMENT IN SCIENCE

        Mr. Mollohan. In your judgment, should we be investing more
    in broader science and technology programs, STRS, and less in
    MEP and TIP? I ask with foreboding.
        Mr. Serum. I have a bias there. And my answer to that
    question would be yes. If it were up to me I would put
    dramatically more money into the laboratory research. Now, that
    is not to say that I do not support TIP and MEP. They serve a
    different purpose. As consider MEP. As one looks at U.S.
    competitiveness, and I cannot remember the exact number but
    something like 80 percent of our businesses are small
    businesses, or 80 percent of the employees are small
    businesses. And the sole purpose of MEP, Manufacturing
    Extension Partnership, is to transfer technology, know-how, et
    cetera, to make them more productive, produce products at a
    lower cost, and so forth. That is a, that is a well run,
    historic organization that in my opinion is doing very well. I
    would not personally add a lot of money to it. But I for sure
    would not eliminate it given our national goals.
        The TIP program, the Technology Innovation Partnership, is
    new.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, it was called the----
        Mr. Serum. But it has changed.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. ATP program, I believe.
        Mr. Serum. Yes, it was ATP. But very much different and
    focused virtually 100 percent on innovation now.
        Mr. Mollohan. Is now.
        Mr. Serum. Is now, yes. And I believe that is a very good
    foundation to continue to support. But I would, and you know, I
    think it is, it could probably grow some in its budget in order
    to advance some of the fundamental high risk, high reward type
    technologies. But that said, that is not where, if I were
    Marburger I would not put, I would put the vast majority into
    STRS laboratories.
        Mr. Mollohan. He is just recommending, too.
        Mr. Serum. Yes. So, you know, there are not very many
    places, in fact, I am sure there are no other organizations in
    the world that can boast three Nobel Prize winners in their
    organization.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes, that was very impressive. Dr. Avery,
    thank you. Thank you, doctor, sir. Although NOAA's primary
    responsibilities are operational, do a lot of research, we have
    talked about that a little. There was a line of questioning
    about inside research and contract research. I just want you to
    elaborate a little bit. From your perspective as a member of
    the science community, the research community, outside NOAA, is
    the balance between in agency research and outside research in
    your judgment a good balance, a correct balance? Does it need
    to shift one way or the other? And if you would, elaborate on
    why.
        Ms. Avery. Sure. Yes, this has been sort of an ongoing
    discussion about the appropriate balance between internal and
    external research, or in house and outside research. You know,
    currently I think the balance is about 70 percent in house, 30
    percent outside. There has always been a goal over many
    administrations and under many NOAA Under Secretaries is that
    it be a goal of 50 percent, 50 percent.
        You know, when you look at what is in house expertise and
    external expertise what you are really doing is looking at the
    unique complementary attributes of those two communities. So if
    you look at the NOAA laboratories very much like the NIST
    laboratories, there is stability in the research agenda. There
    are long term missions that they satisfy. They have base
    funding. If you look at the external community and that
    external research portfolio you are looking at research that
    might be more agile, more closely linked to external
    international partners worldwide. You might be looking at
    leveraging funding from other agencies or assets that would,
    might be easier to do externally than in house. You might be
    looking for training for the next work force, or the ability to
    engage user communities.
        So, what is the right balance? I do not know if you could
    basically set a specific number. What might be beneficial is
    for the agency to really sit down and have a discussion or to
    develop some sort of coherent policy or guidelines themselves
    on what they think is stuff that should be done internally and
    what should be done externally. Other mission agencies have had
    this discussion.
        Mr. Mollohan. NOAA has not?
        Ms. Avery. I do not think NOAA has specifically articulated
    that, at least to enough knowledge that it gets communicated
    widely. And that might be a good starting point to actually
    then determine what is the right balance.
        Ideally, eventually, the balance is going to be determined
    and should be tailored to the particular problem that you are
    going to look at with the particular expertise that you need.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes. To what extent does the expertise need
    to be in house, for example.
        Ms. Avery. Right.
        Mr. Mollohan. To what extent do you need to have in house
    expertise to even monitor the contract research?
        Ms. Avery. Right.
        Mr. Mollohan. Where does 50-50 come from? That sounds a bit
    arbitrary.
        Ms. Avery. I know it has been, for the last couple of
    administrations the number has always been, ``Well, the new
    resources should be 50 percent external, 50 percent internal.''
    I think it was trying to get a balance between the agility, if
    you will, to focus on a particular problem and bring in that
    expertise without bringing that, all the expertise that you
    need all the time in house, which could get quite costly. I
    mean, if you, if you look at the breadth of NOAA's mission and
    the science that needs to underpin that mission, and if you
    wanted all of the research to be done in house, you would be
    having a huge federal workforce, scientific workforce.
        Mr. Mollohan. That does not bother some of us.
        Ms. Avery. Well, yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. But others.
        Ms. Avery. The real question is, is when you make that
    commitment, have you basically then lost some agility that you
    might get that an external community provides.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, Woods Hole is a contract out operation,
    is it not?
        Ms. Avery. It is a soft money organization.
        Mr. Mollohan. But you really think of it as a NOAA
    operation.
        Ms. Avery. Really?
        Mr. Mollohan. That may be very inaccurate, or it may be
    because I am not really familiar with it.

                                   WOODS HOLE

        Ms. Avery. Now Woods Hole's history, initially, you know,
    seventy-five, eighty years ago, was based in Navy, and the Navy
    when the Navy really had the major oceanic research component.
    But then the Navy backed out of ocean research greatly, and
    particularly the deep ocean, greatly. At same time that the
    National Science Foundation then began to ramp up its budget
    for ocean science research.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mm-hmm.
        Ms. Avery. So WHOI--sorry, Woods Hole Oceanographic----
        Mr. Mollohan. No, we got it now.
        Ms. Avery. Got it? They are fast learners. WHOI's research
    portfolio, funding portfolio now, is predominantly, the largest
    source of research grants comes from the National Science
    Foundation. And then secondly, Navy and NOAA in about equal
    partnerships.
        Mr. Mollohan. Ah. So that is very appropriate to be an
    outside research organization. It works really well.
        Ms. Avery. It really does.
        Mr. Mollohan. You are able to work with other agencies. So
    maybe that is one of the tests, how many different research
    directions you serve.
        Ms. Avery. What that does is, it leverages the resources of
    all of those and the types of research that one does in a
    comprehensive way.
        Mr. Mollohan. It sounds like there is not, but in making
    these decisions, is there a criteria list that people look at?
    Or is it sort of intuitive as you are sitting around the table?
    Or do you know? You may not know.
        Ms. Avery. I do not know.
        Mr. Mollohan. O.K.
        Ms. Avery. I really do not know. I am not at that level of
    the organization.

                                  NOAA FUNDING

        Mr. Mollohan. All right. If there is an increase in funding
    for NOAA, what should be the balance between operational needs,
    including critical satellite observations to address climate
    change, and increased support for research?
        Ms. Avery. Well, again, I will be biased just as----
        Mr. Mollohan. That is okay.
        Ms. Avery. In the fact that, you know, the research
    program, as has been noted, has been flat or decreasing for so
    many years. And there are so many issues that require that
    research underpinning that it is really needed. On the other
    hand, I am very sensitive to the need that the research
    enterprise needs observational data. It needs observational
    data both from an in situ observing platform as well as from a
    satellite observing platform. I also realize that part of
    NOAA's budget constraints over the last year, few years, has
    been sort of the cost overruns associated with their satellite
    programs. And getting those under control is obviously key.
    And----
        Mr. Mollohan. A couple of tough programs, hopefully lessons
    learned.
        Ms. Avery. That is right, lessons learned to go forward in
    the future. I would hate to say that the research program would
    continue to be not supported because we have the satellite
    program still to resolve. I would love to just get the
    satellite problem off the table and get refocused on NOAA's
    missions that need that science underpinning so badly.
        Mr. Mollohan. Just for the record, to give you an
    opportunity to say it, to talk about it, what would be the
    consequences, assuming levels of research funding at NOAA just
    simply remain the same, not decrease.
        Ms. Avery. Well, you are putting at risk several, sort of
    things. Like I said before, a lot of the observational work
    that is the underpinnings of the research component is actually
    being funded by the research program itself. And so if the,
    research program remains flat, or declines, you are putting at
    risk, if you will, not only the research but some of the
    observations to support that research. And ultimately, the
    innovation and creativity that is going to go into addressing
    questions of better weather forecasts, better hurricane
    prediction, climate adaptation, climate impacts, and ecosystem
    based management. So you are really, you know, you can only do,
    you can only stay the course so much and not having that
    research continually feeding, updating, upgrading, looking at
    new approaches, thinking outside the box when things are not
    working in a complex environmental framework. And that is
    basically what you are putting at risk.
        Mr. Mollohan. You all have been tremendous here today,
    first of all appearing and then secondly giving this good
    testimony. We had a few minutes off the hearing because of the
    votes, and so, we are going a little over. Perhaps we can keep
    it to one more round of questioning and give Mr. Culberson an
    opportunity. Then we will ask some fast questions and try to
    wrap it up. Mr. Culberson?
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very,
    very brief, just to say that I am struck here again today with
    the expert advice of this panel which you have put together
    telling us that the best investment, it seems to me, from your
    testimony, the best investment of our dollars is always going
    to be in the pure scientific research, in the competitive peer
    reviewed scientific research, and just let the facts lead where
    they may. It is a tremendous, I think, place to invest our
    money.
        I would actually just ask Dr. Avery, if I could,
    specifically, would you recommend then that this Committee, I
    see it was the conclusion, I do have an article here from the
    January 11 issue of the Journal of Science summarizing the, I
    guess you, a workshop that you call it? The work that you did
    at Woods Hole to talk about iron fertilization of the ocean?
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. That your conclusion essentially was that we
    need more research, clearly.
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. And we will find out what the effects are
    and how best to do it. Then, would you then recommend to the
    Committee that we ask, specifically task NOAA with conducting
    the research that has to be done? Because NOAA is the best
    place for it to be done.
        Ms. Avery. That is probably a good starting point, yes.
        Mr. Culberson. You would make that recommendation to the
    Committee?

                              CARBON SEQUESTRATION

        Ms. Avery. Yes. If, certainly if you are looking at carbon
    sequestration as part of the portfolio----
        Mr. Culberson. Right.
        Ms. Avery [continuing]. Of what we do with our energy
    environment. You know, our energy portfolio----
        Mr. Culberson. Right.
        Ms. Avery [continuing]. As we go forward for an energy
    portfolio, it is renewables, there still could probably be, you
    know, offshore drilling at some level. There is going to
    certainly be the issue of carbon sequestration. When I talk to
    oil companies they are counting on carbon sequestration as one
    of their solutions. How that carbon sequestration is going to
    be done, whether it is in the ocean or on land-based systems
    probably needs----
        Mr. Culberson. That really, forgive me, that actually was
    the question I intended to ask, Mr. Chairman. Is when, would
    the Committee, I was asking, give specific guidance to NOAA to
    look at carbon sequestration.
        Ms. Avery. Sequestration, yes.
        Mr. Culberson. Department of Energy is probably going to
    have to also do the same thing.
        Ms. Avery. That is right.
        Mr. Culberson. But looking at carbon sequestration, the
    specific part of that has got to be how do you encourage it in
    the oceans, which is 90 percent of the----
        Ms. Avery. Right.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Carbon sink on earth? Is this
    a, let me make sure I understood from your testimony, Dr.
    Serum. What are the core competency areas that you think NIST
    should focus on? We do not want you doing, NIST doing too much,
    too many things and not doing them well. I just want to make
    sure for absolute clarity. And my concluding question, if you
    could tell us the core areas that you think NIST should focus
    on? In its pure basic research. Work in establishing standards,
    for example, for concrete, which is a good example.
        Mr. Serum. Yes. I, first of all let me say that NIST views
    their core competency as accurate measurement in many areas.
    And indeed, I want to emphasize that very strongly. You can go
    into a new field, as long as you are dedicated to making
    accurate measurements and understanding the technology, or
    developing the technology that allows those measurements to be
    made accurately. Then you are making a major contribution.
    Whether it be in climate change measurements, which suffer
    greatly from accurate measurements. Whether it be in energy,
    related to new technologies or in things like the grid. So I
    would say the foundation is accurate measurements.
        Now, the interesting thing is that I would say NIST has a
    good competency in healthcare. I would not say they have an
    outstanding competency in energy. But they know how to get that
    competency. And I think it is important for them to get that
    competency.
        They have phenomenal, an area that I did not even speak of,
    it is almost more like a fundamental science, but the world,
    the next thing that is going to explode, also very small, is
    quantum physics. And I could speak to the benefits that quantum
    physics is going to have. But you are talking about the IBM
    computer. Quantum computing has the opportunity to do massive
    computing in a very short time, that even the biggest computers
    cannot do now over many years. That kind of work, it is really
    important to continue. That is where the Nobel Prizes are, by
    the way, in understanding all of that. And I have to rate that
    as a fundamental science that is vitally important to
    everything that goes on. I do not classify that as energy or
    something like that, yet it----
        Mr. Culberson. That is within NIST's core competency?
        Mr. Serum. It is a very big competency of NIST. As now I
    would say nanotechnology two years ago was not a competency. I
    now believe it is a competency, and there is no lack of ideas
    as to how to move forward. But those, you know, it is a little
    difficult. You classify energy. I have spoken hardly at all
    about information technology. I would say that is a core
    competency from a technology perspective. Phenomenal talent and
    ideas in complex systems, cyber security, a variety of areas,
    that will make a contribution in these applications areas, such
    as energy and such as healthcare. The medical record that is a
    priority now. NIST will play a very major role in
    standardization of that information so it can move across.
    Very, very important.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
        Ms. Avery. If I could go back to your question about the
    iron fertilization and carbon sequestration in general, I think
    NOAA is appropriate but I am not so sure that NOAA should not
    be also working with DOE on this. And getting, whereas NOAA has
    the expertise, DOE probably should be aware of ocean
    opportunities, and the opportunities the ocean has to solving
    the energy piece.
        Mr. Culberson. Bundled perhaps with power plant
    sequestration.
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you.

                          NASA EARTH SCIENCE AND NOAA

        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Culberson. Dr. Avery,
    should ties between NASA Earth science and NOAA be
    strengthened? Or changed?
        Ms. Avery. It should be strengthened. I think that there
    has been certainly good dialogue in the past between NASA and
    NOAA at the working level. It is critical because, as I said
    before, a lot of research missions that are initiated within
    the NASA framework will, may ultimately end up in an
    operational context.
        Mr. Mollohan. How could it be strengthened?
        Ms. Avery. Well----
        Mr. Mollohan. And in what ways should it be strengthened?
        Ms. Avery. Yeah. I think what you can do is in part look at
    the decadal survey that was done, now how many, two years ago?
    Thank you. The recommendations there really call for the Earth,
    space-earth observation capability for the future, and
    regaining, if you will, the U.S. capability in that. The
    observing capability from space has degraded over the last
    decade. And they have specific recommendations on how that
    relationship can be strengthened, what kinds of things NOAA
    should be doing in this next stage, what kinds of things NASA
    should be doing, and how they might be partnering together to
    move things from research to operations.
        Mr. Mollohan. Where the hand off is, or where it is not.
        Ms. Avery. Right.
        Mr. Mollohan. And what the roles and the boundaries are.
        Ms. Avery. You know, part of the issue is that sometimes
    the research needs, sometimes you need to have missions to
    actually put it in a research framework to understand what is
    really needed for an operational framework, if I am making
    sense. So in other words, you do not necessarily know ahead of
    time what the exact operational framework should be. What kind
    of observations, where they should be, how frequently should
    they be measured, what is the distribution? And so often, NASA
    will start with looking at primarily a research mission that is
    focused on a particular research question that then helps
    inform, if you will, an operational strategy. If you know in
    advance that there might be a really great operational hand off
    here, it is probably not a bad idea to sit the research and
    operational agencies together to kind of at least acknowledge
    that there is that potential. Because very often you get in
    this, in this bind where a research satellite goes up and then
    all of a sudden the data becomes very, very useful to an
    operational entity. TRIM, the TRIM mission, which is a rainfall
    mission, was one of those. Yet, because NASA had deemed it as a
    research mission with a specific, specified timeline, or time
    life, lifetime, yet the operational entities were using it.
    Then there was an operational sort of push back, if you will,
    for a limited, you know, stopping this particular----
        Mr. Mollohan. Those responsibilities and those roles are
    not decided ahead of time.
        Ms. Avery. Not necessarily, because you may not know,
    necessarily, that it is going to have an operational value. It
    may just be that it is focused on a research endeavor. Because
    NASA is a fundamental research----
        Mr. Mollohan. I see.
        Ms. Avery. Yeah. So I think getting better at having that
    dialogue ahead of time when you are looking at a, particularly
    in earth observations from space, if you can have that dialogue
    that has the research community and the potential operational
    use. Have that dialogue up front so that you are at least
    cognizant of that.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Ms. Avery. Then there might be a better, smoother
    transition.
        Mr. Mollohan. Have the agencies come to that?
        Ms. Avery. I think there is acknowledgment of that
    internally. I am not sure if it gets transmitted at the highest
    levels and in the budget process to actually have that happen.
        Mr. Mollohan. Down to the----
        Ms. Avery. You need dedicated people who are doing this
    full time, probably.
        Mr. Mollohan. So where is the issue? At the program level?
        Ms. Avery. I do not know.

                    NOAA AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESEARCH

        Mr. Mollohan. Same question with regard to NOAA and
    Department of Defense research and environmental operations.
    Should it be strengthened? Changed?
        Ms. Avery. Yes, it should be strengthened. And again, the
    greatest intersection that I see there probably is between, is
    in the ocean area. The, and one example that would illustrate
    the NOAA-Department of Defense, primarily probably Navy, would
    be even what is happening up in the Arctic. If we are looking
    at, in the next decade, relatively ice free zones for a
    significant period of time, what does that mean in terms of
    resource availability, security issues, any number of things.
    And this is where NOAA and Navy could really have a good
    discussion and good partnership.
        Mr. Mollohan. Following up on Mr. Culberson's and your
    discussion, and maybe Dr. Serum's, about energy, and the notion
    of spreading, I suppose, powdered iron on the ocean as a
    CO2 sink strategy, I guess. Is there a dialogue, a
    relationship with Department of Energy and the National Energy
    and Technology Laboratory, NETL, regarding that notion?
        Ms. Avery. If it is it is not a very active one. If you
    look at DOE's portfolio over the years, prior, you know, prior,
    well I am trying to think. There used to be in the DOE
    framework a look at the oceans and their energy potential. That
    sort of research portfolio, I am trying to think, probably was
    cut away and eliminated, or down scaled, probably during, I
    want to say the Reagan era. Eighties, eighties. And, you know,
    I actually was looking the other day at the DOE laboratories
    trying to figure out if any of the laboratories are putting any
    significant amount of work into the ocean and its role in the
    energy arena. And there is not a lot going on. And it is
    probably something that should be----
        Mr. Mollohan. There is not a lot going on in terms of
    collaboration?
        Ms. Avery. In terms of just research at all.
        Mr. Mollohan. Oh.

                                DOE LABORATORIES

        Ms. Avery. In the DOE labs.
        Mr. Mollohan. With regard to the potential.
        Ms. Avery. Ocean, the ocean and its role in the energy
    portfolio. I think it is something that would be very useful to
    have a discussion with DOE.
        Mr. Mollohan. Is that something Woods Hole specifically is
    interested in, or has a jurisdiction regarding?
        Ms. Avery. We do. We are very interested in it. We are very
    interested because we see the dialogue in ocean, you can see,
    you can talk about ocean in terms of energy derived from oceans
    in terms of tides. You can talk about it in terms of waves. You
    can talk about it in terms of currents. You can talk about it
    in terms of thermal extraction. You can talk about it in terms
    of carbon sequestration of the ocean. You can talk about it in
    terms of sighting of wind farms offshore. You can talk about
    it, also the energy portfolio, in terms of offshore drilling.
    How is the best way to do it, minimizing environmental impacts?
    A lot of things like that.
        Mr. Mollohan. I would think you would have a real
    collaboration. Everything we talk about in this hearing is
    about money. This is certainly about big money. Futuregen.
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. I do not know whether it is a carbon sink but
    it is definitely a money sink. And there are huge amounts of
    money going there just, let us try this for half a billion
    dollars. Well, that did not work. Let us try this for half a
    billion. It seemed to me that consultations with regard to all
    of these ideas up front would be very beneficial, particularly
    what I have heard today about the potential of the ocean. I
    cannot speak for them, but I do not believe NETL is looking
    much at that. And if you are not talking with them, I do not
    know how they would look at it without talking to you. And
    also, the biological, the enzyme approaches to this issue and
    the little bugs they have described approach to this issue. I
    would think that you all naturally would be involved, or want
    to be involved, in that. I really commend that to you, and I am
    actually going to speak with them and hear them talk about that
    potential.
        This is a huge issue. And just pumping CO2 into
    the ground somehow, and such massive amounts of it, too. I
    mean, you have to have places to do it even if it is a good
    idea. But we are going to spend----
        Mr. Culberson. Oceans. Oceans are sinking it.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes, if there is a biological process that
    happens that is environmentally neutral or positive, I think
    that that would certainly have to be considered, the viability
    of it considered. And the cost benefit of it. You know, before
    we move forward. We are hey diddle, diddle right up the middle
    with carbon sequestration. I think that stepping back and
    thinking about it a little better in a multidisciplinary, multi
    agency way, I mean, that is something we should see how we
    could promote. And you may have some advice in regard to.
        Ms. Avery. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. So. Well on that note, energy, which is
    almost where we started I think, if Mr. Culberson does not have
    any more questions?
        Mr. Culberson. Just thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. And we may have some questions to
    submit to you. And you are not an agency, you do not have to
    answer them, but you might be kind enough to be responsive to
    them. I have a couple questions here that I might like for you
    to respond to. We very much appreciate your time and your
    expertise. You were very kind to come down here, or over here,
    or in here. Wherever you came from. Down here, Woods Hole, I am
    thinking north----
        Ms. Avery. North, yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you for your testimony. Today has been
    extremely helpful.
        Mr. Serum. Thank you.
        Ms. Avery. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.043

                                               Thursday, March 5, 2009.

                               SCIENCE EDUCATION

                                   WITNESSES

    BILL NYE, ``THE SCIENCE GUY''
    DR. HAROLD PRATT, FORMER PRESIDENT, NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS
        ASSOCIATION

                     Opening Statement by Chairman Mollohan

        Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order.
        Good morning, Mr. Nye and Mr. Pratt. Science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics or STEM are key to U.S. economic
    growth and STEM education is key to the continuing health of
    the U.S. science enterprise.
        I first want to welcome both of our outstanding witnesses
    here today. We look forward to their testimony. Between them,
    they bring us a wealth of knowledge over a broad area,
    enlightening us today, I am sure, on science, science and math
    education and how the resources that this Subcommittee
    appropriates will be best applied to advance that cause.
        I would also like to notice and welcome the large group of
    students here today. They are from the National Young Leaders
    Conference; is that right, students? Yes. They are from the
    National Young Leaders Conference. We welcome them.
        And after today, they may be seeking professions in
    science, who knows, in great numbers. We certainly hope so.
    That would be one additional good outcome of this hearing.
        Well, this week, the Commerce, Justice, Science
    Subcommittee, which is this Subcommittee, has been taking
    testimony on the state of science in the U.S. and the roles of
    four research agencies that are in our jurisdiction, NASA, NSF,
    NOAA, and NIST, in the overall science enterprise.
        This morning, we turn our attention to science education, a
    major program within the National Science Foundation, and a
    component of the activities of NASA and NOAA.
        The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the
    stimulus bill, which we just passed, specifically increased
    funding for education programs at NSF by $100 million and
    provided $180 million at NIST for a competitive grant program
    for construction of research science buildings. This
    illustrates the importance of science education in
    appropriations.
        In testimony from Ralph Cicerone, President of the National
    Academy of Sciences, earlier this week, he pointed out that a
    U.S. graduate education in science and engineering is highly
    respected throughout the world and there are other countries
    working to emulate it. However, this is not the case with K
    through 12 science education. We all have seen reports in the
    press about the poor average performance of U.S. students on
    comparative tests of science learning.
        Engineering graduate enrollment is now overwhelmingly drawn
    from aboard, and while this draws bright, creative minds to our
    shores and economy, it begs the question as to where is the
    stream of U.S. students to pursue graduate engineering degrees.
        Our emphasis in this hearing is on K through 12 STEM
    education and the preparation, recruitment, and retention of
    science teachers.
        We are pleased to have as witnesses Bill Nye, ``The Science
    Guy.'' Welcome. And Mr. Harold Pratt, former President of the
    National Science Teachers Association. Welcome, Mr. Pratt.
        Both are in touch with U.S. science education. Both are
    educators and through meeting with thousands of science
    teachers each year, they have something to bring to us.
        We look forward to learning about the status of science
    education in the U.S. and its future direction.
        Gentlemen, your written statements will be made a part of
    the record. We will ask you both to make your oral
    presentations and then the Committee will proceed with
    questions.
        Why don't we start on the left with--I am sorry. Oh, pardon
    me. Congressman Wolf, who is the Ranking Member of this
    Subcommittee, today, now, during this Congress, was the
    Chairman of this Subcommittee for a number of years, did an
    outstanding job, has a dedicated commitment to science and
    science education, and has managed these accounts over the
    years when he was Chairman and on the Committee as well, to try
    to apply the scarce resources, and they were scarcer then, we
    hope they are more today and in the future, as best he could
    when he managed the Subcommittee in order to further the
    interest of science and education.
        Mr. Wolf.

                           Mr. Wolf Opening Statement

        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I really did not have anything to say, but I am going to
    say one thing. One, I appreciate the Chairman having these
    hearings. Two, I am looking forward to hearing what you are
    having to say.
        I have some constituent things. I am going to be bopping
    out and back and forth. So when I do, they have already been on
    the schedule and I cannot change them, so do not think I am not
    interested.
        Three, I really do worry about science. We had a report the
    other day. A lot of the STEM grants were laying on the table
    last year and were not used. And the failure--and I hope the
    New York Times is over this. Is a New York Times reporter here?
        The New York Times has a full page story today on the fact
    that Barak Obama's hair is turning gray, full page, front page
    story. And the Chairman is having great hearings. We have had
    great witnesses. They have never even covered this. And full
    page and on the radio and TV today, it is all about Barak Obama
    turning gray.
        I mean, do we wonder why our factories are empty and our
    science and we are in a period of decay on this issue? And I
    think the media, quite frankly, whoever is with the New York
    Times, you are just not doing your job. I mean, the editor of
    the New York Times to cover a full, front page story and to
    miss the hearings that the Chairman is having and others are
    talking about is actually just--it is depressing.
        And with that, we are looking forward to hearing your
    testimony.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Nye.

                           Mr. Nye Opening Statement

        Mr. Nye. Thank you, Chairman Mollohan.
        Let me say you look fantastic with the hair color that you
    have today.
        Mr. Mollohan. And it is the one the good Lord gave me and
    it will never change.
        Mr. Nye. And I think, you know, the man can drink. That is
    all I am saying.
        Thank you very much for having this. Very much appreciate
    your taking the time to listen to what I have to say.
        And, as you point out, there is great concern about science
    education in the United States and I think it is very welcome.
        General Motors came here hat in hand--oh, turn on my mike.
    Do you want me to start again? It is really interesting. Yeah.
        General Motors came here hat in hand, U.S. based auto
    company. Japanese based auto companies did not come here. They
    did not need to because they have a different approach to
    designing and building cars, one that we used to be good at.
        No one is surprised by this. Everybody complains about it,
    but the thing to do about it, the thing to change is elementary
    science education.
        You see, something has happened where science education has
    been viewed as a special interest, something that is hardly
    different from farmers that grow a specific crop in a specific
    part of the country. But science is for everyone. Science
    involves everyone every day.
        You look around in this room, everything in here owes its
    existence to science, whether it is the precisely made
    woodwork, the microphones, the paint, the understanding of
    chemistry, the lighting, the electricity. This all comes from
    science.
        So right now we have a problem. Every year I meet not
    dozens, not hundreds, not thousands, I meet tens of thousands
    of science teachers every year. I have yet to meet one, I have
    not met one science teacher who believes in No Child Left
    Behind. So I do not know what it is exactly, but there is
    something wrong. Something is wrong with No Child Left Behind
    and it is not in anyone's interest to not fix it.
        The thing that has happened is science teachers have to be
    held accountable in exhausting ways. They have to administer
    tests. They have to do assessments. They have to file reports
    for officials. And they cannot do the one thing, the one thing
    that made me go into science, and certainly my science
    teachers, they do not have time right now to inspire. That is
    the key.
        You see, science starts with observation and then it goes
    through something we often call the scientific method and so
    on. But it starts with an interest, with being inspired. And so
    we have to change this. We have to make it easier for science
    teachers to do their job.
        And generally I would say the solution, if there is one
    solution, we have to do everything all at once. If you ask
    science teachers who have children who do not have a tradition
    of academic rigor, who do not have strong family that believes
    in education, I would say what we have to do is fix the
    parents. Well, that is not possible. We will not be able to fix
    the parents. We have to fix everything else that we can.
        So we have to make it so that someone graduating from, let
    us say, engineering school, instead of choosing to go to work
    for a very good software company might instead choose to become
    a science teacher. In order to do that, you have to pay people.
    You have to pay the educators. And we have to have a situation
    where there are not 30 children in a class or 50. We have to
    have closer to 15 or 16 kids in a class.
        And I admit we have to cut the dead wood. There are certain
    teachers that are not holding up their end of the bargain. And
    I know we have to negotiate with teaching unions and so on, but
    that has also got to be done.
        And then I believe strongly in national standards. And I
    will just tell you right now national standards have to include
    evolution. The underlying idea in all of geology, the
    fundamental idea, the big discovery in all of geology is plate
    tectonics. Plate tectonics is a great idea. It is fantastic. It
    changed the world.
        But the underlying idea in all of life science is
    evolution. Evolution binds everything together like nothing
    else. So we have to just reach agreement on that and move on.
    If you want to study things that are not evolution, just do it
    outside of science class.
        So in a few hours, NASA will launch the Kepler Mission
    which will look for terrestrial planets. These will be planets
    that are like the earth on other stars. These are places that
    my grandparents, these are very recent ancestors, even my
    grandparents could not imagine such places.
        And we are doing that not with an individual as Kepler was
    but with a society who believes in this, believes in spending
    its treasure on making discoveries about our place in the
    universe. Where did we come from? The oldest of human
    questions. And these are science questions.
        Now, as you know, I am the Vice President of the Planetary
    Society, a society started by Carl Sagan and a couple of his
    colleagues. And I am a big believer in planetary citizenship,
    that we are all together on this one world.
        But I was also born in the United States and I am a
    patriot. My father fought on Wake Island and spent 44 months in
    prison camp. My mother was a Lieutenant in the Navy and was a
    cryptographer. She worked on breaking the enemy's Enigma code.
        So this patriotism may come from the household I grew up
    in, but for my part, I want the next generation of biofuels,
    the next generation of high performance batteries, the next
    generation of flood and volcano monitoring systems, the next
    smart pasture farming operations, I want all of those things to
    be created here in the United States by our citizens so that we
    can lead the world and improve the quality of life for everyone
    everywhere on planet earth.
        Now, if we do not support science education, I claim that
    you or we will be the first generation ever in the United
    States history to leave the world worse than we found it. We
    will leave the world, the quality of life for our kids and
    grandkids lower than our quality of life.
        So I thank you for all you have done in the last few weeks
    to support science education and I thank you for listening, but
    we need to do a great deal more and we need to do it as soon as
    we can for the betterment of all human kind.
        Thank you very much.
        [Written testimony by Mr. Bill Nye follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.044

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Nye.
        Mr. Pratt.

                          Mr. Pratt Opening Statement

        Mr. Pratt. Thank you. Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member
    Wolf, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, my name is
    Harold Pratt and I am testifying today on behalf of the
    National Science Teachers Association.
        I have been a very active science educator for 53 years and
    you will notice my hair has some of the same color that we
    revere so much. I am still active as a consultant and an author
    to this day and appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony
    about the state of science education in the United States.
        I would also like to thank this Committee and Congress for
    the increased funding for science and science education in the
    stimulus bill and the recent Omnibus bill in federal year 2009.
        It is important that Congress continues to fund ``America
    Competes,'' especially funding for the Education and Human
    Resources Directorate at the National Science Foundation so we
    can address many of the challenges that Bill and you are very
    aware of.
        Much of the science education research conducted over the
    past few years largely with NSF funding has been promising and
    productive. NSF-sponsored research on student learning
    summarized recently by the National Research Council tells us
    young children are capable of learning far more complex and
    abstract ideas than we previously realized.
        This and other NSF research has the potential to
    revolutionize the way we teach science and the way it is
    learned in our schools.
        Unfortunately, very little of this research finds its way
    into the majority of classrooms where it can have an impact on
    science learning. We have to do a much better job of
    disseminating and actively implementing the research findings
    in our classrooms so that it can be used to increase science
    achievement.
        A second challenge is the quantity and quality of science
    provided at the elementary level. Many people, many adults in
    this world do not realize that increasing the number of science
    and math graduates, which I know is one of the goals of this
    group and others, relies a great deal on the science we provide
    to our youngest learners.
        Unfortunately, many elementary schools have reduced the
    amount of science education their students are receiving or
    have even eliminated it altogether because of the pressure to
    show achievement in other subjects. Many elementary teachers
    are also ill prepared to teach science at this level.
        A third challenge is the lack of professional development
    provided to science educators. All teachers of science at all
    levels must have access to long-term, coherent, professional
    development so they know the science they are teaching, they
    understand how students learn science, and they can plan and
    deliver the quality science instruction.
        Unfortunately, again, many districts have been forced to
    cut back on providing funding for science teacher training. We
    hope that Congress can encourage school administrators and the
    federal agencies to invest more in the professional development
    of teachers.
        Science teacher education is also a concern. Last year, the
    National Science Board called for a review of teacher education
    programs and how well they provide science and the training in
    the subject that prospective teachers will teach.
        Improving science standards and assessments that Bill
    mentioned is another key issue at the state level and we look
    forward to the President's agenda in this area.
        Research from what we call the trends in mathematic and
    science studies, sometimes called TIMSS, and the NRC tell us
    the current state of science standards contains far too many
    topics, provide too much variation from state to state, and
    does not tell us what students need to learn.
        No discussion of quality science education would be
    complete without mentioning a high school science laboratory
    experience. Unfortunately, the news in this area is not good.
        In 2005, the NRC found that most students had a poor
    experience in the science laboratory. Teachers were not
    prepared to run lab activities. State exams did not effectively
    measure laboratory skills and the quality of laboratory
    equipment was widely diverse. Funding for ``The America
    Competes Act,'' including full funding of the Partnerships for
    Access to Laboratory Science Provisions, will help address this
    problem.
        Finally, as many of you probably have heard from your
    constituents, many, if not most, school districts are finding
    it hard to recruit and retain science teachers. Many schools
    have to compete with business and industry for high school
    science teachers. Research tells us that the teacher shortage
    in science education may be due in part to early exits because
    of the poor teaching conditions that exist in schools and the
    lack of administrative support.
        Mr. Chairman, although many of these key challenges need to
    be addressed at the local and state level, at the federal
    level, we would like to see additional resources for the
    National Science Foundation so the agency can continue to
    expand upon its research and development efforts in science and
    math education.
        As pointed out in recent reports a couple years ago,
    federal STEM programs at the federal agencies, including the
    agencies under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee and the
    Department of Education, Department of Energy and Department of
    Defense, need to be better coordinated and focused in a
    systematic manner that first truly identifies the needs of
    teachers, schools, and districts so that federal dollars can be
    used to best address these needs.
        Like the science content standards in many states and the
    words that we have heard often repeated, the sum total of these
    federal programs are what I would describe as a mile wide and
    an inch deep. A collaborative effort to streamline and
    coordinate federal STEM programs can best be done by OSTP and
    will go a long way to address many of the challenges I have
    presented here today.
        Thank you. And I thank you for the opportunity to testify
    and I look forward and welcome your questions.
        [Written statement by Harold Pratt, Former President,
    National Science Teachers Association follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.050

                             Mr. Mollohan Questions

        Mr. Mollohan. Well, thank both the witnesses for their
    excellent testimony.

                               SCIENCE EDUCATION

        Both of you, in your respective ways, made the point that
    we had to approach this comprehensively and in a coordinated
    way.
        Mr. Nye made the statement right up front that they have to
    do everything all at once. And Mr. Pratt gave us a detailed
    listing of that and it might not have been totally inclusive,
    but it certainly was comprehensive.
        I would like to give each of you an opportunity just to
    elaborate on that notion we have to do everything all at once.
    I certainly agree with that. I think you have to do it from
    soup to nuts, from education, the science education, which is a
    college function obviously, and import it into the elementary
    schools, K through 12 and bring it forward.
        But I would like to hear you all talk, each in turn, talk
    about that notion.
        Mr. Nye. Let me say that you if you are going to get a kid,
    a student to have lifelong passion for science, it is generally
    agreed you have to get that passion before you are ten, before
    you are ten years old.
        Now, you can get in debates about maybe it is 11, maybe it
    is--I do not think it as late as 12, but there is no one--very
    few people would argue that you can get somebody to have a
    lifelong passion for almost anything by the time he or she is
    17 or 18.
        So this feature of the human brain or whatever that we get
    this passion when we are very young, we need to exploit or
    enhance or take advantage of. And this is the point that Mr.
    Pratt was making, that we have to really emphasize elementary
    science education.
        And this involves, the expression that everybody loves is
    hands on and it means if you--the old saying is if you want a
    kid to learn about magnetism, you have to just give the kid
    magnets and he or she will figure it out.
        But if schools do not have the resources for that, then
    where do they turn? Well, it has been shown to my satisfaction
    that about half of what you learn about science is learned what
    is called informally. And informal is the technical term that
    means outside of the classroom.
        But then what is outside of the classroom? Outside of the
    classroom might be something like the after school program. And
    in my opinion, the most effective informal education settings
    are where the person, the instructor, the educator, the person
    running the after school program is passionate. Wherever that
    person is enthusiastic about science, the thing is successful.
        And so as I tell teachers all the time, you should want to
    teach science because you have got props. You have got things
    that blow up. What is more fun than that?
        And so we have a situation, and then I am going to hand it
    over to you, Harold, in just a moment, is we have a situation
    where people who were not raised with scientific traditions are
    asked to teach elementary science and they are uncomfortable
    with it.
        But in my view, this is a great chance for teacher
    development because almost anyone who goes into elementary
    teaching is passionate, wants to influence young people.
        And so if we give them the tools to teach science, they
    will do an excellent job. But right now those tools are not
    very well distributed.
        Mr. Pratt. We do have to think comprehensively and I would
    add systemically. And let me explain what that means. We have
    to think about the system from A to Z.
        But first let me start with a negative just to set the
    stage in a way good teachers would not usually do. It is not
    simply developing high standards and rigorous assessments and
    then invoking penalties when the success is not met. And I
    think that may represent much of a model that is in the minds
    of both politicians and educators across this country today.
        So let me fill in the space or the gap between the
    standards and the assessment because that is where the work
    lies and that is where the support and the funding needs to be
    made, not to decrease the importance of strong standards and
    quality assessments, but to fill the gap, what I am going to
    call the gap between those.
        And, of course, it starts with teachers at university
    education. It is the model for teaching and learning that
    unfortunately gets replicated at K-12 by some very poor but
    improving, I must say, standards and examples of teaching at
    the university level.
        Mr. Mollohan. Will you say that again, please?
        Mr. Pratt. Yes. What happens is that teachers, particularly
    at the secondary level, but maybe to some degree at all levels,
    teach the way they are taught. So whether we like it or not,
    university teaching, and you know the worst case scenario are
    those huge freshman classes, you know, arenas of 350 students
    and a microphone with a professor standing behind it.
        Now, there are improvements and NSF is making efforts and
    there are some very good examples across the country where
    there is an attempt and you have heard from some Nobel Prize
    winners such as Eric Misor at Harvard and so on who have
    testified and written extensively about this, but unfortunately
    the number of those is fairly small.
        So what the classroom teacher faces then is very little
    teaching experience or modeling and they need the professional
    development immediately. Young teachers do not survive for a
    whole variety of reasons.
        Part of it is the lack of training. Part of it is the lack
    of support. Part of it is the poor teaching assignments they
    are given their first years because they are low on the totem
    pole, so to speak, on the seniority in the school district.
    They have poor instructional materials. In other words, they
    have materials that really do not help them understand what we
    call inquiry based teaching or teaching beyond the facts. They
    do not have the professional development support that they
    need. They often do not have an administrator who understands
    what quality science teaching is.
        So they hit a scene at the local school level where at
    least half of them drop out in the first three to five years
    simply because of a variety of reasons that just seem to pile
    up on them.
        So we need quality instructional materials. We need the
    professional development in the use of those materials. We need
    the support in terms of physical materials to teach with as
    well as the laboratories and facilities at all levels. We think
    of laboratories at the high school level. We do not have
    laboratories at the elementary level, but we need facilities
    that are inducive or conducive to teaching elementary science.
        And then, of course, we do need the support from the
    community. We need a standing for teachers that is well
    recognized and revered, if you will, at the local level. And we
    need time for them to teach elementary science.
        Then we need quality assessments that are consistent with
    those standards and the type of instruction, the goals of
    instruction. So we need research and development and the
    development of assessments that are consistent with what we
    know to be quality science and that the NSF research tells us
    is very productive and very successful.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, gentlemen.
        Mr. Aderholt.

                             Mr. Aderholt Questions

        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to have
    our guests here today.
        Thank you both for being here.
        I would concur with you, Dr. Nye, that the Chairman and
    Ranking Member's gray hair does look very nice----
        Mr. Nye. It is fabulous.
        Mr. Aderholt [continuing]. And distinguished on them. I
    never mind my hair turning gray. It is the turning loose part
    that has always been a concern to me.
        So, anyway, it is good to have you here and thank you for
    taking time to come before our Subcommittee and to share your
    insight and your thoughts on science, an issue that is very
    important in this day and age.

                              NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

        One of the things that you mentioned about the No Child
    Left Behind Act, and I think probably most everybody on this
    dais up here probably was here during that time, and I am not
    sure every one of us supported it, but we were here when that
    legislation came before us.
        Mr. Nye. It seemed like a good idea.
        Mr. Aderholt. Certainly there are few federal programs that
    are perfect. Matter of fact, any time that you have a
    government program that is so big and so vast as No Child Left
    Behind, it is going to be riddled with a lot of problems. And
    so I do not think anyone would disagree with that.
        I guess what I would be asking you, and this is just an
    honest question, you mentioned the fact that teachers have a
    lot of paperwork to do. What other ways do you think that we
    would need to revise No Child Left Behind or some goals that we
    need to look at when we do change, and we will be changing No
    Child Left Behind and making changes to it over the next
    several months? You know, what would you offer?
        Mr. Nye. Fewer standards and, if you will, more succinct
    standards that are achievable. And then you want standards that
    are achievable through hands-on education rather--this is the
    old question for any academic setting, lecture versus
    laboratory. This is an old saying.
        How much laboratory should you have versus lecture? And
    this is a good question in the college level, university level.
    But in elementary school, they really do not need any lecture.
    What you need is hands-on time when it comes to science
    education.
        And so from my understanding, there are many schools where
    science is not assessed at the elementary level, where it is
    not part of the standards. And this is especially true of
    astronomy. May I remind you 2009 is the year of astronomy.
        We are the first, the people living now are the first set
    of humans to realize that we live on a planet that is hardly
    different from many, many other planets and they are going to
    live through a time when earth-like planets are discovered
    elsewhere.
        And I mention this only because this is something that you
    should be aware of certainly before you are 12 years old, but
    right now we do not have a national standard in that one
    example. We do not have a national standard for that. And we
    could change that. That would be something, for example, we
    could change.
        And there are people that are expert on this. And what
    happens, it is my understanding, everybody wants his or her
    piece of the pie and, I mean, this is your business is
    compromise. But what we need is to let science be regarded as
    important at the elementary level. And I think that would be a
    fundamental change in No Child Left Behind from what I
    understand.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
        Of course, the President has repeatedly asserted that, as
    leaders and members on both sides of the aisle will attest up
    here in Washington, that no child's education can be fully
    maximized without significant involvement from the parents.
        And I am a parent of a five-year-old and a nine-year-old.
    And what would be your suggestions as far as fostering and
    furthering the science education outside the classroom when
    they are home, of course, other than watching episodes of Bill
    Nye, ``The Science Guy''?

                              PARENTS AND SCIENCE

        Mr. Nye. Well, that is fabulous. You are looking for a
    specific thing for you as a parent?
        Mr. Aderholt. Yeah. Just what would you----
        Mr. Nye. Let them mess around in the kitchen. And then as
    part of that, they have to clean it up. That has got to be part
    of the bargain.
        And so you can do things. One of the tenets, I am reluctant
    to say innovations, on ``The Science Guy'' show is we divided
    science into physical science, chemistry and physics, life
    science, which would be general biology, and then things about
    the human body, and then what I like to call planetary science,
    which is earth science and astronomy.
        And I claim if you just try to nudge kids into those three
    categories every month, you will have fun. And people will
    inherently learn science. Take food coloring and try to make it
    in the shape of a squid. That is not so easy, but squid do it
    with their ink every day or whenever they need to. I do not
    interview that many squid. I have spoken to them, but I have
    never really had a response.
        Then with regard to planetary science, you know, you can
    look at the moon all the time. And we strongly encourage you to
    make diagrams of the phases of the moon with a piece of soap
    scrape because you can--then the window gets cleaned at the end
    of the month too.
        And so I just encourage you to allow investigation, to let
    people, let kids make a mess and clean it up because you learn
    things about the--well, water is very important and you learn
    things about the nature of materials, like paper is different
    from plastic, metal is different from paper. You learn things
    about the world that if you are going to go on to be a
    scientist or engineer or if you are going to go on to be a
    legislator, you want everybody to be scientifically literate in
    this fundamental way, have respect for science.
        So I say let them mess around. That is a great question.
        Mr. Aderholt. Just briefly, in your opening comments, you
    mentioned the part about evolution and the importance of
    teaching evolution.
        Talk a little about that from your perspective and just
    expand a little bit about----

                                   EVOLUTION

        Mr. Nye. Well, I get journals and reports about all the
    many lawsuits in the United States associated with people
    trying to ban or modify, ban evolution in science class or
    modify science to include things that were described by the
    judge in Dover, Pennsylvania as breathtaking inanity. This
    would be the notion that there is some scheme of thought that
    would be associated with a reasoning person believing the earth
    is, for example, 6,000 earth years old. To me, that makes your
    life really complicated.
        Where I went to school in New York State, you walk around
    and they are Silurian fossils. There are trilobites everywhere
    on the ground. You cannot miss them.
        So then to try to--this is only for example--to try to
    explain away the existence of a Silurian fossil through this
    complex nonphysical science completely outside of every-day
    experience to me seems just fantastically complicated and
    makes, in my experience, makes children very uncomfortable
    because the world becomes bewildering.
        Instead, if you want to study philosophy, and certainly
    some of the best ideas humans have ever had are in the Bible, I
    mean, I am right there with you, but this understanding of the
    notion of deep time and the fundamental reason we are so much
    more alike than we are different and the idea that humans all
    came from Africa and we migrated across the world and the
    reason we eat wheat and the reason some people have very light
    brown skin and other people have somewhat darker brown skin is
    all explained by this fundamental idea of evolution.
        If you try to leave that out, your worlds become so
    amazingly complicated when you are ten years old. It just is
    nonsensical.
        To go to some place like the Grand Canyon and look at layer
    after layer after layer and try to make sense of that, to look
    at the what is generally called the ring of fire, we have
    volcanos in Hawaii that were created one way, we have volcanos
    in Washington State, Oregon, northern California created in
    another way, and to try to make sense of that and the age of
    rocks and the radiation, the radioactive isotopes that lead us
    to make these inferences about the age of the world, to try to
    do all that using something other than science is just
    fantastically complicated. And I do not think it is good for a
    kid.
        And so, as I say, if you want to study philosophy and
    alternative ways or what Karl Sagen, my old professor, referred
    to as creation myths, that is a worthy study, but it is not
    what we have learned through the process of science.
        So wasting national resources debating an alternative to
    evolution, I think, is squandering our treasure.
        Mr. Aderholt. Do you have some of your colleagues that
    would disagree with that or, you know, some of your respected
    colleagues?
        Mr. Nye. Scientists?
        Mr. Aderholt. Yes.
        Mr. Nye. I never met one. Now, I have debated people who
    call themselves intelligent designers or believe intelligent
    design. And I have been completely unimpressed or how to say, I
    have been astonished at how they are willing to ignore
    everything they can touch and see.
        See, here is the problem. Here is what is out of our every-
    day experience. When we look at a device like this remarkable
    phone, we know that it was designed by people. Everything in
    this room, everything, even-- are there are some plants here--
    everything came out of somebody's head. Every shape, every
    color, everything was conceived by a person.
        So when we see remarkable systems that fit together like,
    say, in a forest where there are birds that live in this part
    of the tree, there are other animals that live in this part of
    the tree, the whole thing depends on these microbes that work
    in the soil, and the system seems to fit together perfectly,
    these people on, if I may, the other side assume or presume
    that there must be a designer associated with that.
        And at first, that seems reasonable, but that is not how
    evolution works. And these discoveries were made in the 18--
    they might have been made long before that, but they were
    certainly documented in the 19th century. And so that is not
    how evolution works. Evolution works the other way. It is the
    bottom up.
        So, as we say, the bad designs are eaten by the good ones.
    And so if you live at any moment in history, it looks like it
    all fits together because if it did not, it had disappeared.
    This is quite an insight. It is remarkable.
        If you go to Dinosaur National Monument set aside in the
    Wilson Administration, that is some time ago, it is
    astonishing. There are more species there. There are species
    discovered every year. In this place that is century old, guys,
    people are out there digging every day. It is amazing.
        And so you can, as I always say, you can feel insignificant
    as this insignificant traveler in this time that is only going
    in one direction and you can feel that your thoughts and your
    actions make no difference at all.
        But then on the other hand, using our mind and the process
    of science, we can understand all that. And that is worthy of
    respect. That is a remarkable thing that humans who are hardly
    different from many other species extant today can figure all
    this out. That is worthy of something. That is worthy of
    celebrating. That is science.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
        Mr. Serrano.

                             Mr. Serrano Questions

        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am tempted to ask you a profound question, but I am also
    tempted to ask you, Mr. Nye, some basic questions, like why
    isn't my Blackberry working in this room.
        Mr. Nye. Could be the man.
        Mr. Serrano. Where do you keep your Emmys?
        Mr. Nye. I keep two of them on the mantlepiece and I keep
    five of them in a box.
        Mr. Serrano. And I have to----
        Mr. Nye. That is quite a thing. Thank you. That was a
    remarkable time. Thank you.
        Mr. Serrano. And we have a running gag in this Committee as
    to how long it takes me to bring up Cuba and Puerto Rico, so
    why isn't the little frog, the coqui, seen anywhere else but in
    Puerto Rico? And it made its way to Hawaii recently and the
    Hawaiians are complaining that it is a nuisance. For the first
    time, it sang somewhere outside of Puerto Rico and, yet, Puerto
    Ricans see it as the musical soundtrack to their lives on the
    island and for the first time, it made it there. And no
    scientist has been able to tell us why it only sings in Puerto
    Rico.
        Mr. Nye. Well, wouldn't that be worth knowing?
        Mr. Serrano. Yes.
        Mr. Nye. Wouldn't that be a fascinating thing to----
        Mr. Serrano. And that is why it leads me to my next
    question, to the real question now that I let the audience know
    you won a bunch of Emmys and----
        Mr. Nye. That is very nice. Thank you.
        Mr. Serrano. And you blame me for the problems with the
    Blackberry.
        Mr. Nye. Well, these devices are made by people and people
    make mistakes.

                         MINORITY AND SCIENCE TEACHERS

        Mr. Serrano. All I was trying to find out if Japan beat
    China in that game in the World Classic and I think they did.
        Seriously, we are honored to have both of you before the
    Committee. And as one of the few members of Congress who was a
    school professional, a teacher's aide, and after that a school
    administrator, a program administrator, I know exactly what you
    are talking about in terms of the lack of support that young
    science teachers get and the lack of importance placed on that
    part of the profession.
        Mr. Nye. Well, another job where everybody quit within five
    years, not to go, if I may, to another law firm to continue
    being, for example, a lawyer, but to go into a completely
    different profession, I mean, that is not a good thing.
        Mr. Serrano. That used to be the life span of a member of
    Congress, about three to five years in Congress.
        But I must tell you something you do not know. And that is
    as both of you were talking about the profession, there are a
    lot of young people here today and they were all nodding their
    heads. Now, they are the recipients of what those teachers have
    to offer. And when you were talking about the issues that
    teachers face, they were all agreeing with you, which brings me
    to a question.
        You know, African Americans now represent about 12 percent
    of the population and Hispanics represent about 15 percent, yet
    both of them are getting about 8.7, 8 percent respectively
    degrees in science and engineering fields.
        In addition to that, we have community colleges that have
    students participating in STEM programs or science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics, which could help young people
    move on to a four year degree.
        So while you have been speaking in general terms and that
    is the best way to approach a lot of these things, my question
    is, is there something we could be doing to encourage certain
    segments of the society to move into these fields of study?
        Mr. Nye. Well, how much of that, what I would want to know
    is how much of that is associated with the wealth of the school
    district. You see, the PB&J, the passion, beauty, and joy of
    science is that whatever we discover in science is true for
    everyone.
        And I have, if I may, been preaching this for a long time,
    that if--the expression that was very popular ten or twelve
    years ago was at risk kids--if at risk kids are exposed to
    science, they can go into careers where their work is evaluated
    objectively.
        And so just like everything else that has to do with, if I
    may, African Americans and Hispanics, people of non-European
    descent, it takes time, that the traditions that go back, I
    guess, about four centuries are taking time to wipe out. But I
    am thrilled right now. I think everything is going to change. I
    think it is going to be a wonderful future.
        And so I say to at risk kids or kids from school districts
    that are not as wealthy pursue science because your work is
    objectively evaluated and you can excel. And you will almost
    certainly get a job that you love to come to every day, just
    like you.
        Mr. Serrano. And we do.
        Mr. Pratt.

                               ELEMENTARY SCIENCE

        Mr. Pratt. Elementary science is where I would start
    because you can get closer to the family and you can get closer
    to the home through elementary science.
        And just to pick a specific point and it is related not
    just to students of minority or unrepresented students, it goes
    for all students, is that when language development takes
    precedent over science, you get the image both in the minds of
    the student, the teachers, and the home that science is
    secondary.
        We know that science is a great avenue for language
    development and much of science and probably mathematics, too,
    is somewhat, I do not want to overstress it, is somewhat
    independent of language. In other words, it is universal. And
    many of the cognates of scientific terms, as we all know, are
    very much the same in various languages.
        Students can learn science from day one regardless of the
    language that they are operating in the rest of the school day.
    So we need to keep the science strong and extensive for those
    students because it sets a pattern, it sets a model, and it
    sends a message to the community as well as to the school. And
    I think it probably enhances their total education.
        So often we take a very narrow view of what should be the
    education diet of students who come in with what we call
    limited language proficiency and we say, you know, science has
    to wait.

                          ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE

        Mr. Nye. Exactly. It has to go in parallel. In fact, one
    way to reach a person who English is a second language is
    through science. Very compelling study done in Nevada about
    this, and that this is a way to teach words is with these
    phenomena that you observe in science.
        Once again, I do not want to sound like a broken record.
    That may be an older reference. A skipping CD, an older
    reference, a tapping the double arrow to the left. But
    elementary science is what we can emphasize at a very
    reasonable price that I claim will change the world.
        Mr. Serrano. Well, we thank you for your testimony.
        Mr. Chairman, I have to congratulate you on the hearing and
    on these two witnesses. I think that this is an issue that has
    to be discussed, has to be debated. And as we move along to try
    to save the economy, we cannot lose sight of the fact that
    other things have to be done at the same time. And this is one
    of them.
        And I am going to take, Mr. Nye, your comment about the
    kitchen to mean that your next show will be on the Food
    Channel.
        Mr. Nye. We have talked a lot about the science of cooking
    to kids.
        Mr. Serrano. Exclusive.
        Mr. Nye. Yeah. That there are certain techniques and good
    laboratory skills are closely related to good kitchen skills,
    not to, how to say, expand this into two heavy a discussion,
    but learning not to spill things very much, learning to have
    your hands clean, learning what chemicals or what ingredients
    go in first and how to prepare them. It is very closely
    related.
        And just to talk some more about me, my mother who was, as
    I say, recruited, I am not sure you were here, was recruited to
    work on the enigma code because she was good at math and
    science. She strongly emphasized that, kitchen skills.
        Mr. Serrano. I was here at the hearing. I was not here when
    she was recruited. I was in Puerto Rico wondering if I would
    ever come to the U.S. and become a congressman.
        Mr. Nye. Well, it is great to see you.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Honda.

                              Mr. Honda Questions

        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I really appreciate your enthusiasm and the comments you
    make about the importance of teaching and science. And you are
    right. I taught kitchen chemistry and all I did was tell the
    youngsters that they understand what they are doing. We just
    put a different terminology on it.
        And so there are ways to make science interesting and--but
    I will make one clarification. It is easy in the front to teach
    youngsters from different language groups science, but they
    have to have comprehensible input. And so we need to use the
    language they understand best in order for them to formulate
    the concepts and then from there when they learn English
    better, they can speak about it in another language.
        But science is one of the best and most interesting ways of
    engaging a youngster in learning. And I think that you are
    right. Science is really basic in terms of understanding the
    world around us and appreciating both differences and
    similarities.
        And I am just fascinated with all the new information that
    comes out that tells us we are closer to each other, including
    the other primates, if we looked at our DNA. And so there must
    be something out there that is trying to tell us that we are
    all connected somehow.
        The enthusiasm is what I really want to hang on to and the
    experience about giving teachers support is critical. And I
    think that while we talk about supporting teachers and making
    sure that they are well-informed and well-trained, we need to
    remember that youngsters are the primary reason that we are
    there, that children, they are the goal and they are the reason
    that we are there as far as an educational system and that if
    we understand that youngsters only come to school with one
    currency, and that is time, that maybe we will be a little bit
    more serious as a society to make sure that the youngsters,
    that we as adults do not waste their time because we cannot
    take their time and bank it and then withdraw it later.
        And so we need to prepare both intellectually in content
    and also in approaching the youngsters in how they come to us.
    If it is language we need to use as an instructional tool for
    conceptual development, then that is what we need to do.
        And so I would urge us to look at as we struggle with the
    policies of science education that we remember the child is the
    purpose that we are there for and no parent regardless of what
    background they come from will ever condemn us for looking at
    youngsters in that way.
        I think you bring a lot of interest and smiles and things
    like that to science and to education, but I think that, in
    that skill and that ability and that opportunity that you have
    that we also, remind ourselves about the child, including the
    instruction, but the child and all the different ways the child
    comes to us and challenge ourselves to not only look at teacher
    instruction, but infrastructure of the classrooms and how we
    assess them. And that assessment is the end product. Curriculum
    is the treatment.
        So for assessing the child's achievement, if they do not
    achieve well, then we should be saying we failed, not the child
    failed, that the kinds of treatment that we provided the child
    or the assessment missed the boat.
        So with your vast exposure, the question I would like to
    ask both of you is in the realm of public education. Where does
    equity fit in terms of providing the kind of education we want
    for all our children and where are we on that debate of equity
    and where does that fit in terms of policymaking?

                               EQUITY IN SCHOOLS

        Mr. Nye. By equity, you mean from school district to school
    district or do you mean people from different backgrounds?
        Mr. Honda. It probably is all of that.
        Mr. Nye. Well, I would say this is where good national
    standards would help everybody. If we had good national
    standards that were not too burdensome, then this is a case
    where people at the local level can evaluate the kids who are
    coming to their school and address their needs individually and
    still have success at getting them excited about science,
    getting them to embrace science as an important part of their
    lives.
        So if I understand your question, it is empowering
    officials and teachers locally with guidance and, if I may,
    funding provided federally. And so this balance between local
    authority and national authority is what I think we need to
    work on and where I think No Child Left Behind had some trouble
    was requirements without the authority or the ability or the
    resources to meet those requirements.
        Mr. Pratt. You almost answered the question, but let me
    phrase it in my way and refer to your kind of description.
        Number one, I think we have to have equal expectations and
    that is where Bill is absolutely correct. The standards and
    assessment across this country in the name of federal
    legislation are not equal. They are too diverse. I mean, all
    you need to do is read the reports that six percent success in
    one district is a 94 percent success or state in another State.
    So that is not equity to begin with.
        But assuming we have that, and I think we can achieve that
    if we just have the political will to do it, then we have to
    think about the students themselves. And I think we have to be
    very careful of how we think and define equity. And we must
    think of equity not just as input or to use your word
    treatment, we have to think about equity of achievement or
    equity of output.
        And that means when the output is not what we would say is
    equal across all groups of students, then we have to upgrade,
    increase, improve, and I will use your terminology, the
    treatment, the instruction, the support, the time spent with
    those students. That is what we have to think about.
        So part of our problem is simply the inability to carefully
    and I think equitably, if you will, define equity, not as
    input, but as what students achieve or to put it in almost
    engineering terms, the output.
        Mr. Honda. Mr. Chair, if I may, the last comment or
    question, what if we assess each child at the age of three or
    whatever assessments we have at hand and funded each child
    accordingly, would that be equity?
        Mr. Nye. I think it is rhetorical. No. I mean, it does not
    sound like it.
        Mr. Honda. What would it----
        Mr. Nye. It is like, if I understand, it is analogous to
    one vote per person. You are saying you want----
        Mr. Honda. No. No. That is----
        Mr. Nye [continuing]. To give them a gain or----
        Mr. Honda. No. That is parity.
        Mr. Nye. Yeah. That is what I am saying.
        Mr. Honda. I am saying if you assess each child and each
    child is different, therefore each child needs different kinds
    of attention and resources, then there would be different
    amounts of money and efforts behind each child. And if that is
    the case, then are we meeting that child's needs, at least
    developing a road map for the child that is pertinent to that
    one child? If we go through each child, would that be
    considered equity?
        Mr. Nye. I would have to give that some thought, but this I
    can tell you. The so-called individual lesson plan, the ILP,
    has become a real burden for many teachers because there is an
    effect that may not have been anticipated where one student has
    an individualized lesson plan. His or her parents find out
    about it, his or her parents of another student find out about
    it and they want an individualized lesson plan for his or her
    student. And then it becomes a burden.
        So this is where once again--I am not sure I am addressing
    your question directly, but I will give us something to think
    about-- once again, we need standards that are useable for a
    very large number of students so that it is equitable.
        Mr. Honda. So it is burdensome for us to----
        Mr. Nye. Right now.
        Mr. Honda. No. Is it burdensome for us to understand that
    each child has different kinds of needs and developing an
    individual plan for each child is not necessary or does not go
    towards equity because it is burdensome on the system? Are we
    worried more about the system and the infrastructure and the
    cost of it or are we worried about figuring out what the child
    needs?
        It challenges us to, as a policymaker, to step outside the
    box and rather than being confined within the current
    structure, and I understand the current structure is that we
    end up having parents and school boards fighting for the best
    interest of the child and spending a lot of money, that is
    burdensome, and, yet, the time of the child moves on and on and
    on. We know good and well through the assessment what that
    child really needs, but we cannot afford it.
        Now I am asking a question, you know, should we be
    challenging ourselves as a society to find ways to make that
    affordable?
        Mr. Nye. Well, here is the thing. Think about your favorite
    teachers. They were passionate. And I claim that very good
    teachers had a feel or an intuition or perhaps it was
    cognitive, they thought about it and made notes, where they
    provided each child with an individual lesson plan, where they
    taught each, they still-- they taught--they do teach each child
    individually. Each child, they engage each child and they give
    that kid what he or she needs.
        What has happened right now, and I think we have an
    opportunity to make things better, is that intuition now has to
    be documented, it has to be spelled out, and records have to be
    kept. And that is costing the teacher the most precious thing
    he or she has, his or her time.
        And so that, I think, as I understand it, these are
    anecdotes from people I have spoken with over the last, let us
    call it, 12 years, this is something we could improve.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Honda. Thank you very much.

                      QUESTIONS FROM STUDENTS IN AUDIENCE

        Mr. Bonner has made an excellent suggestion, Mr. Bonner of
    our Subcommittee, who I will be calling on in just a moment,
    has made a suggestion that we have a lot of students here. They
    are particularly interested in this hearing. And we want to
    offer them an opportunity at Mr. Bonner's suggestion, which I
    think is an excellent one, to ask the panel a question.
        So I would invite the students here today on a piece of
    paper to write a question, one each to Mr. Nye and Mr. Pratt.
    And we will probably draw out of a hat, I am not sure exactly
    how we are going to do that, and ask the students' questions
    here.
        So I think it is an excellent suggestion from Mr. Bonner.
        Mr. Nye. That is fantastic.
        Mr. Mollohan. And we----
        Mr. Nye. Now, everybody, you could text it to me.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, whoa, Mr. Nye.
        Mr. Nye. So you have used this technology, right, where
    the----
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Nye, I do not want, Mr. Nye, I do not
    want to lose control of this.
        Mr. Nye. I am sorry.
        Mr. Mollohan. I know you are high tech here, but I think--
    --
        Mr. Nye. I think that is not appropriate. I think they have
    to go--this is the technology involving a tip and a paper.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
        Mr. Nye. Yeah.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you for your help. Thank you.
        Okay. So we invite students to do that. You do that. Then
    we will collect them and at the appropriate time, but in the
    middle of the hearing, we will not wait until the end----
        Mr. Nye. That is great. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. We will ask those questions.
        Mr. Bonner.

                              Mr. Bonner Questions

        Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    accepting that suggestion.
        I am going to try to get my question out first and then
    tell you a little bit about why I asked it because a lot of
    times, politicians like to pontificate and then give you just a
    second to answer the question.

                          SCIENCE EDUCATION COMPONENTS

        Two things. What can we do to use the sources of young
    people today for information, internet, video games? When I was
    a child, it would be cartoons on a Saturday morning. But what
    can we do, and Mr. Nye certainly, Dr. Nye certainly has found a
    way to connect with young people, but what can we do to expand
    that?
        As Robert indicated, he is the father of two young
    children. I have got a 13-year-old daughter and a ten-year-old
    son and my son loves to play video games. And whether it is the
    Wii system or the Playstation III or whatever, what can we do
    to find video games that have a science education component
    that are also fun because to me, we have got to find a way to
    connect?
        Mr. Nye. Mr. Bonner, I did not ask you to ask that
    question, let the record show. But on Monday, the 9th of March,
    I start something I called Solving for X which is a series.
    Each segment is about four minutes where I show you how to do
    Algebra. And Algebra and science to me or math and science are
    intimately connected.
        And each segment is designed to appear on a small screen,
    on something that a modern student would have internet access
    to, often in a hand-held device. And you have to make
    production decisions associated with that.
        So I strongly believe in what is called the long tail. Are
    you familiar with the long tail where instead of many, many--
    instead of, rather, a few television stations or radio stations
    now, it will be thousands, tens of thousands, even millions of
    sources on the internet?
        And so I believe that the resources available to teachers
    on the internet are only going to expand because many of these
    things are not that expensive to produce and people who are
    passionate about it will produce them.
        So the technology of education is really going to improve.
    And I look back, especially in physics class, at how wonderful
    the modern physics demonstrations are. I mean, we had good
    physics demonstrations, but the modern ones are just great. And
    this is through the advancement of technology.
        And so with that said, information distributed through the
    internet is going to be part of every kid's world, by
    information, I am sorry, educational information, educational
    materials is going to be part of every kid's world very, very
    soon.
        And with that said, there is no substitute for hands-on
    science. So as important as the resources are available for
    science teachers on the internet, we still have to have
    equipment in the laboratory where you touch things with your
    hands. We cannot let that fall through the cracks.
        Instead of film strips, which you no doubt enjoyed, movies
    where you had to get the kids from the AV Department to the
    film through there and there was still the one part that was
    burned because that is where the guy was upside down and it was
    just great and compelling, instead of that, these--and instead
    of even VHS tapes and instead of even DVDs, this will all be
    available on the internet. And so that will expand, but there
    is no substitute for hands on.
        And two more things. It is very important that we secure
    the internet. I know there is a lot of talk about that, but we
    cannot--our society is increasingly dependent on electronic
    communications. We have to make sure that that is always
    working.
        I mean, the electricity going out is to me as a guy who
    grew up in the United States is still kind of an embarrassment
    when the electricity goes out. But when the internet or
    electronic communications go down, it is going to be not just
    an embarrassment, it is going to be economic and in a sense
    educational disaster.
        So how many people, may I ask the Committee, how many
    people know Tex Johnston? Anyone familiar with Tex Johnston?
        So Tex Johnston was--I was a Boeing engineer for a few
    years and Tex Johnston was a Boeing celebrity. He still is. In
    1954, he took a 707, which is a larger airliner. In those days,
    it was before the 700 designations. It was the dash 80. And he
    flew over Lake Washington in Seattle where, the estimates vary,
    about a hundred thousand people gathered for something call Sea
    Fair, Seattle Fair. And he performed a barrel roll with a 707.
        I do not know how many airliners you have been on, but they
    very seldom perform rolls with those. And he landed. The bosses
    asked him, I am sure there were some expletives involved, Tex,
    what were you doing. And he said, first of all, I am selling
    airplanes.
        It was a very compelling demonstration. But then they asked
    him how did he know that this maneuver would work with such a
    large aircraft not really designed for inverted flight and so
    on. And he said one test is worth a thousand expert opinions.
        And so doing things for yourself once is worth being told
    about it a thousand times. And so with the internet, we can
    distribute this information. We will distribute algebraic
    sample problems, but you still have to do them for yourself. We
    still have to provide people the resources to do them for
    themselves.
        It was an excellent question. Thank you.
        Mr. Bonner. Since it was an excellent question, I will just
    stop at that one then.
        Mr. Nye. Thank you.
        Mr. Bonner. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Bonner.
        We will have one more questioning and then we will--we are
    sorting through the students' questions now and then we will
    ask a student question.
        Mr. Fattah.

                                SCIENCE FUNDING

        Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much.
        Let me first say that I agree that I think things are going
    to get a lot better very soon. The President has said that
    science is going to be at the very front burner of the
    Administration's concerns around a range of issues.
        But our Chairman has done a great deal in the area that we
    are talking about this morning as Chair of this Committee. I
    think we have invested a great deal of money under the
    Chairman's leadership in trying to improve science education
    and to respond to some of these issues. And I want to publicly
    thank him for that.
        But whether the youngsters in, you know, west Philadelphia,
    in my district, or West Virginia, the Chairman's district, or
    in the Bronx or throughout the country, I mean, one of the
    challenges that we have is illustrated in your testimony this
    morning about the lack of content knowledge, particularly by
    teachers who are teaching children in some of our more
    disadvantaged school districts.
        And, you know, the wealth disparities between school
    districts, a lot of people say do not matter. It does not
    matter if we spend three times as much on one kid as another
    for 12 years, somehow they should all end up with comparable
    results.
        But the truth of the matter is that I think we know better
    and that it does matter. And the need for additional
    professional development, the need for teachers with improved
    content knowledge is important. The other reality is the
    physical plan itself. There are schools, you know, in our
    states that, you know, a science laboratory is not something
    that one can take for granted.
        A few years ago, the Washington Post ran a story and they
    talked about a group of kids in a large urban city who went out
    to the suburban school district to visit the campus and the
    kids from the suburban school came in and visited the campus of
    the school in the city.
        And they described these two circumstances in which at one
    school, there were these, you know, very nice science labs and
    all of the science and math. Faculty had advanced degrees. And
    they described the other school in which there was no
    microscope that worked and there was no, you know, no equipment
    of any utility and that none of the teachers teaching the core
    subjects of math and science had majored or minored in math or
    science.
        And you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out
    where one school was versus the other. I think we all know. And
    one of the real fallacies of No Child Left Behind is that it
    suggests that somehow we should get a comparable result when we
    do not have a comparable opportunity for our young people to
    learn.
        And so I think that this question of equity is important,
    but I wanted to talk a little bit about something else that was
    raised in your testimony, Mr. Pratt, about national standards.
        You know, we also operated under, for the entire country's
    history, you know, under the notion that somehow there is some
    local, you know, physics or biology or that somehow science
    taught in Philadelphia and Mississippi, somehow should be a
    different science than taught in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
        The push for national standards has always been fought by
    those people who say that, you know, we should have local
    control of schools and people at a local level can decide how
    smart or less than adequately educated they want their own
    children to be and that there is no national imperative, to use
    President Nixon's phrase, to worry about the quality of
    education.
        I think that now that we have arrived at this moment, we
    all know better and that we do need to have a set of national
    standards.
        But beyond that, I am interested in whether we could create
    a national model of what should be being taught at what grade
    levels, what kind of physical facilities should be available
    for the teaching of science, and what exact prerequisites
    should be for science education.
        And to conclude, where there are strict standards for
    science educators, like in Pennsylvania, they are enforced, but
    there is some selective amnesia. That is, when you get to a
    city like Philadelphia, what is done is applications are made
    for waivers from the teaching requirements so that they can get
    a warm body in the classroom because they cannot afford to hire
    a qualified science teacher under the state requirements of
    what that teacher should know and should be competent to teach.
        So we have this situation throughout the country. That is,
    we have requirements. They are waived in the situations in the
    schools where kids need the most help and they actually get the
    least. And we have to deal with the consequences.
        So I am happy that the Chairman had you come in today. I
    would be interested in your comments.
        Thank you.

                               NATIONAL STANDARDS

        Mr. Pratt. Well, several comments. I participated and was
    on the staff of the National Research Council during the
    development of the national standards in the mid-1990s and we
    listened to a lot of people at the community level, political
    level, as well as the educational level.
        One of the strongest segments of our community that
    supported the idea of national standards, which was very
    innovative in those days, it was just coming almost out of
    nowhere except for the work that that NCTM had done in
    mathematics a few years earlier, where what we might call the
    underprivileged, under-represented, the minority communities,
    those were the strongest supporters of national standards
    because they said at least we are going to get some attention.
        And part of what goes on, even though there are waivers,
    even though there are exceptions made either politically or
    administratively, at least we know what is going on now. We can
    identify the problem. That is the first step. Before that, we
    could not identify or we did not, we did not have the
    political, educational, or personal will to identify the
    problem.
        So I do not think that is the end of it. That does not
    solve it. I do not want to leave you with that impression, but
    at least we know now. And so we are hyperconcerned and aware of
    the learning gap and the problems of inequity in the districts
    across it because of standards and because of assessments.
        I think we have not pushed that far enough and that is why
    many of us believe that national standards and national
    assessments would help us become better informed and better
    aware of the problem. That does not mean we know how to solve
    it, but that at least is a first step in doing it.
        Mr. Fattah. I have paid a lot attention to school equity,
    adequacy issue over the years.
        Mr. Pratt. I am sure you have.
        Mr. Fattah. And it has been litigated in many states around
    the country. You know, if you go and look at the Arkansas case,
    there is an affidavit from a great teacher, name is Roy King,
    and he says that he is the entire science and math faculty at
    his high school of 200 kids.
        He did not major or minor in math or science. He actually
    got hired to be a gym teacher, a physical education teacher.
    And he makes 20 grand and he makes a few more dollars driving
    the school bus. He said he loves these kids, but they actually
    deserve a little bit better than they are getting. He has got
    20 textbooks for 200 kids. He has got four calculators and he
    has not seen a microscope in school. Now, this is what he
    affirmed to the court.
        And it is just a challenge for us to think about how we are
    going to get from where we are to where we need to go, you
    know, unless we create not just the aspirational standard but
    the resources and the political will to actually make sure that
    these kids get a fair shot at it because, you know, there is a
    lot of talent out there, but it is not going to be developed
    unless they find an inspiring teacher who is competent in what
    they are teaching and has the opportunity to mine those gems.
        Mr. Nye. Well, there has been a lot of talk about audacity.
    And I think this is the time to take an audacious step. And
    that is the United States is going to be the best at this. And
    if we make that part of our thinking, it will affect, in my
    view it will affect everyone. It will affect every educator,
    every administrator, every school board, every voter.
        And as you may know, I grew up in Washington and so I am
    sure they are all very nice people. I am sure they are lovely
    people, but I grew up kind of, if you will, hating the
    Baltimore Orioles. I am sure they are fine people. I say this
    is not my fault.
        But with that said, I have tremendous respect for the
    manager, Earl Weaver, who said if you play to win by one run,
    you are going to lose by one run. If we spend a lot of
    resources at your level mincing these details, I think we can
    get bogged down.
        If we all just decide that the United States is going to be
    the best in the world in math and science, we are going to
    graduate the best engineers in the world and we are going to
    lead the way, if we all decide that we are going to do that,
    then that will trickle down.
        I had a very limited exposure. I spent some time with
    several people who investigated the Columbia space shuttle
    wreck. And if nothing else, they found that you have to change
    things at the top to change things. You have to change things
    throughout the organization to change things. And those changes
    start at the top.
        So I think that if we just say we are going to be the best
    in the world, we are going to do whatever it takes to graduate
    the best engineers and scientists and we are going to start in
    kindergarten, maybe even pre-school and work our way up, we
    will achieve it.
        But if we say, well, we cannot do this or we cannot do that
    because this school district is concerned with this and this
    school--sooner or later, it will bog down. We have got to all
    decide this is worth doing.
        Now, I know we are all very, very concerned about the
    economic situation. That is all we talk about along with
    apparently the color of the President's hair. But I claim, and
    I do not think it is an extraordinary claim, that ten or
    fifteen years will be here before you know it, ten or fifteen
    years, about the time people are hoping to resolve this
    economic crisis for sure. Some claims are two or three years,
    but I think those are extraordinary claims.
        By the time that economic crisis settles out, we will need
    to lead the way. And that leadership in the developed world
    comes from technology. And that technology starts with
    elementary science education.
        I know these are easy things to say. But as you see, I
    really believe in it. And I think if we start right now from
    the top, we can change the world.
        Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                               STUDENT QUESTIONS

        Mr. Mollohan. Ranking Member Wolf is next up. He has
    graciously deferred to the student question. So I am going to
    ask one student question and then I am going to give him the
    three that I have in my hand. All of them are really good and I
    would like to ask them all. And then he can ask one of these
    questions as a part of his.
        Perhaps we can, you know, be distinct in answering these
    questions. Of course, we have several of them, but I invite
    each of you to respond.
        The first question, and these all are really excellent
    questions, I mean, it is impressive, from our students in the
    audience, most specialized funding in science focuses on
    students who are behind. Do you think this should remain the
    focus or should funding go toward students who are interested
    in advanced learning?
        Perhaps first we should ask if you all agree with the
    premise of the question and then if you agree with the premise,
    do you think funding should be directed to advanced learning?
        Mr. Nye.
        Mr. Nye. I do not have the statistics on that, but I will
    say anecdotally if not the most funding, the most of a
    teacher's time and so the perception might be the funding is to
    what might be called distractions or trying to bring people up
    who have not been exposed to science from an early age, trying
    to catch them up certainly can take a lot of teachers' time.
    And that may lead to the perception that the advanced students
    are not getting their due.
        But I will tell you also from my personal experience that
    if you can excel in math and science, you will be recognized
    and you will find your way. So that is as we say in engineering
    susceptible to analysis. So I think we should look into that.
        Do you have knowledge of that, Mr. Pratt?
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
        Mr. Pratt.
        Mr. Pratt. First, the premise. I mean, you know better than
    I do that their funding formula is based upon the economic
    level of the states and communities. So whether that is what
    the students intended, you know better than I do that there are
    formulas applied to virtually all flow-through money to states
    and to districts.
        Now, whether that should be a national priority is, of
    course, the question that we come back to when the equity
    question hits the table is where does the money come from. And
    somebody is always going to tell you if we put it in favor of
    this group in the name of equity or whatever the label may be,
    it probably has to come from some place else.
        We do not like the fact that there is a zero sum game when
    it comes to appropriations, but you know that far better than I
    do.
        So the question we have to grapple with is probably not so
    much at the individual student level, although we cannot lose
    sight of the importance of individual students, but ask the
    question as a country, what is going to serve us best, what is
    going to serve us best to educate to the ultimate degree a few
    elite students which seems to be somewhat the tenor of that
    question, I do not want to over interpret the question, or do
    we face the equity issue and think about all students because
    one of the premises behind the funding formulas of today is
    that we need more. We also need quality students. We need more.
        And if we do not, I hate to use the word harvest, but if we
    do not gain more graduates from all groups of the population,
    we are losing out as a country. We are losing out
    technologically. We are losing out socially. We are probably
    losing out competitively across the world.
        Mr. Mollohan. Two members have not had a chance to ask
    questions yet, Mr. Wolf, our Ranking Member, and Mr.
    Ruppersberger. We have a vote. That means we have 15 minutes. I
    think we can get both in.
        And I call on Mr. Wolf right now.

                               Mr. Wolf Questions

        Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
        I wish I had been here for the whole time. My district is
    right here and I have had constituents coming back and forth in
    my schedule, so I apologize.
        I have a number of questions. Maybe we will just submit
    them for the record.
        Two of the students' questions, I think, is very good. I
    think, Mr. Nye, maybe you triggered the one, but he or she said
    as an August 2008 engineering graduate, I declare myself an
    ``expert witness.'' He said you mentioned burdensome standards.
    What good is a standard if it does not create a burden for a
    student to meet it, which I think is a very good question?
        Mr. Nye. Well, the burden is not the student. Yeah, the
    students have to work hard. When I was in school, we did a lot
    and so on. No. The burden is on the teacher. That is what I was
    referring to, where especially the elementary teacher right now
    is required to perform a lot of assessment, at least as I
    understand it from teachers themselves, required to perform a
    lot of assessment and that assessment and reporting in a way
    that does not enable the teacher to inspire kids.
        Mr. Pratt. I am not sure the reference to burden, but I did
    want to almost respond earlier when my colleague referred to
    the burden in the classroom when expectations are increased or
    when individual student needs are emphasized.
        I think we have to think of burdens or when we hear the
    word burden or we hear the word that I do not have the time or
    it is an unfunded mandate, we need to be sure that that is not
    really the case where an expectation is being laid upon a
    district and, therefore, teachers without the kind of support
    necessary to do it.
        So it may be an indicator that we need to pay close
    attention to. And we all have a tendency to kind of complain,
    if you will, and be overworked, I am sure, but I think there
    may be a signal there that we are not attending to. And that is
    the lack of support to carry out what is otherwise an
    excellent, excellent idea, but does demand more effort, more
    time, and, therefore, probably more money on the part of the
    district.
        Mr. Wolf. The other question, and, Mr. Nye, you mentioned
    No Child Left Behind. I am not an expert on education. Four of
    my five kids are in education and I am the parent of five kids.
        Without No Child Left Behind, the inner city schools are in
    decay. And I think the No Child Left Behind has helped. And if
    you look at some of the figures that have come out,
    particularly for inner city schools, they have made a
    tremendous difference.
        So how it should be, there should be more discretion, more
    flexibility, but there have been fundamental cities and places
    whereby the kids have been neglected for years. And I think
    those standards have made a difference.
        And in my own area, to a certain population, they have made
    a fairly good difference. But it should be more flexibility, I
    think.
        The other question is, our teachers are very passionate
    about science, but what can you do about most, and they
    underline most, of all our principals and administrators who do
    not get it? I think that is why many teachers do not stay in
    the profession.
        Mr. Pratt. As one who worked in administration in a school
    district for 32 years, they should be part of the professional
    development also. Do not just focus on the teachers. I mean,
    administrative support in a whole variety of ways, whether it
    be financial, moral, or educational is, critical. It is
    extremely critical.
        We all know that in the workplace, any place, the
    leadership, who you are working for, who you are responsible
    for sets the tenor for where you are, sets the level of
    expectation and the quality of what goes on in that workplace,
    whether it be schools or anything else.
        So let us not leave the principals and superintendents, if
    you will, out of the professional development equation when it
    comes to support.
        Mr. Nye. It comes from the top.
        Mr. Pratt. Yes.

                              DC VOUCHERS PROGRAM

        Mr. Wolf. Well, speaking, just to take an opportunity to
    put this on the record on the top, I listened to my friend from
    Philadelphia talk about the D.C., about the Philadelphia
    schools. I am a graduate of the Philadelphia schools. Let me
    just send a message to Mayor Fenty. And you said you were here
    in the District of Columbia.
        The District of Columbia, the Congress in its wisdom with
    Congressman Davis put in a voucher program for kids in the
    inner city to have an opportunity to go to other schools. Ten
    thousand are using that. To the credit of the Washington Post,
    they have editorialized twice against the Congress for
    abolishing and ending that.
        And, yet, the strange thing is Mayor Fenty, who has done a
    great job with regard to the new superintendent Rhee, I have
    been very impressed with her, Mayor Fenty has been silent as
    these youngsters are now going to be forced out of these
    schools that they have taken advantage of the voucher and have
    to go back into the district schools.
        So when you talk about the principals and the
    administrators, where is Mayor Fenty on speaking out on the
    issue of whether or not this should continue because 10,000
    kids are going to be forced out of their environment and the
    schools that they are into back into schools that may not be
    going very well.
        But I am going to have a number of questions that we will
    then submit for the record. And I thank the Chairman for the
    hearing and yield back, unless you want to comment on Mayor
    Fenty not speaking out on the issue.
        Mr. Nye. Well, if it is Nationals versus Phillies, I am
    Nationals.
        Mr. Wolf. The Phillies and Robert Roberts was a better
    pitcher than anybody on the Nationals.
        Mr. Mollohan. We have ten minutes or eight minutes 28
    seconds. Mr. Ruppersberger----

                          Mr. Ruppersberger Questions

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, I assume your----
        Mr. Mollohan. Excuse me just one second. I will ask the
    witnesses if they can stay, we have four votes, if they can
    stay until after we vote. And can you?
        Mr. Nye. Absolutely.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. That will run us a little past twelve.
    But I think it is really an important hearing and we want to
    ask a couple more students' questions. Then we have some
    questions we want to go through.
        Mr. Ruppersberger.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I assume your comment about the Orioles
    is that you are a Yankee fan? Is that the case?
        Mr. Nye. No.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. But, you know, with Brooks Robinson and
    Frank Robinson----
        Mr. Nye. Oh, it was fantastic. They were a great team.
        Mr. Ruppersberger [continuing]. Boog Powell.
        Mr. Nye. They played with seven guys and still win.

                  SCIENCE EDUCATION AND THE REST OF THE WORLD

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Not anymore. We are working on that.
        I also agree with Congressman Wolf. I think you have some
    great teachers and anybody in the teaching profession, I
    respect. And a lot of my family is in the teaching profession.
        But I think a good principal is so important. You can tell
    15 minutes into school and a lot of times, we do not train our
    principals and we do not have the right people there. But that
    is not what my question is.
        I am on the House Select Intelligence Committee and I Chair
    a Committee that oversees all of NSA, all the space program, a
    lot of the science issues. And this Committee has jurisdiction
    over NASA, by the way, from a funding point of view.
        And in my role there, and I have been to China and other
    parts of the world in the capacity of being on the Intelligence
    Committee, and, you know, China just about a year ago graduated
    over 600,000 rocket scientists, mathematicians and engineers.
    And because they are not a democracy, China can tell them, the
    smartest people, you go into rocket science, you go into this
    arena or whatever.
        If we are going to be the nation that we are now and that
    we need to be, and we are slipping in a lot of arenas, so we
    have got to deal with it, I work with NSA and some of the
    people on their board, Microsoft is on their board, some pretty
    good people, very successful companies, and want to create a
    concept right at NSA in the Baltimore region to create a STEM
    school starting in middle school, and this is what China is
    doing, and really develop people in the Baltimore region,
    testing children to come to a STEM school at NSA where they
    will be able to have excellent teachers but focusing in the
    arena of math and science, but also the inspiration of being
    near NSA and NASA, Goddard is right up the street.
        And we have been working with the State superintendent,
    Nancy Grasmick, I do not know if you know who Nancy is, and the
    other jurisdictions there, and wondering if you have any
    comments on-- and I guess you probably, Mr. Pratt, might be
    able to answer this, but either one--on where do we go?
        In other words, what--developing the curriculum for this
    type of operation and if it works, we want to take it to other
    parts of the country. This would be a pilot program.
        I have been talking to the Gates Foundation and Gates, Bill
    Gates about it, and they are very interested in getting
    involved, having some of the big business community, people in
    the business community that are interested in STEM and
    developing our math and science. But we have to start early.
        The subjects from K-12, that we want to start this in
    middle school. What do you think is necessary to lay the
    foundation and what type of curriculum should we pursue on the
    focus of what I have told you?
        Mr. Pratt. Well, there is a caution involved here. In some
    respects, the kind of curriculum is not that different than all
    students should experience. Maybe the rate and the level of
    abstraction, the age in which ideas are introduced can be
    modified based upon the special experience and motivation and
    ability of those students.
        But I think there is a caution here that we do not want to
    be too symbolic. We do not want to say we are doing this in the
    name of STEM for a few students and, therefore, we have, and
    you did not imply this, but we have solved the STEM problem.

                                 PILOT PROGRAM

        Mr. Ruppersberger. We wanted the pilot program to take it
    throughout the whole country.
        Mr. Pratt. And it can set a model, but it also sets a model
    that sometimes is not the most appropriate because there is
    always the notion that that does not apply to my students. That
    is not the equivalent of what my situation is.
        We need model schools for the poorest of students both
    economically and student-wise. We need to know how to work with
    those----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. But you are giving me a macro approach.
    I am more interested, I am working with this project, and I
    would like to know what you would do to develop curriculum?
    What type of teachers? Would you bring people that do not have
    as much specialty in the area of actual teaching education and
    bring in some former people, rocket scientists, maybe bring an
    astronaut in, you know, because we are not getting the students
    to go into this field that we need to?
        One of the issues is to have this near NSA and to have them
    involved in an intern type situation that this will be their
    goal and their motivation. This is what China does.
        Mr. Pratt. Well, if you could find another host, I mean, a
    school full of Bill Nyes, you would solve the problem. But it
    is not just the astronauts. It is a combination of astronauts
    and teachers.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. No question.
        Mr. Pratt. It is a combination of curriculum. It is the
    kind of instructional materials. It is the laboratory equipment
    that is available there. It is the questions that are asked of
    the students.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. It is a possibility of paying teachers
    more than they would normally be paid in the system. That might
    be a focus of where we----
        Mr. Nye. If you want to attract----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes, go ahead.

                         ATTRACTING QUALIFIED TEACHERS

        Mr. Nye. If you want to attract people who would otherwise
    go to NSA to teach in the school, I imagine you are going to
    have to pay them somewhat more than you would pay other----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. And that is why we want the business
    community involved, to help us in that regard.
        Mr. Nye. So along that line, if you want the very best
    science students to attend this school, I believe you have to
    start at the elementary level. You have to support elementary
    science education before you start this filter or sieve or
    selection process for these people to go into that school.
        Mr. Pratt. At the risk of keeping Major League baseball on
    the table, you need a farm team.
        Mr. Nye. Yes.
        Mr. Pratt. You need a development team at the elementary
    and middle schools.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, we need to take this type of
    curriculum to the whole country. And there are some areas of
    the country that do have pretty successful, but a few----
        Mr. Nye. Well, Bronx Science.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Bronx Science?
        Mr. Nye. Yes. That is----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. So you are a Yankee fan then, right?
        Mr. Nye. No, no, no, no. Heavens.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I agree.
        Mr. Nye. No. But this is a very successful model, the Bronx
    School of Science, you know, where people in the New York
    school districts compete to go to a technical high school. But
    my claim is that you have to start before people are in high
    school. So if you want the best people in middle school, you
    have to start before.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. That is interesting because we debated
    that back and forth working with the superintendent of
    Maryland.
        Mr. Nye. I will claim you ask anybody who works at the NSA
    in a technical position, there are probably, I do not know,
    tens of thousands of these people, when did they want to be
    scientists or engineers, when did they want to be computer
    scientists.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Most of them, very early, and I have
    had----
        Mr. Nye. I was going to say it is going to be before they
    are ten.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes.
        Mr. Nye. And the example I always give you is ask your
    physician, ask your doctor when did he or she want to be a
    doctor. It was long before they were ten. They will tell
    stories, yeah, I was looking at plants.
        And just my own experience, I used to watch bees. And then
    I read in Ripley's----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Then you got stung.
        Mr. Nye. I got stung many times, yeah. It has not affected
    me.
        I read in Ripley's Believe it or Not that according to
    aerodynamic theory, bees cannot fly. And even as a very young
    person, I realized that was a bad theory. Bees do really well.
    I mean, they outperform helicopters pretty much.
        And so this passion and this interest happened long before
    I was in sixth grade.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. That is a great point. I have learned
    something here today.
        Mr. Nye. Well, good. I have learned a great deal.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Do you always wear a bow tie just like
    you are branding?
        Mr. Nye. Yes. I wear a bow tie for a couple reasons. They
    do not slip into your soup. They do not flop into your flask.
    And I----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I like it. It looks good on you.
        Mr. Nye. Well, thank you. Thank you. And----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. You started with the Orioles and I am
    just trying to play with you.
        I am finished my questions. How much time do we have before
    the vote?
        Mr. Mollohan. I would advise the members of the Committee
    we have 17 seconds.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. I really want to thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. And probably scientifically it is impossible
    to get over there.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. And I think what you do, you are right
    on course.
        Mr. Nye. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Keep doing it.
        Mr. Nye. Let us change the world.
        So we wait here while everybody votes?
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes. You can wait here, take a break. We will
    be back. We have four votes. The next three, I assume, are five
    minute votes? Five minutes votes. Probably 20 minutes----
        Mr. Nye. We will be here.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Before we get back.
        Mr. Nye. Sir, we are here.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. We appreciate it.
        Mr. Nye. Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Mollohan. I thank the witnesses for their
    accommodation. We will continue the hearing with Mr. Wolf.

                               STARBASE QUESTIONS

        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of short
    questions.
        Are you familiar with the STARBASE Program at the
    Department of Defense, either of you? You are not?
        Mr. Nye. No.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well----
        Mr. Nye. It is an education program?
        Mr. Wolf. It is an education program. We can----
        Mr. Nye. Does it have an acronym?
        Mr. Wolf. It is a premier educational program sponsored by
    the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense. It provides
    students 20 to 25 hours of stimulating experiences all on the
    sciences. It is geared toward fifth graders. It says focus on
    elementary students, primarily fifth graders. The goal is to
    motivate them to explore science, technology, engineering,
    math, STEM, as they continue their education.
        I thought you would have known. I think it was started by
    Senator Byrd, I believe. And we are going to bring it to my
    district. Well, why don't you look into it? We will get you the
    material.
        Mr. Nye. Did you say 20 to $25.00?
        Mr. Wolf. No. Twenty to 25 hours.
        Mr. Nye. Hours, oh.
        Mr. Wolf. Yes, it has to be done at a defense installation.
    And we are going to be doing ours at our Armory, but they do it
    at the Air Force Base in Martinsburg. Well, take a look at it
    and we will get you the material.
        The other one is your comments about the Jason Program? Are
    you familiar with the Jason Program?
        Mr. Nye. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Wolf. Yeah. Could you tell us a little bit. We have it
    in my district. They are now based out in northern Virginia. I
    have been very impressed with them and Dr. Bell. What are your
    comments.
        Mr. Nye. Well, to me, it is maybe the perfect example of
    informal science education. Informal being defined as something
    not in the classroom. So you might think of it being rigorous
    and stuff when you are kid in the Jason Program, but it is
    generally outside of the curriculum. And to my understanding,
    it is very successful.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, I think it is now part of the curriculum.
    We have it in a number of schools in my district.
        Mr. Nye. Well, that is good.

                                    DR. BELL

        Mr. Wolf. Well, do you ever talk to Dr. Bell? Do you know
    if----
        Mr. Nye. I spent some time with him.
        Mr. Wolf. Yes.
        Mr. Nye. He is very gracious.
        Mr. Wolf. Yes.
        Mr. Nye. And you talk about a compelling guy.
        Mr. Wolf. Yes, he is very, very impressive.
        Mr. Nye. And he is a classic example of someone who is very
    passionate.
        Mr. Wolf. He is, he can excite kids.
        Mr. Nye. I know that this Committee is responsible for
    funding NASA. Dr. Bell really emphasized the importance of
    studying the ocean.
        Mr. Wolf. Yes, NOAA too. I do not know what this
    Administration's budget will show. The last Administration was
    not very, very supportive of it. And I just wanted to get your
    comments. I am glad you think it is a good program.
        The other two questions quickly, do you think there should
    be some legislative provision that is put into law saying that
    any company, scientific company, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon,
    Boeing, that has government contracts must have a number of its
    employees donating time in the schools, scientists, because we
    find out in northern Virginia when SAIC or a company has its
    people coming into the school with a real hands-on program, a
    robotic program, if you will, but they are all doing it on a
    voluntary basis?
        Do you think it would make sense to either give a tax
    credit or put in the government contract that if they
    participate in any government contracts, then--I mean, Boeing
    lives off of government contracts--that they have to have so
    many hours of their employees to go into the schools where they
    live and to teach?
        Mr. Pratt. I would strongly support that. I had some
    personal experience a few years ago in one of my earlier
    retirement positions. One of my jobs was to align up local
    scientists and engineers to go into elementary schools on
    somewhat of a regular basis to kind of give them a surge of
    elementary science, if you would.
        So my job was to find volunteers anywhere I could, at the
    university level, at the hospitals, and especially in local
    aerospace industry.
        One of the biggest problems we had was to get the release
    of engineers and scientists who had government contracts. It
    was just the opposite. They had to account for every obviously
    minute or hour and assign that to each project they were
    working on.
        And so the administration, the management was very
    hesitant, if not resistant, to any kind of release because
    there was no place to charge that time. So I would strongly
    support the idea.
        Mr. Wolf. If I could ask you to give me a letter to that
    effect, and what I will do is I will contact the Department of
    Defense. Maybe if the Chairman is willing, we could put some
    language in, but to sort of say, because I think many would
    like to do that and, yet, on a procurement basis, they have a
    difficult time, to say that if you are participating in any
    government contract, so many hours, if you will, going in
    practical in the classroom. So if you could give me a letter to
    that effect. Do you----
        Mr. Pratt. This is not recent experience, but I would be
    glad to do it.
        Mr. Wolf. No. But just saying how important that is.
        Mr. Pratt. Oh, support the idea, definitely.
        Mr. Nye. For example, sir, in NASA, we have a civilian
    space mission.
        Mr. Wolf. All right.

                          OUTREACH EDUCATION PROGRAMS

        Mr. Nye. You are required typically to have ten percent of
    the budget go to outreach education.
        Mr. Wolf. I did not know that.
        Mr. Nye. Well, it is quite common. Anyway, my point being
    it sounds like there is an opportunity here where they do not
    want your government to contract you or reluctant to release an
    engineer to go teach in school. And you will find many
    engineers who are very enthusiastic about this. Maybe there is
    a way to change the accounting so that that could be credited
    toward their outreach budget.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, let us look into that. But I would
    appreciate a letter validating as much as you feel comfortable
    doing.
        Mr. Pratt. Oh, yeah.

                      CHINA VS. U.S. IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

        Mr. Wolf. The same with you, Mr. Nye.
        The other, if you had to compare us with China, how we are
    doing in sciences in the schools, do you think we are doing
    very well, do you think we are kind of holding our own, or do
    you think we are in decline?
        Mr. Pratt. There was an article in Science Magazine, a AAAS
    publication, maybe two weeks ago, a little education form
    article that compared achievement in three or four different
    areas and content knowledge and showed us very far behind, very
    far behind, lacking----
        Mr. Wolf. Who was?
        Mr. Pratt. The U.S. compared to China. It was a simple sort
    of U.S. to China comparison.
        Mr. Wolf. We will get that copy.
        Mr. Pratt. There was one interesting, maybe not ironic, but
    one interesting finding about that. They tested in like three
    or four different very specific content areas, and I think in
    the physical sciences, engineering physical science. And we
    were very deficient, except their was one test on the
    scientific knowledge or understanding of or ability to
    understand the scientific enterprise.
        And that particular subtest, the two nations were very
    equal. A bit ironic, but it may say something about the nature
    of science in China more than it does say about science
    education in China where it is so strictly oriented toward
    strong academic performance with very little experience in
    science. It was not the well-balanced education that we value
    so much in this country.
        Mr. Wolf. Of course, they are moving so fast. How about
    you, Mr. Nye? Are we doing very well, we are steady, or we are
    in decline?
        Mr. Nye. Here is what I will say. I have only been to China
    once, but I will say that the people you meet, these are
    academics, astronomers, rocket scientists, they are very
    hopeful about the future. They are excited about the future and
    they are excited about their science.
        So whatever disparities exist now are only going to be
    exacerbated. They are only going to get worse. China, the
    country and the people there are very excited to lead the
    world. They are excited about the future.
        With that said, keep in mind that about half of the people
    in China as of a couple years ago have never made a phone call,
    never made a cell phone call, never made a phone call. And so
    the Chinese government is working very hard to provide people
    with a basic knowledge.
        And this might be part of why that content knowledge so
    called seemed to be ahead, whereas the basic understanding of
    science as a process was about even. It might be because they
    are hustling. They are working hard to get everyone caught up.
        Mr. Wolf. Yes. They are surging in the space program, we
    have been told. We have 90,000 people in the space program,
    government and nongovernment. They have over 200,000. And you
    cannot do that for a long period of time.
        I worry that our young people, many are watching more video
    games, probably spending more time on violent Grand Theft Auto
    video games that are absolutely horrible, and if you think I am
    right, say so, and not putting it into the math and the science
    and physics and things like that.
        Mr. Nye. Well, about the Chinese space programs, may I
    comment just a little bit about that?
        Mr. Wolf. Yes.
        Mr. Nye. Bear in mind, everybody, that the Chinese space
    program and the Indian Space Organization, ISO, both of these
    government bodies are going to send people to the moon. They
    are going to try to send people to the moon. And this is an
    opportunity for the United States science and engineering
    community to work with these emerging space faring nations.
        I have heard as Vice President of the Planetary Society and
    a science educator a concern that the United States cannot lose
    the next space race. And as I understand it, the space race
    would be to the moon. Well, the United States landed people on
    the moon 40 years ago.
        So in a sense, the United States has already done this. And
    it was a time when everyone in the world was involved. Everyone
    in the world celebrated the landing of humans on the moon.
        So this is an opportunity to use things like the
    International Space Station to engage these emerging space
    faring nations and we will do that, I claim, with young
    scientists and engineers. The young, the emerging scientists
    and engineers from both nations or all three nations can work
    together to explore space.
        Mr. Wolf. All three being?
        Mr. Nye. China, India, and the United States. These are the
    emerging space faring nations. With that said, I mean, the
    European Space Agency is a terrific thing. It is great. But
    they, it has not reported that it intends to send humans back
    to the moon.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, I agree with you, but I have got to end on
    this for the record because somebody might actually look at
    this.
        China is a dictatorial country that is persecuting its
    people. It has a large number of Catholic priests and Bishops
    in jail today being tortured, a large number, 30, about 30. It
    has a large number of Protestant Pastors.
        If you need a kidney, for $50,000, you can go there. They
    will take your blood type. They will go into the prison and
    they will shoot somebody. And for $50,000, you can have a
    kidney transplant.
        They have plundered Tibet. We know what they have done it
    for. They are spying against us and stealing our secrets and
    weapons. They have had cyber attacks against a large number of
    members of the Congress and also Committees.
        So go into this with your eyes open. They are not going to
    cooperate only. They are going to be taking. They are going to
    be taking things. With the other countries, I completely agree.
    But, you know, I think everyone has this warm and fuzzy panda
    bear feeling with the Chinese. They are potentially a direct
    threat. And if they ever gain whereby they can surge ahead, I
    agreed with you and you have taken a little bit away, we should
    be number one in everything that we do. I think that is the
    exact thing. Too much cooperation with China will be they will
    take.
        Now, I believe I hopefully will live to see the current
    Chinese government fall and there will be democracy. The
    Chinese people are wonderful people, absolutely wonderful
    people. The government itself is evil. And so to cooperate with
    the current government in space, they will take and they will
    not give us anything.
        But other than taking China out of that, yes, with India, I
    agree and with Europe, I agree.
        Anyway, I appreciate your testimony. I thank the Chairman
    for having the foresight for having these hearings.
        I think the thing that you said the most that I believed
    in, if you lose them by ten, you probably lost them because you
    never hear, oh, maybe never is an exaggeration, but of somebody
    going to UVA and majoring in history and in their sophomore
    year transferring into physics. I mean, it just does not
    happen. I think your point is well taken.
        Now, maybe that is where the thrust should be for the
    National Science Foundation and the Department of Education to
    really put everything, knowing that we are limited in
    resources, everything we possibly can first, second, third,
    fourth, and fifth grade with the idea if we capture them then,
    and I wanted to be a congressman when I was in third grade, and
    so I think your point is well----
        Mr. Nye. It was before you were ten, right?
        Mr. Wolf. Well, yes.
        Mr. Nye. That is remarkable.
        Mr. Wolf. Yes. I knew. They asked me and I said, and I
    stuttered very badly, and the class would laugh at me. They
    would say, you know, you cannot even speak, who are you going
    to be. I was in third grade in elementary school, Patterson
    Elementary School. And I knew what I wanted to be.
        Now, I ran in 1976. I might tell you, this is not for the
    record, your brother supported me, he said, when I ran. He said
    he voted for me. This is not for the record. I lost in 1976. I
    lost in 1978. I won in 1980 and barely won. So your brother may
    be partially responsible for me getting my boyhood dream.
        I yield back. Thanks.

                                AMERICA COMPETES

        Mr. Pratt. One follow-up comment, if you would, please,
    allow me. A pointed suggestion, if I may. ``America Competes''
    seems to be very much in the minds of the legislature right
    now. Please look at it very carefully with respect to its
    support for elementary science. My assessment is it is being
    undervalued and that particular piece of legislation.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
        Mr. Wolf, I am not sure what good it was making those
    comments not for the record. We may still be on C-Span and we
    are being web cast anyway.
        So thank you.
        Following up on a couple of lines of Mr. Wolf's
    questioning, this whole question of inquiry-based education
    versus content-rich education and the balance between the two,
    I know I wonder, because I guess I was not exposed to inquiry-
    based instruction much, so I appreciate in the sense of having
    experienced content-based science and math education, where
    does one end and the other begin? And how do you assess
    relative value and then, of course, where is the balance
    between the two? I mean, is China being successful with its
    approach and are we just ambivalent and searching for our
    approach?
        And both of your thoughts on that, Mr. Nye first, please.
        Mr. Nye. Well, the expression content rich is, I believe,
    another way of saying learning facts.

                             Mr. Mollohan Questions

        Mr. Mollohan. Yes, as I am using it, that is what I mean.

                                HANDS ON SCIENCE

        Mr. Nye. And then inquiry based is another way of saying
    hands on or experiment or demonstration based.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Mr. Nye. And, of course, you need both. And I will say that
    at the elementary level especially, you have to experience
    nature and the world around you with your hands and eyes, with
    your senses. It is very important.
        But I also claim people talk about trivia contests and
    trivia games and so and so being an expert in trivia. I will
    claim that the more you know, the more facts you know, the more
    trivial facts, seemingly trivial facts you know, the more you
    know.
        And by that, there is a skeleton or a scaffold that forms
    in anyone's mind. As you learn about the world around you, you
    learn about the planets, about the size of the earth relative
    to the size of the moon to the sun, to the plutoid Pluto. You
    learn about the length of a DNA molecule relative to its width
    relative to a meter.
        And so these facts give you a complete picture of the
    world. And so you have to have content rich education and you
    have to have hands on education.
        But I believe, and now I will hand it to Mr. Pratt. I
    believe we have neglected both aspects of elementary science
    education. And that is why we are here.
        Mr. Pratt. It is one of the burning questions we are all
    trying to face. Unfortunately, I think the dichotomy somewhat
    expressed in your question is an unnecessary dichotomy and we
    would like not to do an either/or. Inquiry is a powerful
    learning process of getting to information content and facts,
    if you will. So they very much go hand in hand. I would cite a
    source that I think might be useful to even read into the
    record, is that the NRC published very recently, in the last
    eighteen months, a report called Taking Science to School. And
    in there they cited four major goals for science education. And
    they pointed out, Bruce Albertson in a very recent address to
    AAAS and in an editorial in Science Magazine about two months
    ago pointed out that we only meet one of those, and the other
    three are missing in our education. And I will just cite those
    for you, quote them.
        The first one he says we do a reasonable job of is to know,
    use, and interpret scientific explanations of the natural
    world. That is sort of the content of science. The other three,
    and in his address he put all four of these on the screen and
    then said, ``This is what we think science education should
    be,'' and then he, the next slide the last three were x'd out
    or crossed out, because he said they do not exist. And I will
    just cite those for you. To prepare students to generate and
    evaluate scientific evidence and explanations. To understand
    the nature and development of scientific knowledge. And to
    participate productively in scientific practices and discourse.
    So we can put labels on that and call it hands on science. We
    can call it, as we like to almost today, call it minds on
    science. It is all a part of science education. It is all a
    part of the total education of citizens of this country with
    respect to science. So we do not want to see the either/or. We
    want to see a combination of the two. And that is not to
    downplay the importance of knowledge. It is not to downplay the
    importance of facts. Facts have an important role in the
    context of larger what we call big ideas and in the larger
    context of how we learn them and how we apply them.
        Mr. Mollohan. You do not want either/or.
        Mr. Pratt. Exactly.

                               GOVERNMENT FUNDING

        Mr. Mollohan. Where is the--how to combine the two
    successfully? Where is the recommendation to policy makers on
    how to do that? Where is the recommendation that as members of
    Congress, or state legislators, or the executive branches at
    the federal and state levels, where is the how to? And, coming
    from the experts, if your policy makers would fashion your
    programs thusly and fund them at this rate, you would achieve
    this balance that would make science successful from
    kindergarten through twelfth grade.
        Mr. Pratt. Let me start with two or three dimensions.
    Again, going back a little bit to my earlier statement about
    the comprehensive, systemic approach to it. I mean, there are
    several dimensions. One is starting with a standard. And if you
    look at the current national science education standards, as
    well as the benchmarks from AAAS, they address those outcomes,
    those goals. Unfortunately, very few schools, you know, address
    all four goals. And one of the reasons for that is the
    instructional materials, call it textbooks if you will, in
    many, many cases do not address that broad perspective on
    science education. The curriculum materials developed with NSF
    funding literally for the last thirty or forty years are well
    tuned to those four goals. They were not always expressed quite
    that way. But if you go back and examine those materials you
    will find them very supportive. That is the kind of
    professional development to support the use of those materials
    and that type of instruction and those broad based goals are
    what we, when we say professional development that is what we
    want to see in the training of teachers and principals, to go
    back to a previous question.
        And assessment. One of the problems is the assessments.
    Part of it is because of the technology of assessment. And I
    mean our ability to write the items, our ability to, you know,
    to administer them. The ability to measure those somewhat less
    fact oriented parts of the equation are not well developed. But
    we need to develop better assessment items or abilities, tools
    I should say.
        Mr. Mollohan. See, when I hear what you are saying I hear
    you saying, ``It is out there as a study. It is out there as a
    recommendation.''
        Mr. Pratt. We know how to do it. It is part of the research
    I alluded to earlier from NSF.
        Mr. Mollohan. And we know how to do it.
        Mr. Pratt. We know how to do it.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, let me ask the question this way. Is
    there any place out there where it is actually happening? A
    model, an example of a school system where they really have
    done what Mr. Nye said at the very beginning of his testimony,
    namely everything all at once. We are back to this. And then
    you went through almost defining the elements of what had to
    happen in order to do everything at once. I am back to that.
        Mr. Pratt. All right.
        Mr. Mollohan. Where is it happening? I mean, I think it
    would be extremely instructional not only to, at the federal
    level, but down to the superintendent level if there were some
    consensus about how to and perhaps, and you are saying
    everybody has these recommendations. If there was some
    consensus which could perhaps be arrived at more at looking at
    where it has happened than hearing about it could happen.
        Mr. Pratt. It is always risky to give examples. But I will
    cite some school districts, because I am reasonably familiar
    with some of the investigation of this. Not as thoroughly as I
    would like to be. And this is not necessarily exhaustive, so
    bear with----
        Mr. Mollohan. But do you agree we have to get down----
        Mr. Pratt. Oh, yes.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. To this in order to implement.
        Mr. Pratt. I think if you looked, if you looked across the
    neighbor, so to speak, at two of your neighbors, Fairfax County
    in Virginia and Montgomery County in Maryland.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well Mr. Wolf looks at them pretty much all
    the time as he represents----

                             GRADE SCHOOL PROGRAMS

        Mr. Pratt. You will find some very strong, excellent
    programs. At the elementary level, Pasadena, California;
    Gilbert, Arizona; El Centro, California in Southern California.
    A district that is, like, 80 percent under, you know, low
    economic level students, Title I students. Excellent, excellent
    leadership by a superintendent down there. They have brought
    science and literacy education into one and improved the scores
    not only in science but in literacy and mathematics by
    emphasizing elementary science. I mean, there are others I
    could cite. I could even go back to my home district of
    Jefferson County, Colorado and say you would find some
    excellent programs there, particularly in the elementary
    science, but K-12. So there are a number of those around.
        One of the problems is that you can always find excellent,
    excellent schools. The challenge to school districts, to the
    educational community, is what we call scaling up. How do we
    really take it from a few highly qualified teachers using
    excellent materials under strong leadership with a principal,
    and scale that up, if you will, to every school district, I
    mean excuse me, every school and every student in the district.
    That is the challenge.
        Mr. Mollohan. That is a buy-in issue, is it not? I mean
    that is a, if you actually have the examples that are
    applicable in different circumstances, urban, rural, whatever
    the different circumstances you all would acknowledge or
    identify, that is a buy-in issue, is it not?
        Mr. Pratt. Well, I am going to go back----
        Mr. Mollohan. In my, in my, excuse me, and just to get it
    down to where I can really relate to your answer. In my state,
    it would be getting it down to the county superintendent,
    really. And then, in turn, down to the principal. But it would
    also be, if we are going to do everything all at once, it would
    also be getting it into the education schools to teach teachers
    to be inspirational and also fact training. How do you do that?
        Mr. Pratt. Well, as they say that is the $64,000 question.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, that is the question really we are
    looking to have an answer to.
        Mr. Pratt. You need leadership, to back again. But part of
    the problem with leadership, a leader has to be knowledgeable.
    And a leader has to have some experience. And what we know
    about buy-in is that it does not necessarily come up front,
    pre-implementation, pre-application. Buy-in comes from
    carefully thought out application of what we have just been
    talking about, if you will, the innovation, the quality
    materials, and a careful, shall we say, observation and
    evaluation of those, and seeing the success of those. That is
    where buy-in comes. It is when a school district or a principal
    says, ``I am going to do this. I am going to support it. I am
    going to gauge what happens very carefully.''
        And when the success begins to happen, and it does not
    happen overnight. Another major flaw in our thinking often is
    it takes a matter of years. That is when buy-in comes.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Nye.

                            LEADERSHIP IN COMMUNITY

        Mr. Nye. May I ask a question of Mr. Pratt? Those school
    districts you mentioned, have studies been done about the
    environment? That is to say, about what goes on in that
    community? In Pasadena, for example, you have the Jet
    Propulsion Lab. And you have Cal Tech.
        Mr. Pratt. More Cal Tech than Jet Propulsion Lab.
        Mr. Nye. Well, the one is run by the other. Then in, what
    was another example, Montgomery County is the high tech
    corridor, there. Fairfax County, a lot of aerospace, and there
    is a lot of defense contractors. In the case of El Centro,
    there is a naval station there, right? And the couple times I
    have been to El Centro the Blue Angels are flying around all
    day. I am not kidding. And so I wonder if the people in the
    community who choose to go into the school system as
    administrators and teachers, they have to be influenced by the
    community that celebrates or embraces science and technology.
    So perhaps part of our overall strategy should be to make sure
    that every school district is somehow influenced or affected,
    by a high technology business. I know there is a lot of concern
    about earmarks, when I was a consultant to the Department of
    Justice on a military airplane as an engineer, I noticed that
    the pieces for the plane were being made all over the place.
    And there may be great value to that. There may be great value
    to giving communities a high tech business that affects the
    school district. And that has got to be, that has to be
    susceptible to analysis. Do we know, do we have information
    about that?
        Mr. Pratt. I am not sure that question has been asked. But
    the question about leadership, both at the district level,
    superintendent and the curriculum office, as well as local
    principals. That has been studied fairly extensively. And so it
    is clear that leadership makes a significant difference. And I
    would, I could probably even cite names in each of these
    districts, both at the superintendent, if I, you know, thought
    about it well enough. At the superintendent level as well as
    the local, what we call the science coordinator level, the kind
    of job I had for most of my career. It is that level of
    leadership.
        Now, sure they gain from the nature of the community. We
    all know that the community makes a difference. But there are
    enough exceptions in that list, El Centro being one of them. I
    do not think the naval base had much if anything to do with the
    success down there.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well it would be interesting if you would,
    for the record, submit a list of those, and perhaps, obviously,
    and perhaps that would be very instructive. And perhaps we
    could, you know, follow up and see what is happening in some of
    those communities.
        We often hear when we talk about this, or talk with experts
    about this, of successes in community rich, or communities rich
    in technology activities, and people who work in those
    activities. That those communities, that there is a
    relationship between the quality of the math and science
    education. And that goes along with the recommendation that it
    is great to have scientists teaching science. I do not know
    what percentage of the country is so blessed, but lots of
    places in rural areas are not so blessed. So we have to
    overcome that challenge of having the expertise and that
    attitude in the community, and that value of science in the
    community and its education, and what it means imported
    perhaps, or substituted in these areas that are not in the way
    I am using this communities that are rich in technology
    activities.

                          MONEY FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION

        Mr. Nye. Well, I think we have a real opportunity with the
    internet. If we make sure that rural schools, rural school
    districts, have very good electronic information systems, it
    certainly seems that we could export this at very reasonable
    cost. I mean, this should be, this should be a straightforward
    thing to do. There are people, I am sure, who are experts on
    how to distribute this information in an economical way.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Let me point out that this Committee in
    the stimulus package includes in NTIA $4.7 billion for
    broadband expansion into the rural areas. Having provided that
    funding, it is another thing for those rural communities to
    take advantage of that. Because it is, that is, I wish it were
    a straight line. It is very difficult. But we are going to work
    that issue because we recognize how important that is.
        Well, I am very interested in models or examples of where
    this balance has been achieved between what I am referencing as
    inquiry based and content rich class, and how you do that in
    different academic environments. Let me ask you, we fund NASA,
    NIST, and NOAA. All three of them have education programs. We
    fund those education programs here at the Committee. And they
    often go beyond the traditional classroom setting. We are
    trying to fund activities that seek out and prototype, if you
    will, these balances. And try to support programs that are
    taking powerful math and science into the classroom, and
    teaching teachers to teach in that environment. Do you have any
    comments about the role of these agencies, or any familiarity
    with the programs that these agencies are engaged in in
    promoting this? And words of support for those activities by
    these agencies and consequently our financially supporting
    them?
        Mr. Nye. Well from personal experience----
        Mr. Mollohan. Opportunity to advertise, actually, here, and
    advocate.
        Mr. Nye [continuing]. That is a lot of, that is a lot of
    what NASA does in its outreach, is talk about how great space
    exploration is. And to put it rhetorically, what is not to love
    about that? One of the most compelling moments of my life was
    when a man from NASA came to my elementary school in
    Washington, D.C. and dipped things in liquid oxygen. And then,
    thank goodness, he set them on fire. And it was spectacular. It
    was as though he were holding rockets in his hand. And I think
    the reason it made such an impression on me was he loved what
    he was doing. He was passionate about it. So if there are
    people in these organizations that are passionate.
        My grandmother in order to pay the mortgage on her house
    took boarders, people who would rent rooms in her house. And
    one of them is a man who is still alive who worked for, at that
    time, the National Bureau of Standards. And he would take me
    upstairs and show me things through his microscope, astonishing
    things. Worlds I had never seen. And the reason that he was so
    influential on me is because he loved what he was doing. So if
    we, if we can declare that it is okay, or that it is a worthy
    pursuit of these government funded organizations that have
    roles to play in space exploration, weather monitoring, or
    climate monitoring, maintaining standards in scientific
    excellence around the world starting here, we provide those
    people the means to send people, send their people into the
    community in informal science. I think that is a, a very small
    cost with enormous dividends.
        Mr. Mollohan. These agency programs in education, Mr.
    Pratt?
        Mr. Pratt. I have mixed feelings, mixed experience. That
    means good and bad, is what I mean by mixed. And the bad is not
    that they are low quality. The negative side, first, is that we
    have some very serious problems that you and other members of
    your Committee have alluded to. Or not alluded to, it has been
    specifically addressed. Whether it be poor cities, whether it
    be low economic, you know, areas, whether it be
    underrepresented students, it is the quality of science at the
    elementary level, the amount of science. We have some very
    serious education, science education problems in this country.
    And I do not think they are being squarely addressed by the--
    call them mission specific, or agency specific--programs. That
    is not to say, you know, we should not fund those and so I have
    to be very careful that I do not say that they are misdirected.
    I do not----
        Mr. Mollohan. We should make them better.
        Mr. Pratt. But we should make them better, and we should
    find a way, it takes some effort. It involves a combination of
    educators and the scientists in NOAA and NASA and NIST, as well
    as NIH and others that are not under your purview.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, let us start with your recommendation.

                              QUALITY OF TEACHERS

        Mr. Pratt. Exactly. That is why I spoke about a mile wide
    and an inch deep. They are excellent programs but if you look
    carefully at them they may not, and usually do not, address
    specific standards. And they do not address the school
    districts, and the quality of teaching that we should address.
        Mr. Mollohan. Could you give us an example----
        Mr. Pratt. I will give you one example.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Of what you mean and how it can
    be related to that? And how these programs could be so
    directed?
        Mr. Pratt. Well, examples can get me into as much trouble
    as they can be of value.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, this is your chance to help us.
        Mr. Pratt. I know.
        Mr. Mollohan. So an example would be helpful.
        Mr. Pratt. Two months ago I responded to an announcement
    that a group related to NASA and with NASA funding was going to
    present an all day Saturday workshop on the Kepler program, the
    Kepler mission, which of course, if all goes well, will launch
    tomorrow morning. I attended that session at the University of
    Colorado in some very nice space facilities there. There were
    three excellent presenters, workshop leaders, three of them.
    There were eighteen of us in attendance. We spent most of the
    day on some excellent activities which helped me much better
    understand some fundamental astronomy of solar, possible solar
    systems in the rest of the universe, and added a little bit of
    my knowledge of astronomy. But if I were a classroom teacher, I
    would have had, you know, a poster and a few ideas to take back
    to my classroom, but I do not think it would have done me
    anything fundamentally for the quality of my teaching, or my
    knowledge in this particular case in astronomy.
        Now, I understand, and I got excited about, and I will
    watch the results of Kepler. And I understood a great deal
    about the criteria for the, how do you find a star that might
    possibly have an actual planet associated with it.
        Mr. Mollohan. I am not understanding your example. I mean,
    the population we are trying to target here is K-12 teachers.
    We----
        Mr. Pratt. Now, I was not a teacher, of course, but the
    people in attendance were classroom teachers.
        Mr. Mollohan. I see, okay.
        Mr. Pratt. Middle school, mostly middle school, well there
    was one elementary. Middle school and high school teachers.
        Mr. Mollohan. Give us an example of where it works well.
        Mr. Pratt. The Explorer program where NASA has moved to. I
    mean, after many years, I think, of trying to determine its
    effectiveness and to some degree measuring its effectiveness,
    it is my understanding, having kind of watched and been a
    slight part of this----
        Mr. Mollohan. Is the Challenger----
        Mr. Pratt. I have seen NASA take its money, much of its
    money, and say, we are going to sponsor, I do not know what the
    exact number is but one or two schools per state and
    systemically, systematically to use my terminology again, work
    with the staff of that school in order to improve the quality
    of science teaching in that school. Now, they will be using
    NASA personnel when available. They would be using some NASA
    materials. But it goes far beyond that. It addresses the broad
    issue of the quality of the teachers, the instructional
    materials, and possibly even the assessment in those schools.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, that is very helpful. Thank you. Mr.
    Nye?
        Mr. Nye. So Mr. Pratt, may I ask it this way? You are
    saying in the example of the Kepler mission, it took all day
    but it might not have been taught, and it promoted space
    exploration and it promoted NASA. But it might not have been
    tied to the science standards. Is that what you are saying?
        Mr. Pratt. Well, more specifically not tied that closely to
    the needs of classroom teachers.
        Mr. Nye. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay, thank you.
        Mr. Nye. So these very well intending people, but somehow
    coming from within the agency without being tied to the, maybe,
    national standards. They are not using the resources as
    effectively as we might.
        Mr. Mollohan. Like strategic planning, or relating to
    something?
        Mr. Nye. But bear in mind, passionate people doing, they
    are enthusiastic about their business.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Mr. Nye. Right.
        Mr. Mollohan. There have been accounts in the press, and
    otherwise we hear of the lack of science and math college
    degrees among those teaching those subjects in primary and
    secondary schools. And then there is the idea that teaching,
    good teaching techniques, a teacher can teach anything. What is
    the current situation? And is there a growing trend for
    teachers to get degrees in the, majors in the fields that they
    are going to teach rather than majoring in education?
        Mr. Pratt. Definitely. University education programs in
    many, many cases are becoming five year programs. So you
    assume, you start with a student with an undergraduate degree,
    in this case in science or mathematics, but not restricted to
    those. And then to some degree in their senior year, but mostly
    in a first year following, a first year of graduate school,
    they would do their education courses, do their practice
    teaching, possibly even do an internship in a local school
    district. So I cannot give you stats across the country but
    that is definitely the trend. You see some excellent examples.
    University of Texas has something called UTeach where they have
    a very strong program in that direction.
        It is a trend, now. And remember that schools are filled
    with teachers who, you know, have been trained previously. So
    we have a long ways to go even though we may be, we may be
    improving the current state of undergraduate teacher education.
        Mr. Mollohan. I had a group of West Virginians, and they
    are in the educational community, visit me a couple of months
    ago with the, I want to get this right. With the notion that to
    the extent we are able to introduce IB courses into high
    schools we advance the number of youngsters who go into math
    and science. And I can see, obviously, that correlation is
    obvious. The issue of getting IB courses in schools that do not
    have them is another question. But first I want to ask,
    Newsweek's Challenge Index measures the percentage of seniors
    in a school taking AP and IB courses. What common practices and
    what common characteristics exist in schools with the highest
    percentage of participation in AP and IB schools?
        Mr. Pratt. There are several things. Number one, you have
    to have a highly qualified staff.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Mr. Pratt. I mean----
        Mr. Mollohan. First and foremost, probably.
        Mr. Pratt. Yes. To teach college level courses.
        Mr. Mollohan. And if you do not have that----
        Mr. Pratt. That is right.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Forget it.
        Mr. Pratt. And it also means facilities, to echo back to--
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Mr. Pratt [continuing]. A previous concern.
        Mr. Mollohan. So when you are going around----
        Mr. Pratt. You also have to have----
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Trying to promote that----
        Mr. Pratt. You also have to have quality science education
    at the previous grade levels so the students are prepared to
    take, so they can come into the high school or their latter two
    years prepared to take these courses. Those are the major
    ingredients. I think one other less tangible, and maybe not as
    well known, is that many schools are encouraging more students
    to take these courses without necessarily forcing them-- well,
    what should I say? Without measuring the success of these
    courses by the number of students who get threes or fours and
    fives on the test, and therefore quality to be exempt of, in
    other words, encourage them to take advanced level courses, IB
    and AP being the best examples that are available to most
    school districts. But saying, we want you to take this course.
    We know you may not do quite as well as the very top students
    and so we do not want to preselect you because of any reason.
    You know, because of the nature of your previous education, and
    so on. So giving more students a chance to show what they can
    do by motivating them in these courses, even though they may
    not take the, they may not result in the fours and fives. So
    being a little careful about assessing the success of these
    programs by the number of students who really do test out of
    college courses. And saying this is a good experience for many
    of our students. I will not say all students. But a much
    broader audience of students than in the past.
        Now they are, you also need to know that the nature of at
    least AP courses are being challenged by a number of folks. And
    the College Board is making some strides in improving the
    quality of the courses so that they become more than just
    content, to go back to our previous question, just content
    grinding courses. And that they become, that they have a
    broader set of goals for science education, or physics
    education, or biology education. So there is a bit of a
    backlash. Not so much about the fact that we should not have
    students taking advanced courses, but the nature of the course
    sometimes are so narrow.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, that does not serve the intended
    purpose.
        Mr. Nye. Well, it is once again, if you are not prepared in
    elementary school----
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Mr. Nye [continuing]. You are not going to do well on the
    Advanced Placement test. And yet, a lot of people are taking
    the Advanced Placement test. There is peer pressure to take it,
    and there is pressure on the teacher to take it. But it is not
    clear that it really makes you an advanced student.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, thank you all very much for appearing
    here today. I just think it has been an excellent hearing. And
    the information which we have had the benefit of your providing
    will be extremely helpful to the Committee. And perhaps as
    questions arise, specifically one thing or another, we can call
    on you all to give us direction. It has been a special hearing
    because of all the students that were here. So as we express
    appreciation to you I want to end on a student question to both
    of you, each respectively. And end on an inspiring note.
        When and how did you first become inspired? Mr. Nye?
        Mr. Nye. I do not remember. It was so long ago.
        Mr. Mollohan. That will be disappointing.
        Mr. Nye. Let me say a couple things, though. First of all,
    in the room today is my older brother. And my older brother
    came out one day with a chemistry set, which as I recollect was
    a Gilbert which was made by the same company that makes Lionel
    Trains. Fabulous trains.
        Mr. Mollohan. I remember those.
        Mr. Nye. Well there is still a whole, Mr. Chairman if you
    have extra income that you are trying to dispose of, the toy
    train industry will be more than happy to help you. With that
    said, he put two chemicals in my hand and made a third
    chemical. And it was the same chemical that I smelled when my
    mother cleaned the windows. Now, this was ammonia.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Mr. Nye. And this was like magic. But I realized even very,
    very young, before I had the use of very many words, I realized
    that he knew what was going to happen. That with this mixture
    he could predict the future. And that to me, that has compelled
    me my whole life. And I am almost sure it was the same summer I
    became fascinated with bees.
        And then another moment that is unforgettable, I had a
    rubber band powered airplane, still made. I am not a
    stockholder or anything, but it is the Sky Streak made by
    Guillows. They are still made. And just if you are into this,
    it has no landing gear so it has much better thrust to weight
    ratio. And so I had inferred, watching fish, that if you were
    to bend the rudder of this aircraft it would turn. And not only
    would it turn, it would bank. That there was some coupling, as
    we say in math, between the roll and the yaw. And so I threw
    it. And I had lubricated it at my older brother's instruction.
    I lubricated the rubber band with soap, with dishwashing
    detergent. And the thing turned three times. And it came back
    to me like a boomerang. Just right to my hand, like in a
    cartoon. And I realized that you could make aircraft and steer
    them, and you could predict the future. And this, I guess,
    changed my life.
        Mr. Mollohan. That is a great answer. Mr. Pratt.
        Mr. Pratt. I always want to be in science. I can remember a
    second grade textbook, textbook, it was not hands on science. A
    textbook that stirred me. I remember astronomy in the sixth
    grade, Bill, when I suddenly realized there was, I could think
    beyond the immediate both time and distance wise. I guess that
    is one of the stages you go through.
        The real question that I will expand on, or modify your
    question, is why did I decide to teach? I went through
    undergraduate and had a major in chemistry and physics, one of
    the few people in the State of Oklahoma at that particular
    time. And I was all set to accept a job that was offered to me
    without even, without even an application at the R and D
    department at Phillips, Phillips Petroleum Company in
    Bartlesville, Oklahoma. And April of my senior year I was
    walking down the hall in the science building and the chemistry
    professor, my major professor, chemistry professor, came to me
    and he said, ``Harold, how would you like to teach school next
    year?'' And I said, ``You have got to be kidding.'' I said,
    ``You have got to be kidding.'' Why would I do that? And in
    Oklahoma that would be half the salary I would get as a
    chemist. And he said, ``Well,'' he said, ``I just, you just
    seemed to be the kind of person that I think would be good in
    the classroom.'' He said, ``Why don't you come talk to the
    superintendent?'' So he took me down the hall and introduced me
    to the superintendent in a small school called Perry, Oklahoma.
    300 kids in a high school. And for whatever reason, I decided
    to teach.
        I got married and went, had to do something in the Army to
    fulfill my draft obligation. Came back and landed a job as a
    chemist making good money, soft money. I only worked from eight
    to five, and I went home, and I could do anything I wanted
    after five o'clock. And I had that job for almost two years.
    And I read one day, this was in 1959 to be precise. I read one
    day that the National Science Foundation, I hardly even knew
    who the National Science Foundation was, was going to fund
    teacher education through summer institutes in something called
    academic year institutes. And I said, ``You know, if the NSF
    and therefore the government is that interested in the quality
    of science education.'' I really, this was almost the way, the
    thought that went through. ``If they are that interested in
    science education then, you know, I think I will go back into
    teaching.'' And I did. And I found a job in Colorado, which is
    a little better than Oklahoma as far as pay and teaching
    conditions are concerned. And it was one of the best decisions
    I ever made. Because I took advantage of every opportunity the
    NSF provided, both me and my school district, to this very day.
    Because I have seen what that kind of money, that kind of
    support can do for individuals and can do for school districts.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, thank you both for those inspiring
    answers and for your testimony here today. This Committee is
    privileged to have you appear, and we are benefitted by that
    testimony.
        Mr. Pratt. Well, thank you for the opportunity.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you both.
        Mr. Nye. May I say one more thing?
        Mr. Mollohan. Please.
        Mr. Nye. Mr. Pratt really reminded me why I wanted to be
    the Science Guy. And this is serious. I was working at a
    company in Redmond, Washington, which is before Microsoft was
    in Redmond, Washington. And I was a young man. I was
    volunteering as a Big Brother, United Way Big Brother, and I
    was also volunteering at the Pacific Science Center which is,
    it is like a museum but a science center is traditionally a
    place where you can grab stuff. So it is a little different
    business plan. And I was working for people who were, or seemed
    to be, obsessed with making a profit every quarter. This was a
    big focus. And they were, I guess for no better word, they were
    terrified of anything made in Japan. Anything made in a
    Japanese company must be inherently better, must have better
    patent protection, must be less expensive, must be better for
    any customer. And then I got involved in a thing where they
    were charging some of my work, and my colleague's work, to the
    Space Shuttle program when it was not really associated with
    the Space Shuttle program. And so I decided that I was working
    at a place that was really focused on the past. They were
    focused on the wrongs that had been done to them and their
    entitlement rather than the future. So I quit, October 3, 1986,
    approximately. And decided to try to influence the future. And
    I will say by and large it is very, very rewarding to try to
    influence the future. And I thank you again for taking so much
    time with us this morning and this afternoon. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, thank you for influencing the future
    and for, in a very informed way, influencing the Subcommittee.
    Thank you both.
        Mr. Nye. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. The hearing is adjourned.

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219A.057

                                               Thursday, March 5, 2009.

       WHERE ARE WE TODAY: TODAY'S ASSESSMENT OF ``THE GATHERING STORM''

                                    WITNESS

    NORMAN R. AUGUSTINE, FORMER CHAIRMAN AND CEO, LOCKHEED MARTIN

                     Opening Statement by Chairman Mollohan

        Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order. Mr. Wolf is
    tied up in a meeting right now. He will be here momentarily,
    but he has asked that we go ahead. So we will do that by
    welcoming our distinguished witness today, Mr. Norm Augustine.
    Welcome back.
        Mr. Augustine. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. It is a pleasure to have you back as a
    witness before this Subcommittee. This week we have been taking
    testimony on the state of science in the United States, and
    roles of four research agencies in our jurisdiction, NASA, NSF,
    NOAA, and NIST, in the overall science enterprise. This morning
    we gained insight into K through 12 science education and
    science teacher preparation.
        Following the issuance of the ``Rising Above the Gathering
    Storm'' report there has been a bipartisan effort to double the
    fiscal year 2006 funding of NSF, NIST, and the Department of
    Energy Office of Science over ten years. The report recommended
    10 percent per year increases for these agencies. The stimulus
    funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
    of 2009 increased fiscal year 2009 funding for NSF by roughly
    50 percent and for NIST by almost 70 percent, while NASA
    science received a boost of about 8 percent, and NOAA received
    about 20 percent of its annual total.
        In two of our earlier hearings we have heard of the
    important contributions of NASA and NOAA to the overall science
    enterprise, particularly in the physical and Earth sciences.
    Balancing funding for these four agencies is a major element of
    our Subcommittee responsibilities. Now we want to check on how
    well federal funding and policy are addressing the
    recommendations contained in the ``Rising Above the Gathering
    Storm'' report, and to hear from the principal author of the
    report. Welcome, Mr. Augustine.
        Your written testimony will be made part of the record, and
    I see that you are prepared to make oral comments. So if you
    will proceed, and welcome again.
        Mr. Augustine. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for this opportunity to appear. I should correct the record. I
    suspect that you gave me more credit than I deserve. There were
    twenty of us that worked on `` The Gathering Storm'' report. I
    was one of those twenty, although I did of course chair it.
        The status of ``The Gathering Storm'' report is the subject
    of some complexity because of the number and the variety of
    recommendations that were made. You and the Committee, I am
    sure, are well aware that the report was requested by a
    bipartisan group from both the House and the Senate. There
    were, as I have noted, twenty of us on the Committee that
    performed the report for the National Academies of Science and
    Engineering and the Institute of Medicine. The committee
    included university presidents, CEOs, former presidential
    appointees, several Nobel Laureates, K through 12 educators,
    and so on. I am proud to say that two of our members are now
    serving in the President's cabinet.
        If this hearing were to have taken place just two months
    ago, I could have easily answered the question of what has
    happened since `` The Gathering Storm'' report was written. I
    could have reported to you that a new graduate university has
    been founded with an opening day endowment that equals that
    which took MIT 142 years to build. I could have reported that
    200,000 students were studying abroad, mostly on government
    funding, mostly in science and technology. Or that a short term
    25 percent increase in R and D funding is underway. Or that a
    program was underway to make the country a nanotechnology hub,
    a global nanotechnology hub. Or that an additional $10 billion
    was being allocated to K through 12 education, or an additional
    $3 billion to the current effort on research.
        If I had done that I would have had to tell you that those
    actions were being taken by Saudi Arabia, China, the U.K.,
    India, Brazil, and Russia, respectively.
        In the U.S. during that same period of time one of our
    national labs putting its research staff and other staff on a
    mandatory two day a month unpaid furloughs. Another one of our
    national labs began laying people off altogether. Our nation's
    contribution to the international program in nuclear fusion was
    reduced to what was called by DOE a ``survival mode''. Industry
    continued to spend three times as much on litigation as it did
    on research. And I would suspect many would be scientists and
    engineers, young people, were reconsidering their career plans.
        Fortunately your hearing is today and not two months ago.
    The stimulus legislation, I believe, will have an enormous
    positive impact in the areas of research, science, and
    education. I would like in the time that has been allotted to
    me to quickly summarize the two most recent status reports that
    have come out with regard to these two key areas, one being
    education and one being science, innovation and engineering as
    a package.
        The one that refers to education is the PISA report. I can
    never remember what that stands for but it is Programme in
    International Studies in something. They conduct standardized
    examinations at several grade levels in thirty different
    countries. The results were released about three months ago.
    The Washington Post described them as showing that we were
    stagnating in science. But there was one bright spot, which was
    fourth grade mathematics. Putting aside the fact that not many
    corporations hire fourth graders, there is another significant
    issue here if one does a little mathematics of their own. My
    calculations show that if we continue to ``jump forward'', to
    use the Post's words, at the pace we have the last ten years,
    we will catch up, for example, with Hong Kong in just eighty-
    five more years, assuming they do not get any better. Clearly
    we are on a path that is not going to be adequate in terms of
    educating our people in math and science.
        The second study was conducted by the Information
    Technology and Innovation Foundation. Its results were just
    released. They studied forty countries and have dropped the
    U.S. to sixth place in its innovation capabilities. But more
    importantly, when they looked at the last decade and ranked
    Nations according to the progress made during that decade, the
    U.S. ranked fortieth, dead last.
        I would like as a final comment to make a personal
    suggestion, not part of `` The Gathering Storm'' report. It
    stems from the fact that there are about 15,000 independent,
    with emphasis on ``independent'', school districts in this
    country. As I have traveled around some of those schools, both
    in this country and in many other countries, I have been struck
    by the fact that there are some truly bright spots. Here and
    there you find people who are really doing things right. It
    would seem to me that it would be helpful to take some of the
    suggestions that have been posed and to disseminate them
    broadly so that they could be replicated. To do so I think it
    would be useful if the Congress and the President were to
    appoint a commission, involving educators, but not headed by an
    educator, to survey what are best practices? What are those
    bright spots in the U.S. and abroad? What are their
    ingredients, how can we replicate them? And what are the common
    features that they have? This is something that each individual
    district cannot reasonably do. But they could certainly benefit
    from it.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes what I had to say in my
    opening remarks. I would be happy to take questions.
        [Written testimony of Norman R. Augustine follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.011

        Mr. Mollohan. Well, what was the bright spot?
        Mr. Augustine. The bright spot was fourth grade arithmetic,
    where we improved.
        Mr. Mollohan. And is that by way of emphasizing all of the
    unbright spots?
        Mr. Augustine. I think that is what the media was doing,
    yes.

                             SCIENCE AND EDUCATION

        Mr. Mollohan. Well, that is a bright spot because that is
    the grade that some of the witnesses have identified as the
    point where interest in science and math drops off unless it is
    strategically nurtured from that point forward. So at least we
    have a good point, or a trending toward a good point, to pick
    up and to think about.
        Well let me ask you if there are any bright spots with
    regard to NSF and maybe NIST, and the Department of Energy
    Office of Science, those three agencies that were targeted for
    doubling. And I think we, just recently with the stimulus
    package, assisted in that goal. Are you able to comment
    specifically on the trend lines in those agencies? And are
    there any positive signs coming out of that?

                          NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

        Mr. Augustine. I think there are. I think, for example,
    that NSF is truly a national asset. The things that make NSF
    particularly strong, in my judgment, include the fact that a
    good part of its staff comes in for a few years, contributes,
    then leaves--and then a refreshed staff comes in. I think it is
    particularly important at NSF that they rely heavily upon peer
    review for their grants. I have been amazed at NSF's ability to
    tackle a diversity of challenges. You may recall, Mr. Chairman,
    some years ago, I guess eight or nine years ago, I chaired the
    Commission on Antarctica, where it was decided to build a new
    station at South Pole, this is an incredibly difficult
    logistics undertaking . . . sort of the last thing I would
    expect an organization of scientists to be good at. And they
    did, in my judgment, a marvelous job. I think there are many
    bright spots, both in terms of management capability and in
    terms of NSF's use of funds.
        I think that other agencies also have their bright spots as
    well. One of the brightest is a potential one at DOE, ARPA-E,
    which of course your bill has funded, and I think will fill an
    important need if it is properly implemented. The latter is
    important. We learned a lot of lessons with ARPA and what made
    it, or DARPA, what made it successful. Hopefully we can apply
    those same lessons at ARPA-E. I believe Secretary Chu is well
    qualified to do just that.
        I think you mentioned NIST. Of course, NIST is renowned for
    its expertise in the specific areas with which it deals.
        Perhaps I should mention at this point that the National
    Academy study sought to find a centerpiece to bring together
    the various recommendations it made. We wanted to find a
    centerpiece that permeated the many issues that affect our
    country. A centerpiece was extremely important; a centerpiece
    that resided in the area of principle concern. In our view,
    that was the physical sciences, engineering and mathematics . .
    . Just as, for example, the Manhattan Project in World War II,
    or the Apollo project after Sputnik. We chose energy as our
    centerpiece. In so doing it was not that we thought the NIH or
    NASA or the DOD or NIST were less important. It was just that
    they did not happen to directly fit our particular centerpiece.
    So we just did not talk much at all about them. I should
    emphasize that point.

                           THE GATHERING STORM REPORT

        Mr. Mollohan. Well, talk about that a little more. Dr.
    Cicerone when we asked him why NASA science and NOAA science
    were not included in `` The Gathering Storm'' report, his
    notion of it, without going into any detail, was that the
    report was of high quality but quickly done and felt that
    perhaps those accounts just were not looked at. Is that the
    case? Or tell us why science in those agencies was not
    addressed?
        Mr. Augustine. I think that is certainly part of the
    explanation. I hesitated to mention that factor because it
    sounds like an excuse, sitting where I sit today and having had
    responsibility for ``The Gathering Storm'' report.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, I do not want you to misunderstand.
    Believe me, Dr. Cicerone had nothing but praise for `` The
    Gathering Storm'' report. But he was just thinking that, maybe
    that was the direction understood to go, and in the time frame
    that is the direction you went.
        Mr. Augustine. Yes. We found ourselves with ninety days to
    do the report.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes, and that is the point.
        Mr. Augustine. Which frankly we welcomed because we all had
    other things we had to do in life. Also, we thought that if you
    cannot get ideas in ninety days you are not likely to get them
    in 900 days.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Mr. Augustine. So we were very comfortable with that
    notion. The available time was certainly a factor. We did not
    have time to fill out the entire pattern. But in my mind the
    more significant thing was that we tried to pick a centerpiece,
    we picked energy. DOD, and to some extent NIST and NOAA and
    NASA, although having some connection, it is nowhere near as
    direct as NSF and DOE.

                           SCIENCE ISSUES AT AGENCIES

        Mr. Mollohan. Well, let us talk about science, if we might,
    just in these agencies. The stimulus package does give them a
    shot in the arm, so to speak. And for those that are the
    subject of your report, I think the stimulus pretty well put
    them back on a ten-year track where they were before. Is that
    enough? I mean, are we doing in NSF and NIST what should be the
    baseline upon which we consider future increases? There have
    been some who have indicated you need to be careful with that.
    You need to be careful it is not ramping up too quickly, and
    they cite NIH. That ramping up too quickly creates instability
    in the, and ups and downs cause problems that ripple through
    those programs. So we are looking for balance. And if you
    cannot do it in specific numbers or percentages, maybe you can
    talk to the issue of balance generally. And if you can talk
    with us specifically, that would be great in regard to NSF and
    NIST, and indeed the Department of Energy, although we do not
    fund it.
        Mr. Augustine. It is an important issue. We compared the
    investment in this country with investments in other countries
    in science using many different measures. Unfortunately many of
    these are input measures, although we also looked at a few
    output measures. The input measures we looked at included
    percentage of the GDP, which is a particularly important
    measure because it gives an indication of what you have to
    support, how big the train is that this engine has to pull.
    Investment per individual, per capita; investment in absolute
    terms. We looked at trends within this country of spending. The
    conclusion we arrived at was that for at least five years it
    would be appropriate to spend at the maximum rate at which we
    could spend efficiently. At the end of five years, stop, take a
    look at what we got for our investment. Also look ahead and see
    what others have done and what the requirements might be.
        So the question boiled down to, ``what can you spend
    efficiently?'' This is not without controversy. But as we
    looked at our academic system, including the number of
    researchers available in key areas, the facilities available,
    and most importantly, the overall ability to efficiently absorb
    and manage fund increases. There is certainly some level that
    there will be waste. We saw the NIH's efforts had taken five
    years. That is about 14, 13 percent increase a year. So we
    proposed 7 years, which is about 10 percent a year. That looked
    to us to be an appropriate round number. It may be eight, it
    may be twelve, I candidly would not know. But it is like 10
    percent.
        Mr. Mollohan. I see.
        Mr. Augustine. We felt that amount could be efficiently
    spent. We said, set out for seven years, but spend at the
    maximum rate that you could efficiently spend at, then stop and
    take stock of where we are.
        Mr. Mollohan. So we are a couple of years from that point,
    although we are continuously taking stock of that.
        Mr. Augustine. Yes. Obviously you would need to be
    assessing each year how things are going. But we are several
    years away from any assessment because during the first two
    years we did not accomplish much--to be very candid.
        Mr. Mollohan. After the hearing started Mr. Aderholt was
    the first person in the room. Mr. Aderholt.
        Mr. Aderholt. Yeah, I just stepped out. Go ahead and
    recognize----
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Mr. Honda.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back.
        Mr. Augustine. Thank you.

                               SCIENCE EDUCATION

        Mr. Honda. You know, the last time you were here we were
    discussing the issues that were brought out by your work on ``
    Above the Gathering Storm.'' And in your written testimony
    here, this is the third year post-report. A couple of years ago
    you said that there was no changes that were evident in the
    outcomes of student achievement between `` Gathering Storm''
    and `` Nation at Risk.'' And so that started me to think. But
    at that meeting I also asked you a question about innovation
    relative to education, and here in your concluding paragraph
    you said there are a couple of things that the two most recent
    studies bearing on America's evolving position with regard to
    key ingredients of the 21st century, competitiveness,
    education, and innovation. Now I asked you the question, how
    difficult would it be to teach innovation? You and the other
    person that was with you sort of said, `` Well, it is pretty
    difficult because it is something that is innate in folks.'' Do
    you still hold that opinion?
        Mr. Augustine. I still hold that opinion. It is difficult
    to teach innovation, Mr. Honda. But I think that an environment
    can be created where students could learn it. And I believe one
    can promote that learning, which I guess is called teaching.
    But in terms of just laying down a set of rules, which I have
    actually tried to do, that you should follow is inadequate.
    Innovation requires more than that. I think it requires
    experience. It also requires an educational curriculum that
    permits creativity. For example, I have visited schools in both
    Singapore and the People's Republic of China. They too are
    concerned that their educational systems, which by most
    measures are as fine as you can get. They are concerned that
    they do not provide for innovation, for initiative, for
    creativity. And they are trying to do something about it.
        Mr. Honda. Right.
        Mr. Augustine. When you try to promote innovation it means
    proposing challenges to a person that they have to meet. It
    means permitting them to fail occasionally, and not to have the
    punishment for failure be inordinate.
        Mr. Honda. Okay.
        Mr. Augustine. It has to encourage people to take risks.
        Mr. Honda. Okay.
        Mr. Augustine. To think out of the box.
        Mr. Honda. Okay.
        Mr. Augustine. And, when someone comes up with an idea that
    is contrary to the accepted belief, if they are roundly
    criticized for that they are not likely to be very good
    innovators. It takes a nurturing environment.
        Mr. Honda. But you just introduced about five or six
    teachable kinds of behavior, and that you can create an
    environment so that you can observe this creativity. And it
    seems to me that when I visit the high tech offices in IBM and
    Lockheed Martin, and you look on the walls you have all your
    engineers that have an expression of all the number of patents
    that they have. Most of them have one or two. Some do not have
    any. But every once in a while you have spikes. Now, one would
    conclude that they must be pretty creative, thoughtful,
    innovative. And it would seem to me that one could talk to them
    and ask them questions and sort of elicit the kinds of insights
    they may have, and then take this and convert that into, maybe
    I should not say instruction material, but, incorporate that
    into instruction so the youngsters will be encouraged to be
    creative. It is like asking youngsters, so what will the world
    be like if your eyeballs were at the end of your fingertips?
    How would things change? And my students would say, well, I
    cannot pick my nose or I will not be able to see. Or I could
    wait for girls and just do this around the corner. But that is
    another way of thinking.
        So for a person like yourself it seems to me that one would
    sort of look for other people that would help us go through
    this initiative looking at innovation, and then find ways to do
    that. Because if innovation is key to competitiveness, and you
    can recognize it, it seems to me we should be able to distill
    it into discrete kinds of environments or behavior that can be
    replicated in the classroom so that we can have youngsters
    practice it. We say we want critical thinkers. How do we know
    we have critical thinkers? It is the way they think and they
    ask questions. And so I would ask that you, you know, sort of
    cogitate that again because I think that this is one of the key
    things that we need to look at in order to, you know, close
    that gap that we are all looking at.
        My last question, Mr. Chairman, would be this. How would
    you define the term equity in the context of public education?
    And what would it look like for each child? If we are assessing
    youngsters with assessment tools, and then we are judging
    whether they are successful or failures, if we do not do it
    right in the beginning with a child then are we not determining
    whether the system has failed, that we failed them, rather than
    anything else? And where does rigor play in this when we
    compare ourselves to other countries?
        Mr. Augustine. You always ask very difficult questions.
        Mr. Honda. But I do not have that much chance to talk to
    you.
        Mr. Augustine. Regarding the question of equity, I have not
    thought a great deal about that, to be candid. If I were on the
    spur of the moment to try to define what would be equity, it
    probably would be something like being certain that we have a
    system that affords every child the opportunity to maximize
    their ability to contribute.
        Mr. Honda. Sure.
        Mr. Augustine. Unfortunately, we do not do that today in a
    lot of areas.
        Mr. Honda. Is there a reason why?
        Mr. Augustine. I think there are many reasons. Many of them
    come down to economics. I am a Regent of the University System
    of Maryland. I spent a lot of time recently with regard to the
    broad issue you raise. American universities lose about half
    their students along the way. A good part of those are because
    there is a chasm between what it takes in this country to get a
    high school diploma and what it takes to succeed as a college
    freshman, particularly in science, engineering, and math. The
    youth may have that diploma, but they are ill prepared to take
    on college work because of poor quality K through 12 education.
    That is one big problem.
        The other large problem is a financial one, that a lot of
    our students have to drop out for financial reasons even though
    they are performing fairly well. Also, holding jobs part time
    makes it even more challenging to perform well academically. I
    think those are all ingredients to the issue.
        If I might, I would like to come back to your question
    about innovation. Ironically, I think we are very good at
    innovation in this country. I think it is one of our strong
    suits, particularly in our universities, where critical
    thinking is the coin of the realm. It is not only welcomed but
    it is encouraged. In the company I had the privilege of
    leading, when I was there I think I had about 80,000 scientists
    and engineers working for me, I would be very confident that 1
    percent of them got 90 percent of the patents for us. As you
    say, there are those spikes. We have to find the people who can
    produce those spikes and give them the opportunity to create.
    In science, the same people write the articles over and over.
    The same people come up with the new ideas. Those people are
    the treasures that will keep the rest of us employed.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Honda. Ranking Member Mr.
    Wolf.
        Mr. Wolf. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Augustine,
    welcome. I apologize. I have been apologizing to the witness.
    Governor Baliles was in my office and we were working on a
    project, and I just could not leave. And I wanted to be here.
        One, I want to thank you for what you did on the Gathering
    Storm. If there was any bright spot, that was the--that was the
    only bright spot. I quickly went through your testimony. And it
    looks like you are really not that optimistic. Is that a fair
    statement, or do we want to just summarize what I think I know,
    what I may not know?
        Mr. Augustine. I think, Mr. Wolf, I would characterize----
        Mr. Wolf. Are we doing better, or even, or worse than you
    thought--hope we would do?
        Mr. Augustine. The question is what we are doing better,
    even, or worse?
        Mr. Wolf. Yeah, compared to when you did the Gathering
    Storm----
        Mr. Augustine. The Gathering Storm----
        Mr. Wolf [continuing]. The great report. Now where are we?
        Mr. Augustine. I think I would say that with regard to the
    stimulus legislation, one robin does not make a spring even
    though it is a fairly--a robin on steroids, I guess you would
    say. Or maybe you wouldn't say that here! But my belief is that
    you have taken an immensely important first step. I am much
    more optimistic than I was two months ago.
        I think we have continued to lose ground over the last
    three years relative to our competitors abroad. I think that
    one of the challenges is that we didn't get ourselves into this
    predicament overnight. Unfortunately, we won't get out of it
    overnight.
        As the Chairman points out, we are talking about
    influencing fourth graders that 15 years from now will have a
    Ph.D in science. If what we do is put a big spike in the system
    and don't follow it up, I don't mean we have to have a spike
    every year, but we need to follow it up. If we don't, I think
    we will make many things worse, because if we put a lot of
    money into research and don't have researchers, that money will
    either go abroad or it will be wasted. Follow up is critical.
        But, Mr. Wolf, I am always optimistic. I am much more
    optimistic than I was two months ago. But I still think that we
    are in a very vulnerable and exposed position.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, I don't know that--you know, I don't think
    I am that optimistic. Is there a reporter here from the ``New
    York Times''? Is the reporter here from the ``Washington
    Post''? Is the reporter here from the ``Wall Street Journal''?
    Is the reporter here from the ``Chicago Tribune''? I mean, it
    is just not being covered.
        Also I think part of the problem is that giants--you are
    one of the few giants that have really kind of left. The giants
    have left the field. I can't really think of many giants in the
    business community anymore. And when they speak really carry
    such tremendous weight. I think you do. There are still a
    number, but not to the degree that it used to be.
        And the concern that I have, and we are trying to do
    something about it, is the country is broke. We are absolutely
    broke. We have run out of money. And Jim Cooper and I,
    Congressman Cooper, a Democrat, we have a bill in. We can't get
    it out of this institution. This is the most political,
    partisan institution. I have served for 28 years that I have
    ever been in. I mean, it is very, very. And so each side is
    looking to how they can make the point against the other side.
        And so we have a commission that puts every spending
    program on the table, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security,
    and tax policy, and does it in a way that say we don't do that
    so we can have a tsunami in the country. But if we do do it, we
    can have a renaissance in this country. We can create more
    jobs, put more money into math, and science, and physics, and
    chemistry, and biology, and cancer research, and research on
    autism, and research on Alzheimer's, and just kind of to change
    America.
        And we are having a hard time moving it. We have the
    support. David Broder supports it. David Brooks supports it.
    David Walker supports it, Pete Peterson. But we can't get it
    out of this place. We just can't get it out.
        They are not having enough problem in China. I mean, they
    are moving ahead and doing things. So I don't know that I am as
    encouraged that you would be. My wife and I, we have five kids
    and we have 13 grandkids. We are going to have another one. We
    just got a call two nights ago. I think that is going to be a
    very bleak situation unless some fairly dramatic thing is done.
        So, one, I would hope you would speak out for our
    commission with Walker, and with Peterson. And Business
    Roundtable supports it, NFIB supports it, the Concord Coalition
    supports it, Senator Rudman, Republican/Democrat, totally
    bipartisan. We can make sure we have the resources to kind of
    focus and put it in here for the future for these young people
    that are here. That is the first thing.
        Secondly, the staff said that you recommended that we
    should have a commission or an advisory group that goes around
    and looks at some of the best things that have been done.
        Working with the Chairman, you know, we will work with you.
    I think I am going to offer that amendment here. I am going to
    offer that in the markup, or however the Chairman wants me to
    do it, or on the floor. And I think you should give us some
    ideas. Should this be a fast--a six-month turnaround? I mean, I
    don't think we have to have a two-year commission. And so we
    can look at some of the best things. There are a lot of good
    things going on at Thomas Jefferson High School in Northern
    Virginia. A lot of good things going on around the country.
        If you could give us how you think it should be crafted, I
    will offer that amendment. You tell me what you think the
    necessary resources should be. If you tell me who you think
    should, not names, but types of people that should serve on it,
    I will offer that. And we will call it the `` Augustine
    Commission to Bright Sunshine One'' rather than `` Gathering
    Storm One.''
        So we will try to do that. I will do it whether it passes
    or not, we will find out. I am also going to send you the
    material that we have on our--on our commission to get--to get
    control where we are, so we do have those resources.
        I mentioned the other day, I forget what witness, two
    months ago I was on the train. I took the train from Washington
    to New York City. Have you ever done that?
        Mr. Augustine. Many, many, many times.
        Mr. Wolf. The next time you do it, don't read your book and
    don't read the paper. You can sit on either side of the train.
    And look at the factories. They are closed.
        Mr. Augustine. I have observed that.
        Mr. Wolf. Graffiti is on the side of the wall, MS13
    graffiti. The windows are broken. The weeds are growing. In
    fact, some of the weeds are growing out of the windows. And you
    come through my old neighborhood. I am from southwest
    Philadelphia and South Philly. You go right through my old
    neighborhood. There was the largest General Electric factory I
    think in the world was there. It was GE switch gears. It is
    gone. You go back to my old neighborhood, the stores are
    boarded up. The factories have been broken into by drug
    dealers. You know, they don't make anything. And there is that
    bridge, the sign on the bridge, up in Trenton.
        Mr. Augustine. ``Trenton Makes, The World Takes.''
        Mr. Wolf. Yeah. What does Trenton make anymore? It should
    say the world makes and Trenton takes. And so we want to do
    this commission similar to yours. But we want to mandate that
    Congress has to vote on whatever the recommendations are.
        I mean, I think if we could have had Gathering Storm with
    base closing commission language that would have required that
    Congress to vote up or down. Then it will force, because, you
    know, a lot of the people in this business, they love to give
    the speeches in the Rotary. They love to say, you know,
    America's best days are yet ahead. And the sun has barely begun
    to rise. And yet on some of these things that will make
    America's best days ahead for my grandkids and your grandkids,
    we are not kind of--we are just not kind of doing it.
        So I want to thank you for your effort, too. We will offer
    that if you can be in touch with my office. I think you would
    have a fashion.
        And the last question is I would ask you, as I have asked
    others, how do you think we are comparing to doing in
    comparison today? And interesting, every member of the Chinese
    bureau is an engineer, every single one. How do you think we
    are doing in comparison? If this were a footrace, a race which
    we are in, a race of a wonderful country--my grandparents came
    here from another country, a wonderful country that has had
    great opportunities. That has probably put in 80 percent of the
    food into Darfur. That is doing amazing things to help people
    around the world, in competition with a country, China, that
    has Catholic bishops in jail and plundering Tibet.
        How do you think we are doing in comparison to what I
    call--as Ronald Reagan gave that speech, the `` Evil Empire,''
    as I call a very evil government. How are we doing, America our
    country, in comparison to China today?
        Mr. Augustine. To use your footrace analogy, we had the
    good fortune in this country of starting out years ago with
    about a 20-yard lead in the 100-yard dash. It is probably more
    of a marathon now. But we started out with a good lead, and we
    have been gradually consuming that lead.
        Today, I think we are still very much in the race. But we
    are losing ground rapidly. I don't think we are yet at the
    tipping point, but I think we are getting close. By tipping
    point, I mean to where it is very difficult, if not impossible,
    to turn things around.
        I think that your comments about bipartisanship, or
    nonpartisanship, or whatever, if there is anything in the world
    we should be able to agree upon, it is educating our children
    and creating jobs for our people and not just scientists and
    engineers, but for everyone. Maybe that is the reason we have
    been able to keep this process, this particular issue, fairly
    nonpartisan.
        Probably there are many in this room besides myself for
    whom education made all the difference in their lives. I was
    the first in my family to go to college. I was the second to
    attend high school. But there was a chance to go to college.
    Many people paid my way whom I have never met. That totally
    changed my life, and hopefully any contributions I might have
    been able to make along the way.
        We must pay attention to education and creating jobs
    through science--that is where jobs get created today. Fifty to
    eighty-five percent of the GDP growth is attributed to
    advancements in science and engineering. That is why I think
    those fields are important.
        And, Mr. Wolf, I would be honored to work with you on
    putting some meat on the suggestion that I made to create a
    commission. I think it is a six-month commission.
        Mr. Wolf. Will you serve on it?
        Mr. Augustine. I am not looking for a job, but yes.
        Mr. Wolf. Oh, yeah. Well, it is not going to be a----
        Mr. Augustine. Yes.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay, good.
        Mr. Augustine. Yes.
        Mr. Wolf. We will drop it in and keep you----
        Mr. Augustine. Two stipulations, sir. One is that I not be
    paid and the other is that I don't have to fill out all 10,000
    forms you have to fill out whenever you do anything for the
    government.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay. We will be in touch and work with you.
        Mr. Augustine. The effort will take about six months.
        Mr. Wolf. And thanks for your--thanks for your----
        Mr. Augustine. Thanks for your kind words.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Aderholt.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
    here today. You talked about the major challenges that still
    remain. And one of the things that you mentioned in your
    opening remarks and in your written statement that was provided
    is that the one-time injection of funding would actually be
    counterproductive. Now, obviously, I mean, you can--there is a
    lot of obvious reasons why that would be the case.
        What is some other--I mean, just--I would like for you to
    just talk a little bit about that. When you put that into your
    statement what you were thinking and what your thoughts are.
    Like I said, it is obvious that that would be the case. Just
    expand on that a little bit.

                                 MAJOR CONCERNS

        Mr. Augustine. I would be happy to do that. I think there
    are two major concerns. The first is that we don't have the
    capacity to spend the money; that we encourage a lot of young
    people to study science and math and become researchers, and
    when they are done with their education there is no money to
    fund research. Research in this country is going to have to be
    funded largely by the federal government.
        Industry has all but withdrawn from the research endeavor,
    basic research, because of the pressures of the marketplace,
    the near term, ``what did you do last quarter?'' We see the
    demise of great research institutions like Bell Labs, or the
    shrinking of Xerox research, or Dupont, or many great research
    facilities.
        Government is going to have to pick up more of the load.
    Given those circumstances, the question gets to be what the
    government is going to be able to afford to sustain. And there
    is an additional problem with the so-called one-time stimulus.
    And that is the fact that there is a limit on how much one can
    efficiently spend; how much one can manage.
        When you are dealing with long-term problems like
    education, like research, they have time constants of 10 or 15
    years, whereas the Congress' time constant tends to be one or
    two years. In business it's one quarter. So what do you do with
    those long-term issues? I think that you just have to be
    prepared to sustain whatever it is you start.
        I think that big injections that aren't followed up
    probably will be wasteful.
        Mr. Aderholt. When you were discussing with Congressman
    Wolf about your optimism and various other things, a couple of
    times you mentioned that over the last two months you have been
    encouraged, immensely encouraged. I just was curious about
    that. What in the last two months has taken place and is giving
    you encouragement?

                                   EDUCATION

        Mr. Augustine. I think the commitment of the Congress and
    the President to putting substantial funds in the stimulus
    package for science and education, in a non-trivial amount, is
    very encouraging. But I wish it had been more, frankly. I think
    education didn't get the emphasis that I would like to have
    seen it receive.
        I am afraid the way much of the education money is going to
    be spent would not have been the way the Gathering Storm
    Committee would have proposed. That is not entirely the case,
    but much of it I think is that way.
        So my encouragement is really attributed to one thing, and
    that is the commitment of the President and the Congress to
    doing something about this problem. If that could be sustained,
    I think we can turn this situation around. I don't think we are
    anywhere near hopeless . . . yet.
        Mr. Aderholt. But, of course, with the stimulus package to
    a large extent it is a one-shot thing.
        Mr. Augustine. Yes.
        Mr. Aderholt. But you are still encouraged even with that.
        Mr. Augustine. I am. I think it is a great first step. I
    think what we need to do now is make research and education a
    part of the regular budget process and make sure we follow up.
    It has to be institutionalized.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Serrano. I am going to ask you the same question that I
    asked this morning.
        You were laughing at the microphone, or am I asking the
    same question I asked this morning?
        Mr. Honda. Not just ready.

                             DIVERSITY IN EDUCATION

        Mr. Serrano. We always speak in this country a lot about
    diversity. But diversity does not mean, in my opinion and the
    opinion of most, not just making sure everybody gets a fair
    break, but inviting certain members of certain communities to
    participate in areas they usually don't participate in.
        So for instance, when you look at numbers, statistics, you
    find out that 12 percent of the population is African-American
    and 15 percent, roughly, is Hispanic. And yet eight percent of
    people getting degrees in math and science are from these
    communities.
        Other than the general approach to have more people
    participate in these kinds of endeavors, should we, should the
    Congress, should business, should the Administration be doing
    anything special to invite young people to consider this area?
        Mr. Augustine. I am glad you asked that. I think we have an
    overall problem in this country where in the midst of this
    period of burgeoning science and technology, we are graduating
    20 percent fewer engineers than we did 20 years ago. We are
    graduating 32 percent fewer U.S. citizens with engineering and
    science Ph.D.s than we did ten years ago. And part of----
        Mr. Serrano. Excuse me, when you say ``fewer U.S.
    citizens,'' is that because we are graduating folks that are
    here from other countries?
        Mr. Augustine. We are graduating 32 percent fewer U.S.
    citizens with Ph.D.s in math, science, and engineering from
    U.S. universities. Within that subset, there is an even more
    dismal situation. About 20 percent of the engineering degrees--
    I happen to be an engineer, so I am more familiar with that, go
    to women. The percentage that I have seen for African-Americans
    and Hispanics is more like six percent or so, which is vastly
    disproportionate to their numbers in our society.
        If we are going to compete with other countries that have
    populations four times the size of ours, where a great
    preponderance of the people that go to college and study math,
    science, and engineering, we can't afford to handicap ourselves
    by not having half of our population on the playing field.
        Not to consume too much of the time you have for your
    question, it has been mentioned that we lose these people, the
    people who could be great scientists and engineers, by the time
    they are in fourth grade. One of the problems, maybe not a
    problem but a challenge, is that science, engineering, and
    mathematics involve a very hierarchal learning process. It is
    heavily dependent on mathematics. If you didn't take algebra,
    you can't study trigonometry. If you didn't have trigonometry,
    you can't take calculus. You can't just jump in and say I am
    going to take complex variables and skip the rest. That is
    quite different from what it takes to go to law school, or
    medical school, or many other professions.
        This decision point is very early in life. Unless we can
    interest women, African-Americans and Hispanics to get over
    that critical fourth grade point, they will probably have
    forgone the opportunity to ever become science engineers, or
    mathematicians.
        I am not positive of the following numbers, but they are
    close. If you take 1,000 children in this country in first
    grade, by fourth grade 650 of them will be considered to be
    non-proficient in math. Now, once you fall behind in math you
    usually don't catch back up. A few do, but not many. If you go
    to eighth grade, it is 290 are left out of the original cohort
    of 1,000. If you examine 12th grade, it is 170--of which,
    happily, about 150 start college in a technical field. About
    half of these drop out of the field before they get their
    degree. So you wind up with just a small part of what you start
    with.
        To your point, Mr. Serrano, we have to find a way to
    interest young children, particularly Hispanics, African-
    Americans, and women in engineering, math, and science.
        My experience dealing with young people is that there are
    two things that really turn them on. That is dinosaurs and
    space. We are short on dinosaurs, but we have science. Somehow
    we beat that out of children fairly early on.
        Mr. Serrano. And I appreciate your answer, especially
    coming from you, because this morning we had a great hearing
    where we heard from scientists and a person representing
    teachers who teach science. But it is always the business
    community, where you come from, that says you are not preparing
    people.
        So your message, in my opinion, resonates well, because it
    is a message that, as it gets included in the Chairman's
    reports from these hearings, is basically telling the
    educational system you have got to prepare more people for me.
    And you are not preparing the people for me.
        And you are leaving out, in answer to my question, a
    certain segment of the community. And you are right, you
    can't--you know, it is what I used to say years ago. And I am
    not the only one who said it. You know, you help somebody along
    with a special college program or dollars in their pockets so
    they can go to school, you are going to get that back a million
    times, if you are only looking at dollars, once they start to
    work. You are going to get it back the first year most likely,
    or the second year, the third year, whatever.
        And so I appreciate your answer. I thank you for your
    testimony today, for your being with us today. And like I said,
    I especially appreciate it, because as a former CEO of such a
    prestigious corporation, your words have to be heard, because
    it is your part of society that is saying send us people that
    can do the work. And as long as no one is left out, then it
    makes a lot of sense, so I thank you for that.
        Mr. Augustine. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Augustine, I was pursing a line of questioning. And I
    wanted to get to your thinking about extending the doubling
    recommendation for NSF and NIST and the Department of Energy
    Office of Science. What do you think about extending that to
    NASA Science?
        Mr. Augustine. I should----

                              SCIENCE AT AGENCIES

        Mr. Mollohan. Let me ask you first of all, is there
    anything intrinsically different about science done at NASA
    than science done at NSF, or NIST, or Energy?
        Mr. Augustine. I suspect there may be some differences, but
    I don't think any of them are terribly profound. One of the
    curious things about science is that one never knows where the
    applications will be. You may be doing something at NASA that
    has an important application at NIH and vice versa.
        The NSF properly puts a great deal of emphasis on work done
    by others. NASA tends to do more in house. But I don't think
    there is any huge difference intrinsically.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. We have had witnesses earlier in the
    week, Dr. Cicerone and Dr. Fisk, former Associate Administrator
    of NASA for Science. Not surprising that he would support the
    doubling of the NASA science budget, but he did. And Dr.
    Cicerone expressed sympathy too.
        So let me ask you first what do you think about the notion
    of putting NASA science on the same track that NSF, and NIST,
    and Department of Energy Office of Science are on, that is
    doubling within the seven-year period?
        Mr. Augustine. As you noted, the Gathering Storm Committee
    really did not consider that. But my personal view would be
    that even not having looked at it in the detail we looked at
    the ones we did cover as recommendation, it would be a very
    appropriate thing to do.
        Although it is not one of your Committee's
    responsibilities, we didn't mention the Department of Defense,
    which when I was a young engineer, was a primary source of
    funding for science. In my career, NASA provided much of the
    generic information and knowledge that we needed in the
    corporate world. NASA had always had its technical notes and
    technical reports. There was a library where you could go if
    you wanted to know something NASA was your source of
    information. Actually it was called NACA then.
        I am not able to present a very factual case. My intuitive
    feeling is that money efficiently invested in science and
    education on talented people is probably about as highly
    leveraged as any investment I can think of.
        Mr. Mollohan. Were those references, your NASA references,
    you are testifying about, were they coming from NASA science or
    from aeronautics?
        Mr. Augustine. It was aeronautics in those days.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, comment on the NASA funding in
    aeronautics, in the aeronautics accounts, if you will.
        Mr. Augustine. NASA's funding of aeronautics has over the
    years been neglected. NASA used to provide the basic knowledge
    that you needed in this country to design airplanes. Today that
    is being left largely to the companies that are involved. NASA
    still does important work in aeronautics, but as we all know,
    NASA has shifted a great deal of its attention to space over
    the years. And while I am certainly not opposed to that, I
    think it is unfortunate that aeronautics has been neglected to
    the degree it has.
        Mr. Mollohan. Is it more than unfortunate? Does it have
    competitiveness consequences? You know, at some point we really
    are going to get down to funding these accounts. And
    aeronautics has been neglected. Everybody has been concerned
    about that. Ranking Member Wolf, when he was Chairman,
    routinely increased funding for aeronautics as it came from the
    President's request for reasons that we would like you to
    elaborate on.
        Mr. Augustine. The spending that has been neglected for
    NASA in aeronautics has important competitiveness consequence.
        Mr. Mollohan. Still today?
        Mr. Augustine. Still today. It is a cumulative consequence.
    When one builds a new airplane, one draws upon what has been
    learned over the years. Today, corporate America is having to
    do more and more of that work on its own. As you will recall,
    it wasn't too many years ago we had four companies building
    large commercial jet aircraft. Today we have one. And,
    arguably, it is not the most prominent one on the planet any
    more. In that arena, NASA could help a lot.
        There also is a military consequence. The DOD is
    historically very reluctant to invest in research. Were it not
    for the Secretary there today, we wouldn't have seen the
    increase we did see last year. And so as we reduce spending at
    NASA on aeronautical research, it impacts national security as
    well as commercial competitiveness.
        Mr. Mollohan. So NASA aeronautics research basically looks
    at fundamental research that industry doesn't do or isn't
    doing? What is lost here? Why shouldn't the private sector pick
    up its own research? And what is lost? What has been lost?
        Mr. Augustine. I think that the----
        Mr. Mollohan. Why, because NASA isn't doing in aeronautics
    what it did previously?
        Mr. Augustine. One of the characteristics of research is
    that the benefits often do not accrue to the entity that
    performed the research or the investor that paid for the
    research.
        In the arena we have been discussing, the books I used if I
    wanted to know the lift and drag characteristics of a wing, for
    example, NASA (NACA) had whole books with different kinds of
    wings. You could find a wing that had the properties you were
    seeking. It was kind of a catalog. You could look it up, as the
    saying goes.
        Now, one thing industry could do if it could afford to,
    would be for each company to produce its version of that book.
    But it would be a terribly inefficient way for us to compete
    with other nations and each other. First of all, the companies
    couldn't afford to do it. But even if they could, they would
    run two or three cases for wings to see what looked good for
    their immediate interest. The rest of the options would never
    be cataloged or looked at. It is this fundamental knowledge
    that NASA could bring.
        Mr. Mollohan. NASA is not doing that now?
        Mr. Augustine. To a much lesser degree. And I use that only
    as an example. Today there----
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Mr. Augustine [continuing]. Are of course alternatives. You
    have computer programs that address many issues.

                             AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH

        Mr. Mollohan. Is that kind of aeronautical research being
    treated differently around the world? Are countries around the
    world for their industry doing disproportionate basic research
    in aeronautics that we are not doing?
        Mr. Augustine. I think it comes back to the model, the way
    our country is operated. In China, the government basically
    performs aeronautical research. In Russia, the country
    basically performs aeronautical research. In Europe, in my
    judgement, the companies are heavily subsidized through Airbus.
    Airbus, if I am not mistaken, initially went 25 or 30 years
    without making a profit. There are very few companies in this
    country that can do that. It was kept afloat by their
    governments. Airbus has built quality products. There is no
    question about that. The question is the appropriate role of
    government.
        Mr. Mollohan. Let me get back to my line of questioning.
    You commented on NASA science and recommending that it included
    in those agencies that the science research should have doubled
    funding within that seven-year period.
        What about research efforts at NOAA?
        Mr. Augustine. I think much the same arguments apply,
    whether it is NOAA, or NIST, or NIH, each for different
    reasons, perhaps. But as we all know, NOAA performs a terribly
    important function. They probably have saved tens of thousands
    of lives over the years through the weather forecasting they
    have made possible. NOAA is very dependent upon basic research.
        Not having looked at NOAA specifically, my answer would be
    that increased research funding at NOAA is a very good
    investment up to the point at which one can no longer
    efficiently spend that money, either because of limitations on
    facilities, management skill, or the availability of
    researchers.
        Mr. Mollohan. Did Gathering Storm make judgments about what
    our competitiveness position would be if we were to commit to
    this doubling track? In other words, would we be where we
    should be with our foreign competition if we were to follow
    that directive?
        Mr. Augustine. I must confess that our assessment was
    largely judgmental. And the reason for that was in part, time.
    But perhaps more importantly, we don't know what others are
    going to invest in the next five years.
        If we look at the trends in China, if they could maintain
    that trend, which I doubt that they can now, we are obviously
    struggling to maintain our position. I think if we had
    implemented the Gathering Storm recommendations, we could have
    stayed ahead of China for a longer time. But China is, I think,
    going to have to be spending less money in this arena as well.
    That may help us.
        Mr. Mollohan. Would it be a fair summary of your testimony
    to say that you are recommending that the Gathering Storm
    recommendation, with regard to NSF, NIST, and the Department of
    Energy Office of Science, be made applicable to NASA science
    and to NOAA research, NASA research and science and NOAA
    research and science, that they be included in that doubling
    recommendation, number one?
        Mr. Augustine. That would be my personal view. The one
    caveat is to be certain that the money could be spent
    efficiently.
        Mr. Mollohan. Right. And that is a word that either Dr.
    Cicerone or Dr. Fisk, I can't remember, using. I hear your
    testimony suggesting that at some point, I think you said maybe
    five years and maybe today is the right time, to reset, to look
    at and see how that recommendation relates to the real world,
    to how it impacts our competitive position vis-a-vis our
    foreign partners. Do I hear you recommending that?
        Mr. Augustine. Yes, you do. I think that it is important to
    assess whether we are getting what we thought we were going to
    get. What have our foreign competitors spent? How are they
    doing? And what can we afford?
        To do this before a five-year period is probably not very
    meaningful. Clearly one wants to monitor progress. But for any
    significant assessment, even five years is fairly short,
    because the results of research take so long to appear.

                        OVERSEAS FACILITIES INVESTMENTS

        Mr. Mollohan. We have had three years of Gathering Storm.
    So we will have something to look at, certainly with those
    agencies. Of course we struggled actually to double. I would
    say maybe we are just fulfilling that promise now. But it seems
    to me personally that this is a particularly appropriate time
    to look at that and to reset, which is the process we are
    involved in, because this Administration seems so intent on
    really fulfilling that commitment as well as rededicating
    itself or dedicating itself to a new commitment in science and
    research. And I am sure that has to make the community feel
    better out there about it.
        And I can tell you we are going to be intent on looking
    hard at that as we make judgements about how we fund these
    accounts. These observations by you are really--are really very
    reinforcing.
        One more question before I refer to the Ranking Member.
    International collaboration, we are doing a lot of that. And,
    again, Dr. Cicerone particularly talked about that. And as a
    part of that, he made the point that we are investing in
    science facilities overseas.
        Is that good news/bad news? Just first of all, before I
    follow on with that, what is your thought about that trend? Is
    it a trend? And what is your thought about it if it is?
        Mr. Augustine. It clearly is the trend. Science in recent
    years has become very much an international collaborative
    process. In terms of facilities, it is a trend that is well
    underway.
        Mr. Mollohan. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
        Mr. Augustine. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes?
        Mr. Augustine. Speaking as an American who cares about
    creating jobs primarily in America, not at the expense of
    others, if others could elevate themselves, that is all the
    better----
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Mr. Augustine. I am concerned about creating jobs for
    Americans. And among the things that have led to many
    breakthroughs in science have been facilities. Those facilities
    are becoming increasingly costly, some of them measured in
    multi-billions of dollars.
        Given those circumstances, would I prefer that America had
    its own facilities? In my day it would have been giant wind
    tunnels. Today it is linear accelerators and other things of
    that type.
        Yes, I would prefer that we have our own facilities in this
    country just for us. But I also recognize that that is not
    practicable. To duplicate facilities around the world is like
    repeating them among companies. Facilities are used for basic
    knowledge. Duplication of costly facilities isn't appropriate.
    It wastes too much money.
        I think we have to have internationally run and paid-for
    facilities. That, of course, raises the question, have we given
    away the advantage that we had hoped to derive? The answer is
    yes, we have given away part of that advantage. But you can
    afford to go it alone, an idea which I dismiss because if one
    isn't a participant, then one is left out of the world's
    scientific knowledge base. And it is so important that one have
    access, at least at the same early time as others, to new
    knowledge. The half life of scientific knowledge is very short.
        One of the members of Gathering Storm Commission was Craig
    Barrett who ran Intel. He told us that on the last day of any
    fiscal year, Intel's revenues come 90 percent from products
    that didn't exist on the first day of that same year. So if you
    can get to the marketplace six weeks faster than your
    competitors with basic scientific breakthrough, that is a big
    deal competitively.
        Even if you don't start out with a five-yard lead, at least
    you don't want to start out with a five-yard lag. It becomes a
    race of how quickly can your engineers take that new knowledge
    and turn it into products and services that people want. And
    how quickly can the entrepreneurs and innovators get those
    products and services into the marketplace.
        Mr. Mollohan. When my round comes back I am going to ask
    you if you would enumerate any of those facilities and
    technologies that you think are critical to keep here in the
    United States. But I will give you a chance to think about
    that.
        And I call on Mr. Wolf.
        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know that I have
    a question. I have been writing notes here. But, you know, I
    drive a Ford Escort Escape. It is a hybrid. I can't afford a
    Mercedes. Have you seen the film, `` I.O.U.S.A.'' ?
        Mr. Augustine. I am familiar with it. I have talked to
    David Walker on the subject.
        Mr. Wolf. Yeah.
        Mr. Augustine. But I have not yet seen it.
        Mr. Wolf. Yeah. We are broke. And when I listen to some of
    the witnesses, if it was just a question of us buying another
    printing press, I think we could fund that right away and get
    more paper from. And we could just create more money. But we
    are broke. And in the film it shows us in comparison to China.
    In essence, we are borrowing money from the Chinese, so we can
    compete with the Chinese.
        And there is something wrong here. And I know a lot of
    politicians don't want to say anything about it. But there is
    something wrong. I think it is fundamentally depressing that we
    are having to rely on the Chinese. Even Hillary Clinton went
    over to China the other day and didn't want to offend the
    Chinese, because we need them to buy our paper. I mean, they
    were hauling people away when she was over there. But she
    didn't want to raise those issues--cases, because--and in the
    film `` I.O.U.S.A.'' it shows that.
        And you may remember this, although you were young and in
    college, the British and the French invaded the Suez. And
    General Eisenhower, President Eisenhower then, told them to get
    out, and they refused. And Eisenhower said, `` Dump their
    paper.'' And in two weeks, three weeks they broke down quickly,
    because economically they were being pretty much controlled by
    us.
        And so I just see it. And in the film it says that in the
    year 2030, every dollar that comes in will either go to
    Medicare or Medicaid, Social Security, or interest on the debt,
    nothing else. Not for math, not for cancer research, not for
    the inner-cities, not for education.
        This year the projection is the deficit is going to be
    $1.75 trillion and some figure it go to 1.8 to 2. And deficits
    of a half a trillion for as long as the eye can see. Moody's
    said we lose their triple-A bond rating. You are a businessman.
    I mean, what that means for our country. We lose our triple-A
    bond rating in 2012. Now Iceland just went down the tubes.
    Lafayette I think did the same thing.
        I mean, we would move to paper. Government paper will be
    junk bond status. So as we talk about the funding, which I am
    all for, but the Bureau of Prisons need more money, because we
    have more people in prison than any other country. And
    something is wrong that we are not having rehabilitation
    programs. We need more money for cancer research, for autism. I
    mean, a parent with an autistic child, we should be doing
    something. I mean, we just have so many needs. But there is no
    way to pay for it.
        And so as I listen to you. I just finished reading the
    other night this book, `` Colossus,'' by Niall Ferguson. Have
    you ever read any of his stuff?
        Mr. Augustine. I have heard of him, but I have not read any
    of his works.
        Mr. Wolf. Yeah. He says if this country crumbles, and he is
    a Brit so he sees it from outside, it will crumble from within.
    It will not be the foreign power with the military that it will
    be.
        And so I worry about the work ethic. I was telling another
    witness that this summer down at Nags Head everyone was from
    Russia, all the young students who work were from Russia. Last
    year at Avalon everyone was from Bulgaria. Where were the kids
    from Buffalo? Where were the kids from Fairfax? Where were the
    kids? I always worked in the summertime and my kids did.
        And so I just think some fundamental big issues. And it is
    like the Simon and Garfunkel song, `` The Boxer.'' A man hears
    what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. I think as a
    nation we are just disregarding some of the fundamentals.
        So I agree with everything that every witness has said. And
    I want to thank the Chairman for having these hearings. But I
    guess if I were 40 I could pretend I don't see the things the
    way that I do. But I am now 70. And I have these grandkids and
    these kids.
        Dietrich Bonhoeffer, you remember Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He
    was marched from the Flossenberg Prison and hung as the Western
    artillery was--he said, `` A test of a moral society is what
    kind of future it leaves for its future generations.'' And I
    think we are failing that.
        Our inner-city schools are in decay. And the prison system
    doesn't work. And we are not putting enough into cancer
    research. We are not putting enough into autism. We are not
    putting enough into finding a cure for Lyme disease. We are not
    putting enough into cancer.
        And I think we have some fundamental entitlement programs
    that we just got to deal with. And I am just saying this, you
    don't have to answer any of it, as you cast votes up here in
    this institution, the DCCC has a group over there ready to
    slash and burn you the next day. And my party has one over on
    my side. And so the first person to cast a vote that looks like
    they are trying to give more money for this and takes it from
    something else, your political career, ooh.
        And everything is 24-hour news network. And as I said in an
    earlier hearing, the ``New York Times'' said it was so
    important to say that Obama was turning gray, but they didn't
    cover Pete Peterson's press conference yesterday showing that
    56 percent of the people think we have to deal with our
    economic crisis.
        So I hear you, I thank you, and I thank all the others. But
    I think we all have to come back to the taproom question that
    is down here that I tell my grandson, Kaleb, working on a
    Saturday morning. I just bought him a roto-tiller. What am I
    going to tell Kaleb? How in the good Lord's name are we going
    to pay so Kaleb can live a life like you lived and I lived?
        And I think, frankly, this institution--and I was--I was
    just as critical. I am waiting to hear this side begin to go
    after their Administration the way that I criticized the Bush
    Administration. Paulson brought us to economic ruin. Paulson
    frankly fiddled while Rome burned. And I say Hillary Clinton
    had one--Secretary Rice had one of the worst human rights
    policy we ever had. And so I say it about them.
        And I want to hear what--but can we all just--when we get
    it out, come together to see in a bipartisan way, because the
    American people are thirsty to see Republicans and Democrats to
    come together and do what is right for this country, which may
    very well be very controversial. Henry Hyde in his book that I
    read about two weeks ago said, `` Every member ought to know
    what they are prepared to be defeated for.''
        And so we need giants like you that are rapidly leaving the
    field to begin to speak the truth to people up here and to
    everybody else. But everything you say is great. But I just
    come to the bottom line, how are we going to pay for it? And do
    you have any solutions?
        Mr. Augustine. As you know, I share your concerns. If this
    were a meeting in Spain in the 16th century when Spain was a
    global power, I suspect that their citizens would have thought
    Spain would continue to be a global power. By the 17th century
    it was France, by the 19th century it was Great Britain, the
    20th century the United States. Well, the others are not global
    powers anymore. A nation can lose that position.
        I think we are playing with fire in this country in terms
    of losing our position. I think that is a very real danger. It
    comes down to priorities. As I talk to people around the
    country, they feel a lot like you do. People are scared to
    death. Ride with a cabdriver.
        But I think that it is a matter of priorities. I clipped
    out from ``USA Today'' two articles last week. I want to be
    very careful how I portray the second. One was from the front
    page. It listed four items, each with very strong adjectives:
    the stock market was at new low, the federal deficit at new
    high. Just devastating things. The fourth, however, was a
    baseball player who had just signed for $40 million for two
    years. He explained that he had to accommodate the fact that
    the economy was poor. If that is representative of our
    priorities, then we will no doubt have great baseball teams. We
    just won't have jobs for most of our citizens.
        The second--not to carry on too long here, Mr. Chairman--in
    ``USA Today,'' there was a full-page ad about a week ago. It
    listed several hundred children--high school graduates, high
    school seniors--who had done terrifically academically. I took
    just the first 20 to do a sampling. Of that 20, 15 had names
    that were distinctly Asian. These are U.S. high schools, the
    best students we have got. Fifteen were distinctly Asian, one
    was distinctly Indian, and the other three were European-
    descent sounding names.
        Now that is not a very scientific survey, but until the
    rest of us begin to give some of the attention to education
    that our Asian community has, I think we have big problems.
    There is an example, a bright spot right there in this country
    that the rest of us could learn from.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, I agree. In closing, I agree with you.
    Thanks for your service. We will do that thing we talked about.
        And lastly, I do believe the American people are actually
    ahead of this institution. I think they are ahead. They are
    ready, and they are prepared to do whatever it takes, because
    every--do you have children?
        Mr. Augustine. I have three grandchildren and a daughter.
        Mr. Wolf. Wouldn't you die for your children?
        Mr. Augustine. Absolutely.
        Mr. Wolf. You would die. You would do anything for your
    children or your grandchildren.
        Mr. Augustine. Die for them in a minute.
        Mr. Wolf. And I think America is ready. And I think the
    failure of this institution is that we are not prepared to do
    what is necessary for them. But I do believe the American
    people are far ahead of us. And I think they are just
    thirsting.
        You know, my best friend in Congress, he is a Democratic
    member, Tony Hall, we still do everything together. We didn't
    vote together on a lot of issues but some we did. But we do
    everything together. And I think people want to see this place
    come together and do some of these things. And if we did some
    of these things that were tough, and jumped, and linked arms,
    and jumped off the bridge together, I think it would be the
    American people would support it.
        But thank you very much.
        Mr. Augustine. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Honda.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do I have ten minutes,
    about ten minutes?
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Honda, proceed.
        Mr. Honda. Okay. It has been an interesting discussion. And
    I think we probably went over a lot of things that were the
    result of our past actions that we have taken, whether they
    were sound or not sound. But, you know, we are probably faced
    with one of the fiscal issues that is a result of past
    decisions that we have made here in Congress.
        But having said that, you know, I have a sense that there
    was some sense of uplift in terms of expectations. And I heard
    you mention things like we need more basic research, which we
    used to cut, and cut, and cut. Now we are in the mode of trying
    to put that back into effect so that all of our agencies that
    are geared towards doing research, which we need, to continue
    the discovery of new information, new knowledge, and then be
    able to use that, including the need to cover the expense of
    helping these new ideas to go to commercialization.
        I heard that, because we need to help mind the gap.
    Hopefully, that gets some consideration so that we can make
    that investment. And realize some of the outcomes of that,
    because, as you said, two or three percent of the population we
    are in decides that technology produces about 95 percent of the
    income.
        And I think that when we focus in on the things that we
    need to do, we might see some sense in that list of youngsters
    you mentioned. And to me it is not a surprise. And that
    probably a lot of those youngsters come from families who are
    recent immigrants, who look at, trying to make sure that they
    make something of themselves through education. But there is no
    magic in what they do, because the same thing that recent
    immigrants from Europe had done, it is called hard work and
    rigor.
        Mr. Augustine. Exactly.
        Mr. Honda. And so I suspect that, because our smaller
    population compared to India and to China, the gross numbers we
    look at should be probably adjusted and looked at in terms of
    percentages rather than just gross numbers, because of course,
    you know, the population has got a billion and a half. It is
    going to have a little bit more--the graduates in different
    areas. Perhaps their attainment of their--the quality of their
    instructions may be different. But that is why I think that we
    are going to stay ahead.
        But we can't afford not to--rigorously look at how we can
    continue to be ahead in terms of education and be innovative.
    And I think that that is another message you gave us.
        So you mentioned that something happens to our youngsters
    after third grade. Maybe we ought to focus ourselves on what is
    it that we do to kids. And what is it that the structure does
    to kids after third grade? Because you are right, children want
    to come to school. Because there is a study that has been done
    that some people take the third grade graduation or their
    attainment academically. Based upon that, they predict how many
    prisons they are going to need in the future. It is pretty
    dismal.
        So I think that, maybe we could pay some attention to--what
    is it that we do or we don't do at that place? And I think it
    is pretty astute that, some of our actions in terms of outcomes
    that it is quarterly rather than long term. We need to probably
    shift our similar thinking and not think too much about the
    shareholders of a corporation but the return on investment we
    want to make to how much we are going to make and put that into
    research and everything else that will play out longer. And I
    think that in that thinking, the shareholders of that arena are
    citizens and our children and doing the right thing as
    policymakers.
        You know, I think that a lot of the things that you have
    laid out are pretty important. And I guess the conclusion I
    come up to is that all these things that we talked about are
    related. And when we in this Congress talk about trade, I think
    it determines what immigration--it impacts everything that we
    do in terms of education or any other policy that we have in
    this country. So maybe as policymakers we have got to be
    careful in how we view things.
        And so the enemy is not external. Pogo said it, ``We met
    the enemy, and the enemy is us.'' And so maybe we ought to be
    internally thinking, because if we depend upon China for,
    balancing our books, then maybe we ought to think about how not
    to go into deficit a lot. And right now we have to in terms of
    the economy. We need to infuse it now. And so there are a lot
    of reasons why things happen. And putting negatives or
    positives to it, I think we just look at how do we improve the
    things that we do.
        So I appreciate your presence and your thoughts. Let me
    wind up my part. The Gathering Storm report that you made, made
    several recommendations and observations regarding our
    immigration policy at that time. The immigration policy was
    aimed at keeping our world's best and brightest students or
    visiting professors coming to this country to go to school here
    or to be part of our workforce.
        Now given the current economic times and the challenges we
    think we are faced with, has your--what is your thinking now on
    the immigration behavior? And what recommendations would you
    make that would be helpful for our society and for our economic
    well being?

                                FOREIGN STUDENTS

        Mr. Augustine. Mr. Honda, at the time we had prepared our
    report, there was, as you know, a strong reaction to 9/11 which
    made it very difficult for foreign students to come to this
    country and even more difficult to stay here after they
    completed their work, I would submit that America's science,
    and engineering enterprise, particularly the research aspect of
    it, would barely function without the foreigners who come to
    this country. Of the scientists under the age of 40 with Ph.D.s
    in the U.S. workforce, a little over 40 percent are foreign
    born. We are highly dependent upon people coming here and
    staying.
        Fortunately, we still have the best universities in the
    world, and this attracts people to come here. But many of our
    policies drive them out of the country. And that is an
    unfortunate policy that we need to correct.
        In terms of what needs to be done, our Gathering Storm
    Members had a number of meetings with the prior Secretary of
    State with regard to the post-9/11 issues, most of which have
    been resolved in terms of the short-term issue.
        Our recommendation in the longer term is that every person
    getting a Ph.D. in math, science, or engineering, or another
    critical skill in this country who is not a U.S. citizen, would
    be permitted to stay in this country an additional year to seek
    employment--assuming that they were reputable and could obtain
    the papers in terms of the risk they might present. At the end
    of that year if they were able to obtain a job in this country,
    which most probably would find relatively easy, they would be
    given priority to become citizens if they wished to do so. They
    would in any event be given a green card so they could stay in
    this country and work. If we would do that, we think we could
    turn around a lot of the loss of talent that we are beginning
    to see.
        Mr. Honda. The push back on--back on discussion. It
    generally ends up like well these folks take jobs away from our
    people. How would you respond to them?
        Mr. Augustine. Yes. I, of course, hear that a lot. My
    answer would be that these individuals do not just consume
    jobs, they create jobs for us. The more bright people you can
    have in a country or in a company, the better off you are going
    to be. If one looks at the companies in Silicon Valley, a
    disproportionate number of them were created by people that
    were not born in this country. There are some wonderful
    quotations by some of them to the effect that if their families
    hadn't been permitted to come here 20 years before, their
    company wouldn't be in this country, it would be in India or in
    China or perhaps wouldn't exist at all.
        Mr. Honda. Yes.
        Mr. Augustine. I think that for every job that is lost
    because someone comes here and takes that job, there are ten
    jobs that are created because somebody brilliant comes here and
    starts an Amazon or an Intel. There is a long list of those
    companies that were founded by non-citizens.
        Mr. Honda. I appreciate that. I represent Silicon Valley.
    And my son graduated from UCLA with a degree in aerospace. I
    went to his graduation. And this is how I saw it. If you looked
    at the graduating class, it was maybe three or four hundred
    students screaming. And they all had black hair, because I was
    way back in the bleachers. And I asked myself is this one of
    these examples where we have a lot of folks competing for slots
    that are limited. A lot of them may be immigrants. And are they
    taking slots away from other students, which is another
    argument that we hear? My conclusion is that they may be
    competing for these slots. This is a graduate program.
        But the other question is are we building sufficient
    universities, and state universities, and colleges to keep up
    with the demand? And the answer is no, because the time that--
    going about with the late 1970s to the current time, we built--
    we broke ground on two new campuses in California, one the
    University of California and one a state college. And we built
    something like 10 or 11 prisons.
        There is something wrong with that picture. And I think
    that in this country we have--I still have a lot of faith, and
    admiration, and hope in this country, because if you look at my
    own community, my parents wanted us to be doctors and lawyers.
    They were disappointed when I became a teacher.
        But every generation wants their kids to be something. But
    each generation seems to have an opportunity to have greater
    choices. And I think that this is what young people are seeing
    that they have got greater choices other than just being
    scientists and technologists. We have sports, which is, another
    avenue for people. But we have other fields, performing arts
    and things that reflect a higher level of society that the
    human person can express themselves.
        But we don't want to lose our focus on the importance of
    what science and technology brings to every citizen, that we
    should teach every child how to think, how to be critical, and
    how to make decisions. That in itself is important. And we are
    not doing a good job with that.
        So I really appreciate this discussion today, because it
    has helped solidify some of my thinking. And reinforce some of
    the things that I think are truth. But we have to be as
    policymakers clear on everything that we do and responsible to
    the future. And so, thank you very much.
        Mr. Augustine. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
        Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Serrano. I will pass.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Well, have you had an opportunity
    to think about what facilities are crucial or what programs are
    crucial to keeping within the United States as we consider
    international collaboration, which I guess is an increasingly
    happening thing?
        Mr. Augustine. Yes. I am afraid I was listening. Apparently
    I wasn't thinking about the question.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well.

                              RESEARCH FACILITIES

        Mr. Augustine. I will try to respond. Certain areas in
    science stand out as being particularly important to be strong
    in. The information technologies would have to be one.
    Nanotechnology would certainly be another. Biotech would
    probably be at the top of the list. The pervasiveness of the
    breakthroughs in biotechnology are just astounding, from
    building computers to producing energy, to producing plastics,
    to feeding humans, to medical advances and so on.
        I would probably mention some of the medical fields, cancer
    research and the likes because of the impact they have on all
    humanity.
        One of the challenges of answering--trying to answer the
    question you asked is that one is invariably wrong. Typically
    we have missed the big breakthrough that suddenly shows up and
    that we never anticipated. I suspect that I will continue our
    record in that regard.
        In terms of facilities, when one visits world-class
    facilities, for example CERN in Switzerland and France or
    Biopolis in Singapore, and then visits the better facilities of
    this country, it is like going back 20 years. We are far behind
    the best of the best.
        We have an overall problem of aging facilities. That makes
    it difficult to attract people to science, to encourage foreign
    students to come here. By this I mean enough room in a
    laboratory, instrumentation, the mundane things that it takes
    to perform science. But I also mean the big science. The
    biggest of all is probably the linear accelerator. That
    inevitably will be an international program because of its
    cost. And I don't have any problem with that.
        Regarding some of the advanced computing capabilities, I
    think it is important to maintain a lead not only for the
    impact on science but the impact on national security and
    intelligence.
        Those are the areas that to me stand out. I suspect people
    who live in the world of facilities probably could answer
    better than I.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, Mr. Augustine, thank you very much for
    your testimony today. And in the same breath, let me, again,
    thank you for your service. As the Ranking Member noted, you
    are an exceptional corporate citizen who has been relied upon
    disproportionately to many others. And I know that has been in
    and of itself a service by you to the country.
        I look forward to working with you in the future. If there
    are any thoughts that you have that you would like to put on
    paper, you know, after this hearing, we would certainly
    appreciate the benefit of them.
        Thank you so very much for your testimony here today.
        Mr. Augustine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your Committee
    for the leadership you are providing in this area. It is
    greatly appreciated.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
                                               Tuesday, March 17, 2009.

                        STATUS OF CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

                                    WITNESS

    DR. SUSAN SOLOMON, PH.D. NOAA EARTH SYSTEM RESEARCH LABORATORY

                     Opening Statement by Chairman Mollohan

        Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order.
        Welcome. Good morning, Dr. Solomon, and welcome before the
    Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
    We appreciate your coming today to provide your perspective on
    the status of the scientific understanding of climate change
    and predictions.
        As those responsible for appropriations for the federal
    agencies with the largest budgets for climate change science,
    NSF, NASA, NOAA, we want to ensure that we provide appropriate
    support for improved understanding, monitoring, and prediction
    of climate change.
        We also have responsibility for virtually all civil earth
    observing satellites, both research and operational.
        We have had to confront major cost overruns in the NOPE SS
    Program and additional requirements appear likely given the
    anticipated need to support operational climate predictions and
    monitoring.
        In our hearings this week, we will explore the role of
    satellite data in observing climate change. Our second and
    third hearings will focus on examples of ongoing satellite
    observations of land vegetation, ice sheets, ocean and
    atmospheric properties, and what is required to sustain these
    critical environmental records.
        Our final hearing will look forward to the future of
    satellite climate observations and the relationship between
    NASA and NOAA, between research and operations, and how that
    may be a help in controlling future costs.
        Today we look forward to establishing a foundation for our
    satellite considerations by gaining more understanding of
    climate change and the requirements its study and observation
    place upon the programs in our jurisdiction.
        Dr. Solomon, your written statement will be placed in the
    record. And before I ask for your oral testimony, I recognize
    our distinguished Minority leader, Mr. Wolf, for any comments
    he may have.
        Mr. Wolf. I do not have any. Thanks.
        Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Solomon, as I said, your written
    statement will be made a part of the record and you proceed as
    you will. Thank you.

                        Opening Statement by Dr. Solomon

        Dr. Solomon. Thank you very much. Thank you for the
    opportunity to talk to you today.
        I would like to summarize the state of knowledge of climate
    change science. I will base that mainly on IPCC's 2007 reports
    as well as other assessments by the U.S. National Academy of
    Sciences and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.
        I would like to describe my view of key advances in
    understanding that have occurred since the reports were issued
    as well.
        Warming is unequivocal. That is evident in independent sets
    of measurements that all attest to the long-term changes in the
    climate. Among those are increases in global average surface
    air and ocean temperature, widespread loss of snow and ice, and
    rising global average sea level.
        We actually chose to express that finding in unusually
    strong language during the IPCC report process and that is
    because we have so many different sets of data that all
    document changes in a variety of observables.
        Last year, 2008, is estimated to be the tenth warmest year
    on record since observations began to be systematic about 150
    years ago and that shows that global warming is still apparent
    since the IPCC report was finished.
        It is clear that the primary driver of climate change is
    increased carbon dioxide, which is produced by fossil fuel
    burning, and to a lesser degree by deforestation. Today's
    levels of carbon dioxide are about 385 parts per million parts
    of air and that is unprecedented in more than half a million
    years of data from ice cores.
        In the past few years, since we completed the IPCC report,
    the rate of increase of carbon dioxide has been faster than
    ever observed in the instrumental record and that is due to
    increased global fossil fuel use.
        By the end of the 21st century, carbon dioxide
    concentrations could become as high as 1,000 parts per million
    if emissions worldwide keep increasing at the type of rates we
    saw in the last decade, which were about two percent per year.
    And with a sustained level of 1,000 parts per million of carbon
    dioxide, an average day would be about ten degrees Fahrenheit
    warmer than today.
        Heat waves as bad or worse than the worst current heat
    waves would become common. Decreased rainfall would be expected
    in parts of southwestern North America, west Australia,
    southern Europe, and both northern and southern Africa. We have
    much higher confidence in that now than we did a few years ago.
        Droughts comparable to a dust bowl would be expected to
    occur in all of those places. Fires would become more common in
    those places and fire frequency would also be expected to
    increase in many places that are dependent on snow pack for
    their water supply, such as much of California.
        Glaciers and snow pack that provide water to at least a
    billion people in Asia would disappear. Insect pests would
    become more common, which would damage crops as well as
    forests. In short, it would become a very different world.
        All of those impacts are based on physical processes that
    are well understood and represent pieces of the science for
    which the confidence is very high indeed.
        I would now like to very briefly talk about some key
    uncertainties. As the world warms, land and ocean uptake of
    carbon dioxide decreases and there is some evidence that large
    amounts of carbon could be released from melting permafrost in
    the Arctic.
        Those feedback processes are very uncertain, but they have
    the potential to substantially enhance future carbon levels. We
    need a much better understanding of the cycling of carbon.
        But carbon dioxide is not the only thing that is causing
    our climate to change. It is the largest factor, but it is not
    the only one. Mitigation efforts directed at other climate
    change agents such as reduction in soot, ozone, or methane
    could have very useful co-benefits for air quality and related
    health effects. And it is really the suite of driving agents
    and options that needs to be considered.
        Climate change is not limited to warmer temperatures. It
    extends to water, storms, sea level rise, snow pack, heat
    waves, flooding, fire, and really much more. So improvements to
    numerical modeling, process studies and analysis and monitoring
    will all be needed to provide the kind of information required
    for many decisions, especially local adaptation decisions.
        Improved numerical simulation at smaller scales is a
    pressing issue in research. Networks to monitor how climate is
    changing are generally considered to be barely adequate. Some
    are in danger of being lost altogether.
        Measurements of rain, snow, clouds, humidity, tropical and
    mid latitude storms, solar radiation, aerosols, and many
    greenhouse gases are all examples of key areas for monitoring
    and process studies.
        Increasing carbon dioxide increases the acidity of the
    oceans through very well-estimated chemistry and the increases
    in acidity have the potential for vast effects on marine life
    and ocean ecosystems. We do not understand that very well at
    all at the moment.
        The sea level rose by about six inches in the 20th century.
    How much will it rise in the future? Well, expansion of warming
    water and melting of small glaciers are well understood and
    they can be expected to produce up to three feet of sea level
    rise within about two to three centuries. That is enough to
    inundate many small islands and regions such as Florida.
        But there is a wild card in the sea level problem, a third
    process that is very poorly understood. That is rapid flow of
    ice from Antarctica and Greenland. There is evidence for
    locally rapid ice flow, but it is not yet possible to integrate
    that contribution over the full size of the ice shape to
    quantify the total contribution to sea level rise. It could be
    on the order of a few meters over centuries, but it is very
    uncertain.
        Those are a few of the questions facing the nation and the
    world as the climate continues to change. There is much that we
    do know. There is also much that we do not know.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you
    today.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.018

                           ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Doctor. We do appreciate your
    coming to speak to us.
        You said somewhere in the early part of your testimony, I
    think, if I understood it, that today's levels of
    CO2 in the atmosphere are the highest that they have
    ever been since the presence of mankind, did I understand you
    to testify, already right now?
        Dr. Solomon. The highest they have been in half a million
    years. And depending on how you define mankind, that certainly
    exceeds, I think, any definition of mankind. You know, Cro-
    Magnon man has been on the planet for I think about 30,000
    years. So half a million years is way past the Cro-Magnon man.
    It is way past neanderthals. It is a long way back.
        Mr. Mollohan. And you know that from ice core samples?
        Dr. Solomon. Yes. The little bubbles that are trapped in
    the ice are analyzed to provide the amount of carbon dioxide.
    And that has been done both in Antarctica and Greenland. And
    one of the things that is really nice is having both of them.
    You can go back quite a ways, over 100,000 years with both of
    them, and see the same kinds of things.

                                 SEA LEVEL RISE

        Mr. Mollohan. Uh-huh. Well, sea level rise looms large as
    perhaps the most significant consequence of global warming and
    this rise is predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on
    Climate Change to be between .6 and two feet in the next
    century.
        And as you testified, does that predicted range include the
    effects of major decreases in ice sheets or is it simply due to
    the thermal expansion of world oceans? And you in your
    testimony, part of your uncertainty was the impact of ice
    sheet. If you would elaborate on that for us, please.
        Dr. Solomon. The IPCC was able to quantify certain terms
    that contribute to sea level. One of them, as you said, is the
    thermal expansion of the ocean. That is well understood. When
    you make a cup of tea, you see the water expand and that
    happens in the ocean as well.
        But that is not the only term we were actually able to
    quantify. We also include the effect of the loss of small
    glaciers worldwide, so glaciers in the Andes and Europe and
    Alaska and places like that. That term was also included.
        We have a number of other small terms that I will not go
    into, but you are absolutely right. The key term that we simply
    do not have enough information to quantify is the melting of
    the great ice sheets of Greenland and west Antarctica.
        And the physics is poorly understood, but what we know is
    that we see rapid ice flow on those ice sheets. So it is fast.
    It is impressive. I am sure you have all seen photographs of
    it. But it is not understood well enough to be numerically
    simulated in terms of how it will behave in the future. We just
    do not know how it is going to behave in the future.
        Mr. Mollohan. Are there any predictions out there for the
    west Antarctic ice sheet or the Greenland ice sheet?
        Dr. Solomon. There is more information for Greenland and
    there is an estimate that suggests that if all the variables
    are pushed to their limits, we could see a change of about two
    meters by 2100. So that is, I think, a fair estimate of the
    upper limit from Greenland.
        Mr. Mollohan. Just from the Greenland ice sheet melt?
        Ms. Solomon. Yeah. I believe that may also include thermal
    expansion. I believe that may be that person's best estimate of
    the total upper limit range. I would have to check that, but I
    am pretty sure that is true.
        For west Antarctica, I think the numbers are much less
    certain. That kind of analysis has not been done there. The
    real problem is we see these things happening locally. We know
    they are very important locally, but we do not know how
    important they are integrated across the ice sheet and we do
    not know how they are going to behave in the future.
        There is some evidence that you may see transients where
    you get a fast, rapid flow for a little while and then it
    stops. So it is really quite difficult to project. We just do
    not understand the physics well enough.

                          DEFINITION OF GLOBAL WARMING

        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Now, there are a huge number of people
    in the world who, or it seems like there are a huge number of
    people in the world who suggest that this is natural phenomena
    and whether man is contributing to it or not. I am not sure
    whether they dispute that, but they do suggest that the world
    has gone through these cycles without the contribution of human
    activities. And, therefore, I suppose, I do not want to speak
    for them exactly, but perhaps they just say it is inevitable
    and not that it is good or bad, but that it is inevitable.
        First I would like for you to define for us what is global
    warming and then relate the impact of that to climate change
    and its consequences. What is global warming, the phenomena of
    global warming, the chemical or the whatever?
        Dr. Solomon. Well, I----
        Mr. Mollohan. If you can do that for us in a way we can
    understand, that would be extremely----
        Dr. Solomon. I will try. I will try.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Helpful.
        Dr. Solomon. I would say that global warming is the change
    in our planet's climate that is being induced by the things
    that people do. So it is mostly carbon dioxide increases, also
    other terms like soot, methane. There are a number of different
    things that are contributing to that.
        I think perhaps what is really underlying your question is
    how do we know this is unusual.
        Mr. Mollohan. No. Really the first thing that is underlying
    my question is what is the phenomena. You have got sun coming
    in. It is in some way being affected by CO2
    concentrations. That is somehow, as some of the experts have
    tried to explain to me, reacting in ways that is creating heat,
    that is infrared, and it is bouncing back up, that it cannot
    get out. And, therefore, the heat cannot get out and,
    therefore, really assume that we could understand it if you
    were to elaborate on it.
        Dr. Solomon. Okay. You are absolutely right. The sun is the
    primary source of heat to the earth. We all know that from
    going to the beach. The sun is what heats the earth. The earth
    tries to cool off by radiating in infrared.
        And if you have ever seen, for example, night photographs,
    infrared photographs that people sometimes use, for example, in
    hunting and such things, you can appreciate that all objects
    have a temperature and then they radiate their energy in
    infrared.
        Basically what carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases do
    is to keep some of that energy in, so it keeps it from escaping
    out to space. All the other planets do that. I should say all
    the planets that have atmospheres do that just as our sun does.
        And one of the things that I think is really a very
    beautiful illustration of global warming is, or at least of the
    greenhouse effect, I should say, is the fact that Venus has a
    greenhouse effect, too, because it also has an atmosphere. And
    that keeps Venus much hotter than it would otherwise be.
        In fact, one of the reasons Venus is hotter than earth is
    not so much that it is closer to the sun. It is actually
    because its atmosphere has a tremendous amount of carbon
    dioxide and also some sulphur compounds that all contribute
    to----
        Mr. Mollohan. So----
        Dr. Solomon [continuing]. Its greenhouse effect.
        Mr. Mollohan. So there is----
        Dr. Solomon. When you put in--sorry.
        Mr. Mollohan. No, no. I am sorry. You go ahead.
        Dr. Solomon. When we put in carbon dioxide into our
    atmosphere by our activities making that gas, which is a major
    greenhouse gas on our planet, 30 percent higher than it has
    been in half a million years, that is causing the planet to
    warm up along with some other factors, but it is the main one.
    And the net result is a temperature that is about a degree, 1.3
    degrees Fahrenheit----
        Mr. Mollohan. So it is fair or accurate or useful to see
    CO2 as a catalyst and a compound in the atmosphere
    that inhibits the radiation of heat back out of the earth and
    so the increased levels of CO2 exasperate this
    process so that less heat, more CO2, keeping more
    heat into the atmosphere in the earth and, therefore, creating
    an increase in temperature? And that is a phenomena we have not
    seen during the age of mankind?
        Dr. Solomon. That is correct. It traps the energy.
    Absolutely.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Wolf.
        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Doctor, welcome.
        What of the causes, if you had to break it down percentage
    manmade and not manmade or manmade and natural, how would you
    break that down?

                            CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING

        Dr. Solomon. That is a good question. The manmade causes of
    the enhanced temperatures that we have now is mostly carbon
    dioxide to the tune of, I believe, about 60 percent of today's
    global warming. Methane also contributes. The
    chlorofluorocarbons and their replacements, hydro fluorocarbons
    and hydro chlorofluorocarbons also contribute. Nitrous oxide
    also contributes. So there is sort of a range of other gases
    that contribute as well, but it is roughly 60 percent carbon
    dioxide, a small amount from soot also, which is again manmade.
        The natural forcing agents are two. There is the sun which
    if it gets brighter can cause some warming. But we have good
    measurements of how bright the sun has been since at least 1979
    and it has contributed very little over the period, at least
    since 1979.
        So I think a fair number on that, I do not have it in my
    head. I am sorry. But it is certainly less than ten percent, I
    think, is a fair statement.
        Volcanos actually cause cooling and we have had a number of
    volcanos over the last 30 years or so. They only cool for a
    little while, for a few years. So they have actually worked,
    though, to cause a slight cooling effect.
        So the volcanos and the sun are the natural terms. They are
    quite small. The overwhelming cause of what we are seeing today
    is certainly manmade chemicals, particularly carbon dioxide,
    but also some of these other chemical agents.

                          SOLUTIONS FOR GLOBAL WARMING

        Mr. Wolf. And what do you see as the solution? We hear
    stories of cap and trade. I have an article here from the
    Washington Post that was on June 26th of a year ago. It said
    with regard to global warming, it said the answer--this is by a
    gentleman, maybe you know him, an adjunct professor at the
    Copenhagen Consensus Center, Bjorn Lomborg. Does that name ring
    a bell, L-O-M-B-O-R-G?
        Dr. Solomon. Yes.
        Mr. Wolf. What do you think of him? I do not know anything
    about him.
        Dr. Solomon. I have never met the man.
        Mr. Wolf. But that is not an answer. I never met Lincoln
    and I think he was one of the greatest Presidents that we ever
    had.
        Dr. Solomon. Indeed. Indeed.
        Mr. Wolf. And Washington and Jefferson. So what do you
    think of him?
        Dr. Solomon. I have read his books. He has some useful
    points to make and some of his points, I think, are not as
    useful. I am not prepared to give you a complete review of his
    work at the moment. He certainly has received a lot of
    attention for his studies. He has also, I think, been censured
    by the Danish Academy of Sciences.
        Mr. Wolf. For?
        Dr. Solomon. That is probably all I can tell you.
        Mr. Wolf. For what?
        Dr. Solomon. Scientific misconduct, I believe, was the
    words they used.
        Mr. Wolf. Can you supply that for the record, so I can see
    what it is, or just send me a copy?
        Dr. Solomon. I will certainly look up what the Danish
    Academy of Sciences----
        Mr. Wolf. What he says in here is the answer is to
    dramatically increase research and development so that solar
    panels become cheaper than fossil fuels sooner rather than
    later. Imagine if solar panels become cheaper than fossil fuels
    by 2050, we would have solved the problem of global warming.
        But what is your thought about the idea of putting more
    money into research and less into cap and trade as a solution?
        He also goes on to say the economists have, they have
    pointed out that a better response than cutting emissions would
    be to dramatically increase research and development on low
    carbon energy such as solar panels and second generation
    biofuels.

                        SEPARATION OF SCIENCE AND POLICY

        Dr. Solomon. There are a lot of different opinions on what
    we ought to do about this issue. I am not an economist and I
    cannot judge what would give us the fastest result for an
    improved climate. There are those people who argue that strong
    investment in technology would pay off so well that nothing
    else should be required. I am not an expert enough to----
        Mr. Wolf. Well, what do you feel between cap and trade and
    this concept of greater investment? What do you think has the
    best opportunity for----
        Dr. Solomon. Boy, if I knew what to do, I would be happy to
    tell you, but honestly I think it is just so difficult to
    project the future of economic problems that I am at a loss to
    know what----
        Mr. Wolf. I think, though, frankly, there may be some
    exceptions, but my sense is most Congressmen do not know what
    to do either. And if you do not know what to do, I think I
    would say there probably are not any Congressmen that really
    know what to do.
        And I think the scientific effort, and I think it has to be
    scientifically driven, is very, very important. So I think that
    it is important to put together a group of people like
    yourself, but men and women who we have the respect in for to
    sort of come up with some solutions.
        The real danger is you could move ahead and into a
    particular area and then find out that that is not the way to
    go and have spent a tremendous amount of money and have a major
    impact on the economy.
        Would you agree with that?
        Dr. Solomon. Yeah. I think those comments are all fair. I
    think that the issue that to me is particularly important is
    that we not attack the science basis because we do not like the
    policies.
        Mr. Wolf. I agree. No. That is what I said.
        Dr. Solomon. Policies are----

                 INTERNATIONAL GROUP TO LOOK AT CLIMATE CHANGE

        Mr. Wolf. To put together a group of men and women who are
    experts in the field, well respected to come up with a proposal
    or an idea, rather than this being a political issue to be a
    scientific issue.
        Dr. Solomon. Yeah. I do not disagree with that either. But
    I think it is important to recognize that there is the question
    of how much climate change we think we are prepared to accept
    and at what point do we begin to take actions because we have
    to weigh the concerns for our economy against the concern for
    issues like droughts and heat waves and the number of people
    whose lives will and livelihoods will be damaged.
        The Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol all
    certainly recognize the importance of weighing the damage to
    the environment along with the damage to the economy.

                           INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

        Mr. Wolf. How significant is it that China participate in
    whatever is done?
        Dr. Solomon. China's emissions today are about the same as
    ours, so----
        Mr. Wolf. Well, according to an article here, I would like
    to get your comment on it, it was in today's Washington Post,
    and when I was reading, eating my breakfast, I saw, thinking of
    this hearing, that said, this is in page A4 of today's
    Washington Post, countries importing Chinese goods should be
    responsible for the heat trapping gases released during
    manufacturing.
        A top Chinese official said yesterday, Li Gao, G-A-O,
    China's top climate negotiator--do you know him?
        Dr. Solomon. No.
        Mr. Wolf. Said any fair--this is the country that has 30
    Catholic priests in jail and have a lot of Protestant Pastors
    and has plundered Tibet and is spying on us, but he said any
    fair international agreement to curb the gases blamed for
    global warming would not require China to reduce emissions
    caused by goods manufactured to meet demands elsewhere.
        Then it goes on to say, according to the Associated Press,
    which I think would differ, but China has surpassed the United
    States as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
    About 15 to 25 percent of its emissions are generated by
    manufacturing goods for export.
        So this article, I do not know what they base this on, says
    that China has surpassed us. But what are your thoughts about
    Mr. Gao's comments that China should not be blamed for global
    warming and that they should not be required to have to deal
    with it, only the country that the exports are going to?
        Dr. Solomon. Well, they probably have surpassed us slightly
    in the last couple of years, but I think it remains to be seen
    how the current economic downturn will affect their emissions
    for last year, say, compared to ours.
        So, yes, they have surpassed us, but, you know, they have
    not surpassed us by a country mile. They may have surpassed us
    a little bit. And I think the adjustments that are happening
    have yet to be realized for any nation as far as emissions go.
        Mr. Wolf. We are closing factories faster than opening
    them. They are opening them and we are closing them. So I think
    that is the direction.
        So, again, a comment, how important is China in the
    participation of solving or dealing with the problem of global
    warming? Could you successfully deal with the issue, whatever
    the solution may be, without having China as a participant?
        Dr. Solomon. It is clear that the developing country
    contribution in the future is very likely to be large. There
    are five and a half billion people living in the developing
    world, only a billion in the developed world. We produce about
    ten times more carbon dioxide per capita per year than the rest
    of the world. We still produce about four times as much per
    capita as China even. Even though their total amount is larger
    than ours, because they have so many more people, we are
    producing four times more than they are per person.
        So clearly if everybody produces in the way that we
    produce, the planet is going to get very hot very quickly and
    that is the decision that is the political one of how you get
    everybody involved because if you do not, it seems quite clear
    that we are going to have a planet that is hard for us all to
    live on.
        Mr. Wolf. But you seem reluctant to say the word China. I
    ask again for the third time, how important is it to have China
    participating in whatever the solution may be when good and
    decent scientists come up and convince the world of this? How
    important is it for China to be an active participant?
        Dr. Solomon. It is important for China to participate. It
    is also important for India in the long run to participate. It
    is because there are so many people in those parts of the
    world, it is important that we all do this together, I think.
    Otherwise, we are going to have a hot planet.

                          RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMISSIONS

        Mr. Wolf. The last question is, would you agree or disagree
    with his comments where he says that countries importing
    Chinese goods should be responsible for the heat trapping gases
    released? As you are putting together a solution, would the
    country responsible be that taking the imports or would it be
    the country that is manufacturing?
        Dr. Solomon. Well, I guess I do not see how the idea of
    charging the country who takes the goods would actually work.
    And I read the Post this morning also and that was a comment
    made there.
        It is clearly a value judgment how you decide to implement
    any of these agreements. And I think that is where the science
    ends and the politics begin. My values are not any better than
    anybody else's, but I would hope I might have more to
    contribute on the science.
        Mr. Wolf. Last question is, would it make sense to put
    together a high level group of international people, well
    respected of a lot of different political viewpoints to sort of
    come together and looking both at the science and as to how you
    then deal with it from an economic issue to make sure, because
    obviously if you are in Kenya, the poverty rate is so high
    versus if you are in, you know, London, it is in a different
    perspective, to begin to take the political out of it and begin
    to sort of develop a consensus for the world?

                                      IPCC

        Dr. Solomon. I think that is a good point. The United
    Nation's Framework Convention does try to do exactly what you
    are talking about. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
    Change helps provide the science information for that----
        Mr. Wolf. But I think that there are many people that
    really do not believe the United Nations is very balanced. I
    mean, on votes with regard to human rights and religious
    freedom, generally the human rights and religious freedom fail.
        China has pretty much intimidated the rest of the U.N. so
    they are doing nothing with regard to the genocide in Darfur.
    The U.N. has stood by and allowed the genocide to take place in
    Rwanda. So the U.N. is not really the group, I think. I am
    talking about an international group of respected outside of
    the U.N.
        Dr. Solomon. Well, to some extent, that is the kind of
    thing that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    already does and it does so under the auspices of the World
    Meteorological Organization. There is also U.N. involvement. So
    if you wanted to create an alternative entity that went
    completely out of the U.N., I suppose that would be an option.
        Mr. Wolf. What are your thoughts about it?
        Dr. Solomon. I think it is clear that IPCC has functioned
    quite independently over the years. I think we can point to the
    process that produces the reports that we have established as a
    useful one. It still will not answer the question of political
    action.
        I honestly believe that separating the science basis for
    what you do from the value judgments that enter into a
    political decision is a healthy way to go. So I would frankly
    hesitate to have them all together as you are describing. I am
    not sure what the best political system or the nonscience part
    would be because that is outside of my expertise.
        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Doctor.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf.
        Mr. Schiff.
        Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                             RATE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

        In recent months, some scientists have suggested based on
    new data that the climate is warming faster than the last IPCC
    report predicted. I know a full review has to await the IPCC
    reports again, but what do you think of the new data? Do you
    find it worrying? Is it too early to tell? What kind of
    research would bring more certainty to the projections?
        Dr. Solomon. The types of things that are happening faster
    include evidence for melting on Greenland seems to be going
    faster, west Arctica also. There is evidence that the loss of
    ice from those places is becoming enhanced.
        The rate at which carbon dioxide increased in the last few
    years has also been faster than before. And, finally, certainly
    a very key thing is that the retreat of sea ice in the Arctic
    has been faster, actually faster than anyone imagined and
    faster than the models predicted. So 2007 set a new record low
    for the extent of sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean.
        The warming itself, the temperature changes on the ground
    have actually not been faster than previously. So I think there
    is a little bit of confusion among the different factors.
        But I think they are all still, all those things taken
    together are still well within the type of totality that would
    justify saying there are aspects of the climate system that are
    changing faster and there are different time scales for things
    like the ice and the atmospheric temperatures.
        So I think it is fair to say that we are certainly seeing
    many aspects of climate change that are happening faster than
    we expected, not all, but many.
        Mr. Schiff. And what are the theories as to why we are
    seeing greater acceleration in the extent of the ice as opposed
    to, you mentioned, on land, the indications of warming are
    slower than projected? What are the theories about why that has
    been true?

                         OCEAN TEMPERATURES AND WARMING

        Dr. Solomon. The ocean temperatures have a big role to play
    in holding back surface temperatures from warming worldwide.
    And we happen to be in a La Nina phase where the ocean in the
    Pacific is relatively cold. We are coming out of that now, so I
    think things will probably change in the coming year.
        But when the ocean temperatures are cold, you also see
    temperatures on land that are cold, particularly in the Pacific
    sector, which is why our part of the world has been rather on
    the cold side.
        Ice is responding in part I think to more the history of
    what temperatures have done. Particularly Greenland has a very
    slow time scale to melt. It just takes a long time. So you are
    seeing the accumulated impact of the many years of warm
    temperatures as far as the Greenland melt goes, whereas, let us
    say, for temperatures in the U.S., you are much more seeing a
    slight moderation of the warming trend because of the cold
    ocean temperatures.

                                 TIPPING POINTS

        Mr. Schiff. There has been a fair amount of discussion of
    the, you know, the tipping point. How indefinite is that
    science? I mean, how in terms of the melting of the ice caps,
    for example?
        There is a cyclical phenomenon or a synergistic phenomenon
    where the more that melts, the more it increases the capacity
    to melt more. What are the limits of the science in that area
    in terms of determining, you know, when they may be gone for
    good?
        Dr. Solomon. Yeah. The changes in Arctic sea ice certainly
    are one of the most dramatic things that has led me to start
    wondering about tipping points. I have been a little bit
    reluctant to do so for a long time because I am trying to be
    very balanced in the way I look at this problem.
        But indeed the fact that sea ice has retreated so fast in
    the Arctic in 2007, 2008, many people actually thought it would
    recover in 2008, it did not. It was almost as low in 2008 as it
    was in 2007. So we may very well have pushed the Arctic past
    its tipping point into a different state in which it is going
    to be much warmer all the time and have much less ice every
    year. We will not know that yet for a few years, but I think it
    is clear that that signal sort of is emerging.
        I think the other thing that is emerging is the way that
    changes in rainfall are probably being affected by climate
    change. The increasing evidence for drying in the Mediterranean
    and in the U.S. southwest and Australia is beginning to, I
    think, start to make a case for having perhaps passed the
    tipping point there as well.

                          ORBITING CARBON OBSERVATORY

        Mr. Schiff. A number of the other witnesses we have had
    have talked about the loss we suffered with the failure to
    launch the orbiting carbon observatory. Do you have any
    thoughts in terms of is there another way to get that science
    or do we need to do a do-over?
        Dr. Solomon. Wow, that is really a tough one. It would have
    been a great experiment. There is no doubt about that. I am, I
    think, less qualified than some of the people that are going to
    talk to you later in the week to evaluate the extent of that
    loss relative to other things that you are looking at. So I
    really would ask you to accept that I am just not expert in
    this.
        Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Schiff.
        Mr. Honda.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                           INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

        Dr. Solomon, thank you for being here. You are probably no
    stranger to being a witness to different committees.
        Having heard a lot of questions and reading up on this
    issue of climate change, global warming, flash points and all
    that sort of stuff, moving our country to work with other
    countries and overcoming some of the barriers, obstacles to
    cooperation, and in the light of all the other issues that we
    throw out there, which seems to distract us sometimes from the
    main focus of getting together and start working together, if
    you were able to readjust our perceptions and some of our
    notions about ourselves and other countries in this whole
    debate, what are some of the things you would tell us to set
    aside or what are some of the things you would say to focus on
    for the benefit of the future? I know it is unscientific, but--
    --
        Dr. Solomon. No. It is actually----
        Mr. Honda [continuing]. You know, part of the thing about
    our human dynamics is that we allow certain things to get in
    our way in really addressing the human issues of us moving
    forward.

                     SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

        Dr. Solomon. I agree. It is a very important thing to
    consider the human issues. And if I may, I would like to say a
    few things that are perhaps more general.
        And they are that I think we have gotten to the point where
    we are starting to lose sight of all the things we actually
    understand well about climate change.
        Mr. Honda. Yes.
        Dr. Solomon. We have gotten so much into a shouting match
    about, you know, is west Antarctica going to melt tomorrow. And
    I am not suggesting for a minute we should not talk about
    risks. We absolutely should talk about risks and issues of high
    uncertainty.
        But I also think we should not forget that there are a
    large number of things that we actually know very well, where
    we have measurements that show what is happening already. We
    know that there is very likely a human contribution to those
    changes. We understand the physics and we can predict the
    future.
        When it comes to some of these risk issues like, you know,
    will the permafrost melt and the methane be released, very
    important issue, but we just cannot get our arms around it
    quantitatively.
        So I think that if you are interested in overcoming
    barriers and bringing people together, developing a consensus
    that many people in the country can and the world can agree on,
    we should really be emphasizing a bit more all those aspects of
    climate change that are well understood, are very important,
    and we will do things to the planet that are unlike anything
    that has ever happened before.
        And by that, I mean very quite rightly, Mr. Chairman,
    happened before while human beings were here because obviously
    we can go back three million years to a different planet that
    was, you know, we can go to Venus, too, and that is a different
    planet, but----

                     OBSTACLES TO INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

        Mr. Honda. So when you say we, who are you talking about?
    Just folks on this country or are you talking about an
    inclusive we? If it is inclusive, what are the barriers of
    moving, coming together?
        And then I guess the other question is, when we understand
    all these things to be true, the scientific and everything
    else, is that held by all parties like India and China, let
    alone ourselves?
        So I guess I am moving towards what are some of the
    obstacles to arriving to yes, arriving to cooperation so that
    we can start developing common interests, trust, and, you know,
    without saying that, you know, these other human things do not
    exist. We still have to overcome it.
        And I was just wondering what would you say to us? You all
    ought to be doing this or think about this or these are the
    barriers and let us get real, you know? What are some of those
    admonitions that you would have for us?
        Dr. Solomon. Well, I think science is certainly a common
    basis that is valued in all countries. That is why IPCC has
    been, I think, so helpful to negotiators. It is not just Europe
    and the United States that are interested in understanding the
    science. Certainly China and India also want to know what the
    facts are. That gives you a basis to then discuss things.
        I think, though, it is very clear that this problem has
    barriers to overcome that extend beyond science, that do
    involve human values. And as I said to Mr. Wolf, I think it is
    helpful to recognize where one starts and the other begins,
    where science stops and values begin when you try to design
    policies, I think is clearly one of the things that will help
    us.
        There are major issues of what some people like to call
    international equity involved here because the developed
    countries have produced so much of the carbon that is already
    in the atmosphere. So it is now the turn of the developing
    countries and they would ask for some kind of system that is
    fair. And so jointly, we have to decide what we think is fair.
        I think that the U.S. certainly has a lot to offer in terms
    of technology and technology transfer. I think those kinds of
    activities can really help because the more that we can assist
    other countries to emit less, to not be as inefficient in their
    use of energy as we once were because we have learned to be
    much more efficient over time, we can provide those
    technologies. That is the kind of thing that we can bring to
    the table in a useful way.
        And certainly the efforts to produce new renewable energy
    sources, make them cheaper, make them more efficient, to the
    extent that we can share that with other countries will help to
    promote a sense of harmony and overcome the barriers as you
    called it.
        I do not know if that is where you are trying to take this
    question, but----
        Mr. Honda. Through the Chair, it seems to me that there are
    a lot of things we do not know about the other countries and
    what their conditions and priorities are, but I suspect that
    they care about their children and their future.
        I suspect that they have policies that they have not been
    able to implement as we have policies that we have not been
    able to implement or have oversight on.
        But given all those things, it seems to me that we have
    people all around the world of good will who understand that we
    have to work together and that this word called cooperation is
    going to be a baseline and how do we get there. And I guess
    there has to be some give and take.
        Israel and the Middle East have shown us that we can
    develop a process of confidence building mechanisms. We do not
    have one yet in this arena. It seems that we are worried about
    competition. We are worried about all this stuff that would be
    meaningless when we cannot breathe.
        And so, all these things, these flash points we talk about,
    they all could happen at once like the permafrost and the
    emergence of CO2 and methane in volumes that we will
    never be able to handle if we do not get in front of it and
    anticipate these things.
        And these things do not occur linearly. They are all going
    to happen at once and if we do not as leadership demonstrate
    that willingness to do that, then who will? And so, the lack or
    failure of political leadership is not an option.
        And so it seems that we have to sort of look for that
    common ground and look at diplomacy and, understand that all of
    us have different priorities and different conditions in our
    own country. We have one thing in common and we need to solve
    this problem together. And we could give and take and share.
        And so I was looking for a response from a scientist who
    would speak not only from hard evidence but also from the human
    factor that really moves or stops progress.
        Dr. Solomon. Well----
        Mr. Honda. And being real candid.
        Dr. Solomon. Yeah.
        Mr. Honda. Because I do not want you to leave here and say
    I should have said.
        Dr. Solomon. No. No. I see where you are going and I think
    I may have covered some parts of that earlier. I certainly
    agree that it is very clear that the whole world has to
    participate or let us say virtually the whole world has to
    participate in order for this to work.
        One of the things that from a science point of view is
    particularly concerning to me actually is that just to
    stabilize carbon dioxide levels, we would have to reduce
    emissions by about 50 percent within the next few decades and
    by 80 percent not long after that just to stabilize it.
        So the problem is that we are putting carbon dioxide into
    the atmosphere so much faster than nature can take it away,
    that we have completely overwhelmed the system. And so we have
    got to reduce it enormously.
        How do we do that? How do even we, the United States,
    reduce by 80 percent let alone developing countries who are
    emitting very little now and would like to emit more, would, of
    course, like to develop? How do we as a whole planet reduce our
    emissions by 80 percent while 80 percent of the people on the
    planet continue to develop?
        So that is the way I like to put it. But you will notice I
    always put it scientifically. I do not make emotional
    statements. I am really trying to keep the science separate
    from the issues of values and politics because I think that the
    more we do that, the better chance we have for all nations of
    actually agreeing on something.
        But 80 percent is a big number when 80 percent of the
    people right now are very poor in the world.
        Mr. Honda. Last comment through the Chair, Mr. Chairman.
    When folks developed the nuclear bomb and things like that,
    they realized that they had a human responsibility to say
    something also in its use and sometimes they did not speak up
    quickly enough.
        And so the opportunity to educate along the lines of human
    motivation and the things that make us human and the scientific
    information that makes us powerful, wisdom has to fall into
    there somewhere. And I guess the wisdom of your experience and
    insights is what I was looking for.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
        Mr. Culberson.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                             REDUCTION OF EMISSIONS

        Thank you, Professor Solomon, for coming all the way to
    Washington to be with us today and share your experience with
    us.
        I wondered, if I could, to make sure I understood your
    testimony to Mr. Honda that in order to stabilize the
    CO2 levels, just to stabilize them where they are
    today, that the world would have--is it the world would have to
    reduce CO2 emissions by 50 percent or just the
    United States?
        Dr. Solomon. The world.
        Mr. Culberson. By 50 percent within what frame of time?
        Dr. Solomon. A few decades at most.
        Mr. Culberson. Meaning 20 years?
        Dr. Solomon. At most.
        Mr. Culberson. Thirty years? Twenty years. So by 2030?
        Dr. Solomon. Roughly.
        Mr. Culberson. And 80 percent by 2050?
        Dr. Solomon. By 2050.
        Mr. Culberson. What level of industrial production would
    that--the United States would need to return to a level of
    emissions that would be the equivalent of at what stage in our
    history?
        Dr. Solomon. I do not know that number off the top of my
    head.
        Mr. Culberson. That is a real important number.
        Dr. Solomon. But, of course, the idea one might have is not
    to reduce our activity, but to do it in a different way using
    alternative energy sources, for example.
        Mr. Culberson. Right. Well, then let me ask it this way.
    Assuming today we are consuming in the United States oil,
    petroleum products at a certain level that is 100 percent,
    considered today 100 percent, what level of today's level of
    consumption of oil would we have to reduce U.S. consumption by
    2030 in order to achieve a 50 percent reduction in carbon
    emissions?
        Dr. Solomon. I guess about 50 percent.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay. And what level of production and
    petroleum consumption, petroleum products would we have to
    reduce by 2050, 80 percent?
        Dr. Solomon. Again, the same figure. Of course, you could
    do more potentially with other types of reductions as well.
        Mr. Culberson. Right.
        Dr. Solomon. So, you know, you could reduce methane.
        Mr. Culberson. Sure.
        Dr. Solomon. You could reduce tropospheric ozone, you know.
        Mr. Culberson. Right.
        Dr. Solomon. There are other places where you could look
    for things that you could----
        Mr. Culberson. And you include all petroleum products, not
    just--I mean, obviously the petrol chemical refining industry
    includes plastic, making plastics, almost everything in this
    room. Production levels would have to be reduced by 50 percent.
        Dr. Solomon. You are certainly illustrating very well why
    this is an extremely difficult problem.

                     INTERNATIONAL CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

        Mr. Culberson. Right. And Mr. Honda is exactly right that
    China, for example, has to participate. And I certainly wish
    they would. It would be wonderful if they would, but it is an
    objective fact that they will not and they have indicated they
    are not signing on to any carbon treaty. I have seen no
    indication.
        I am looking at an article from the February 8th edition of
    the Journal of Science, an article on sustainable development,
    page 730. China has one of the largest coal reserves in the
    world and coal accounts for 67 percent of its primary energy
    use.
        And China is currently bringing, Committee members, two
    additional coal fired power plants to the electric power grid
    every single week.
        And by 2030, Dr. Solomon, the article concludes that China
    will be emitting as much carbon in 20 years as the entire world
    does today, but they will not sign on to any of the carbon
    treaties. So they are not helping at all.
        In fact, this is an article from the February 9th edition,
    February 9, 2007 of the Journal of Science, page 812, talking
    about capturing carbon.
        And they point out in the article, Mike, that the, quoting
    from the article, the major coal producers, Russia, China, and
    India, have been unwilling to sacrifice short-term economic
    growth. They just will not do it. So they are not going to
    participate----
        Mr. Honda. Would the gentleman yield for a second?
        Mr. Culberson. Sure. You bet.
        Mr. Honda. Since you mentioned my name, it seems that
    Congress in its current form is willing to do that and we had a
    chance since the Kyoto Protocol and somehow as a nation, we
    refused to participate too. And there were reasons and
    motivations. But I do not think that that should hold us back.
    We should move forward.
        Mr. Culberson. You know, Mike, you raise a good point.
        Mr. Honda. So thank you.
        Mr. Culberson. No. You raise a good point, my friend, about
    the importance of getting the whole world to become involved.
    And I do hope the Chinese participate. You are exactly right,
    because the problem is so big and the Chinese emissions are so
    huge. Bringing two new coal fired power plants on line every
    week, that literally by the year 2030, China is going to be
    emitting as much carbon as the entire world.
        So they are a vast producer of carbon dioxide, the largest
    in the world, right, Professor Solomon?
        Dr. Solomon. Yes. Well, actually, maybe not. I think some
    of the Middle Eastern countries like----
        Mr. Culberson. Bypassed them?
        Dr. Solomon [continuing]. Qatar, United Arab Emirates.

                              CARBON SEQUESTRATION

        Mr. Culberson. Right. And I am sure those guys are going to
    sign right up on Kyoto or whatever. I mean, they are going to
    be zero help.
        I mean, we just have to assume, Mike, and you raise a good
    point, that these guys are not going to help much and that if
    we leave this burden entirely on the United States, I mean, we
    are talking about either radical--and everyone on the Committee
    knows how passionate I am about nano technology. I am convinced
    that nano is going to revolutionize everything that we touch.
        And I think nano technology holds the promise of giving us
    a lot of the technology that you are referring to. And
    certainly the United States can make great strides.
        But with the facts that the Chinese, the Indians, the
    Russians, the Middle Eastern countries are probably not going
    to help, they are not going to sacrifice economic growth, that
    is an objective reality, in order to help reduce carbon
    emissions.
        Therefore, what I am leading you to, Dr. Solomon, is that
    we need to look to, in the meantime, if the goal is to reduce
    carbon, we need to look to technologies to sequester carbon is
    probably one of the better alternatives in the short term to
    remove carbon from the atmosphere in a significant way because
    then the United States is helping the entire planet; would you
    not agree?
        Dr. Solomon. Yes. And let me just clarify. When I said the
    Emirates, I meant per capita.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        Dr. Solomon. Not total.
        Mr. Culberson. But it would be carbon----
        Dr. Solomon. But, yeah.
        Mr. Culberson. Carbon sequestration would be a good way to
    go, right?
        Dr. Solomon. Carbon sequestration would in principle allow
    you to continue to burn coal and put the carbon back in the
    ground.
        Mr. Culberson. And we need to work on the technologies,
    Mike. And, I mean, I am with you. We have got to work on this
    technology and nano technology literally will allow us to make,
    for example, the electric grid, to carry electricity
    ballistically without any resistance to store electricity.
        Mr. Chairman, I can wrap this up in about two months, Mr.
    Chairman, if I have time. I have two minutes?
        Mr. Mollohan. Go ahead.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, sir. You are very indulgent.
        Mr. Mollohan is one of the most gracious Chairmen there is.
    He gives us plenty of time, particularly me. He gives me a lot
    of rope because I tend to go on a little bit. Thank you, guys,
    for the patience.
        But I am leading somewhere specifically because NOAA, and I
    really admire the work that you all do, I in looking at carbon
    sequestration techniques, this same article in the February
    9th, 2007 edition of Science points out that the uptake of
    carbon dioxide by the ocean combined, this is a direct quote,
    Mike, combined with dissolution of marine carbonate will absorb
    90 percent of the carbon released by human activities.
        You would agree with that? The ocean is the largest single
    carbon sink on the planet?
        Dr. Solomon. In the long run, yes.
        Mr. Culberson. Right. And that a cubic yard of mid ocean
    water contains less life as a general rule than a cubic yard of
    Sahara Desert sand. That is why the ocean is so clear.
        And that whenever there is a dust storm over Africa, the
    way, you know, the good Lord has designed the earth to balance
    these things out, the dust storm blows dust over the ocean. The
    plankton bloom and there is vast reductions in carbon dioxide,
    tremendous emissions of oxygen.
        And what I am driving you towards is that is it not true
    that we have seen that there is significant potential in
    fertilizing the ocean with iron to enhance the growth of
    phytoplankton as a way to sequester carbon rather dramatically;
    is it not? And Woods Hole Institute has been one of the leaders
    in this research.
        Dr. Solomon. There have been some studies of that effect.
    You are quite right. It is possible to do it. What is not
    completely clear is how long you keep the carbon in the ocean
    doing it that way. To what extent it comes right back out is
    one question. Another one is how much you also get of other
    things like N20, nitrous oxide.
        Mr. Culberson. Right. There has not been much research. Not
    much research has been done.
        Dr. Solomon. It is certainly a possibility.
        Mr. Culberson. Right.
        Dr. Solomon. But it is not one that is proven.
        Mr. Culberson. My time is so limited, I am going to close
    with another question and I hope I get a second chance.
        But, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask Dr. Solomon because our
    Committee, something I brought to the Committee's attention,
    and I would like to pursue, Mr. Chairman, with the Committee's
    support, that we direct some funding to NOAA for you to do the
    research to tell us what would be necessary in terms of
    sequestering carbon in the ocean using iron fertilization and
    in particular nano particles of iron oxide because all the
    research has been done using iron sulfate and that creates
    acid.
        And the nano particles of iron oxide would be taken up much
    more readily by the phytoplankton and the iron oxide would not
    create an acid situation because, of course, the absorption of
    carbon by the ocean raises the acidity level and, therefore, if
    you use iron oxide, you would not have the acidity problem.
        So would you, if I could, and my final question, my
    Chairman is gracious with the time, would you be agreeable to
    and could you do that research if this Committee directed some
    funding to NOAA for the specific purpose of telling us what,
    how much would be, what type of iron fertilization would be the
    best, how much carbon could the oceans take up, and what the
    side effects would be?
        Dr. Solomon. Geo engineering is certainly one of the things
    that people are doing research on. Iron fertilization is one
    option. There are other options that personally I think ought
    to be pursued as well. You are exactly right.
        Mr. Culberson. Personally, I am not asking your personal
    opinion. I am asking could NOAA do the research?
        Dr. Solomon. I really cannot speak to that. I certainly
    could not do it personally.
        Mr. Culberson. Oh, you could not?
        Dr. Solomon. It is not what I do. It is not what I do as an
    individual scientist.
        Mr. Culberson. Your focus is not carbon sequestration?
        Dr. Solomon. That is right.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay. But NOAA is certainly capable of doing
    the research. You have got other divisions.
        Dr. Solomon. I imagine NOAA has some capability in that
    area as do others.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your
    indulgence.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Culberson.
        Mr. Fattah.
        Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    having this hearing.
        First of all, welcome again.

                       LOCAL EFFECTS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY

        You talked a little bit in your testimony about
    reengineering and the concern as we move aggressively in terms
    of, hopefully aggressively in terms of renewable energy, wind
    and solar, about perhaps that there are issues still to be
    looked at in terms of the impact of wind power particularly and
    the uses of wind and whether there would be climate changes or
    issues to be concerned about.
        Could you expound on that a little bit?
        Dr. Solomon. Yes. It is very interesting that just the
    presence of the wind turbines when you have a lot of them in a
    given area, you create a lot of turbulence. And there are
    environments in which local meteorological changes have been
    observed like fog, you know, and changes in the stability of
    the atmosphere are pretty serious issues.
        So I am not suggesting that we should not pursue those, but
    there are things that would need to be resolved in choosing the
    places where it could be done without disturbing the
    environment too much.
        Mr. Fattah. Yes. I am a big fan of proceeding aggressively
    in this direction but obviously we do not want to cause more
    harm as we go forward. So I was very interested. Now, is there
    research that is being done now, looking into the question of
    the impact and how site locations might be best? I mean, for
    instance, Texas is moving aggressively in terms of wind
    generation and there are other places throughout the country.
    Is there now data informing those decisions as we speak? Or is
    this a new area of research that we need to invest in?
        Dr. Solomon. It is a new area of work. I think there is
    more and more research directed at trying to understand this
    issue in various parts of the country, not only for wind but
    also for other activities, like biofuel, and what the water
    demand to do biofuels is, how it could be met. So I think in
    all the areas of mitigation science there is a similar need for
    research to understand the environmental consequences of any of
    those mitigation activities. And yes, it is an area people have
    worked on for a long time but clearly more and more people are
    starting to work on these questions now.
        One of the big problems we have is actually not having
    models that have enough spatial resolution to really get down
    to the level that you need to get to to really study a lot of
    these things. And people are developing ways to get around
    that, basically, by using sort of nested approaches and things
    like that. But it is a very active research area.
        Mr. Fattah. Active at NOAA? Or over at the Department of
    Energy? Or where?
        Dr. Solomon. Both, I think it is fair to say both.
        Mr. Fattah. And is there cross fertilization in this
    research effort?
        Dr. Solomon. Yes. I think there is an emerging effort at
    cross fertilization. And, again, because it is a new area there
    are not a lot of people working on it yet. But I think there
    will be more and more. It is one of those things that has to
    develop.
        Mr. Fattah. Well, I want to, and you also mentioned this
    notion of reengineering relative. Can you talk a little bit
    about the general, beyond when, the other areas that need to be
    looked at in terms of the notion around reengineering? Because
    you mentioned solar, you mentioned sun redirection, and so on.

                   EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

        Dr. Solomon. Yes. I mean, I think we do not really know. If
    we begin to build solar rays so massive that they would, they
    would be working to provide the enormous demand for energy. So
    that energy would be going into the solar system rather than
    into the ground, as it would otherwise be doing. The local
    meteorological impacts of that, I think, are something to just
    take a careful look at and make sure it is understood. I think
    from the global point of view it is, you know, it is clear that
    it is not a huge problem. But locally, you know, when you are
    concentrating the energy, yes, yes. So that is one of the sorts
    of things.
        I think the biofuels we have a lot of questions. I mean,
    one obvious one is when you begin to use the available land to
    grow biofuels instead of food what are the impacts on food
    security are a serious issue. But the other one is what about
    the demand for water? And another one is what about the
    emissions of nitrous oxide, if you are going to fertilize all
    of that stuff. There are side gases that can be released. So
    the whole question of scientific understanding of the side
    effects, if you want to call them that, of all of these
    alternative energy approaches are, I think, merit our
    attention.

                 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN CLIMATE RESEARCH

        Mr. Fattah. Now lastly, you are connected with a number of
    the international scientific organizations, London, France. To
    what degree internationally is there collaboration and around
    these types of research points?
        Dr. Solomon. There is actually a lot of collaboration
    internationally. There obviously could be more and I think that
    pulling in the developing countries more and more is something
    that everyone would like to do in research and in the
    scientific endeavor in general. But the number of joint
    projects, joint experiments, joint satellites, all of those
    things, has gone up enormously in my career in science, anyway.
    And I think that is a very encouraging thing.
        Mr. Fattah. And last question, so there has been no, like,
    post-9/11 challenges relative to research related work that you
    are involved in, in terms of sharing of information and the
    like?
        Dr. Solomon. Well, I mean, the world has gotten a little
    bit harder to get around in in the post-9/11 era for all of us,
    as we know. And it has occasionally caused some problems. I
    think it is not at a level that is really impeding the kind of
    science communication that we need to have. And I very much
    hope that continues.
        Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                      ICE SHEET MELTING AND SEA LEVEL RISE

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. Just to get a clear,
    crisper answer on the record to the question that I was asking
    before yielding, what is the probability that the West
    Antarctic Ice Sheet could float or melt, or that the Greenland
    Ice Sheet could melt by 2050 and by 2100? And what would be the
    consequence of the sea level rise?
        Dr. Solomon. I can answer the second part of the question
    better than the first part. If West Antarctic were to
    completely melt it would produce about five meters, or about
    fifteen feet, of sea level rise. If Greenland were to
    completely melt it would produce about seven meters, or about
    twenty-one feet of sea level rise. So those are enormous
    numbers.
        We have not got the science to tell you what the
    probability of that happening by 2050 or 2100 is in either
    case. I cannot give you a probability. We have reasons to
    believe that probability is small. But it is not zero, and we
    do not know what it is.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, the phenomena is in process, is it not?
    The melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Greenland
    Ice Sheet?
        Dr. Solomon. We see local, rapid, and very impressive
    movement of ice in both of those places. But it is local. And
    we just do not know how much more we could get integrated over
    the whole ice sheet as the planet gets warmer. I guess----
        Mr. Mollohan. What does that mean? Say that again?
        Dr. Solomon. We see effects in particular places but it is
    very hard to extrapolate that to know what is going to happen
    over the size of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which is an enormous
    chunk of ice. But we just do not know enough to extrapolate
    from our local measurements to Greenland as a whole.
        We do know that the last time the Earth was warm, warmer
    than it is today, which was about 130,000 years ago, the polar
    regions were about three to five degrees warmer then than they
    are now. Which is about what they might get to by, say, late
    century. Two to four meters of sea level rise occurred. So sea
    level rise rose, went up by about that level. We do not know
    how fast that happened. It may have taken many hundreds of
    years or it may have been fast. We just do not know. But we do
    know that when the Arctic was warm and the Antarctic was warm
    130,000 years ago sea level was two to four meters higher than
    it is today.

                            REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE

        Mr. Mollohan. Looking at a recent consequence of climate
    change, in assessing ozone depletion the science community
    started with global average predictions. But experimental
    evidence, some of it from your own measurements in Antarctica,
    I am advised, led to a focus on a regional change, the ozone
    hole. In assessing climate change, what environmental factors
    should be viewed regionally and what globally?
        Dr. Solomon. The ozone hole, I think, was a compelling
    thing to many people because it allowed them to see a pattern
    of change. Not just a global change but a regional change, as
    you say. And I think some of the factors in climate change that
    we now are seeing in a very useful, regional way are,
    particularly those having to do with rainfall where although we
    have a fairly small change in rainfall globally averaged there
    is a pattern where some places get drier and other places get
    wetter. And we are seeing that both in data and in models. It
    is, I think, also well understood from the point of view of the
    way the physics work. It would be nice if, you know, the dry
    places got wetter and the wet places got drier. But
    unfortunately it is exactly the opposite. So it is particularly
    a place where the regional changes are very important. And our
    own Southwest U.S. is one of the places where we are beginning
    to see this. So rainfall is a very big one.
        The other issue, of course, is the Arctic where we expect
    to see the largest warming and we are seeing the largest
    warming. And we are seeing massive retreat of the sea ice
    extent, which is even faster than we expected. So the Arctic
    will be becoming more and more a different world. It is causing
    things like coastal erosion, because the absence of the sea ice
    means that the beach is no longer as protected as it used to
    be. So there are big problems with coastal erosion in
    Greenland, sorry in Alaska, I meant to say.
        The other thing that I think is very interesting from a
    point of view of regional change is snow pack. The nice thing
    about ice and snow is it is either ice and snow or it is not.
    So it is a very clear threshold. And because temperatures are
    warmer on mountain ranges all around the world what we are
    seeing is that on average it does not snow as much at low
    altitudes. So the snow line is moving up. And the amount of
    snow sequestered on the mountain at the end of the winter is
    reducing. So it is not as available to melt and provide water
    the following summer. And that sort of thing in California, in
    the Cascades, in the Rockies, in Europe in the Alps, is
    beginning to be a very, very clear regional signature of
    climate change. So those are some of what I view as the really
    clear regional patterns of climate change that are of concern.

                   RESPONSE OF GREENHOUSE GASES TO REDUCTIONS

        Mr. Mollohan. Emissions of chlorofluoromethanes, the major
    contributors to ozone depletion, have been banned for many
    years. But I am advised that the ozone hole still occurs and
    full recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer is decades away.
    Well, once human emissions of greenhouse gases from whatever
    country or from whatever source are greatly reduced, how
    rapidly will climate change respond?
        Dr. Solomon. It is very much dependent on the type of gas
    that is reduced and how long its lifetime in the atmosphere is.
    There are some greenhouse gases that are increasing because of
    human activities that do not live very long in the atmosphere,
    and a good example of that is tropospheric ozone. If you want
    to call it smog you can, but it is more of a global smog. That
    stuff only lives a short time. So if we were to stop the
    emissions that were causing it then the smog would go away
    fairly quickly and the climate would respond fairly quickly,
    time scale of a few years or so.
        In the case of methane the lifetime is about ten years. So,
    again, if you reduced emissions, and we have seen some evidence
    from reduced emissions from things like mining, activities like
    mining where people are starting to tighten up those
    activities, that should, in principle, give you a climate
    response rather quickly, time scale of a decade or so.
        Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, lives a very long time
    in our atmosphere. Most of it lives longer than a hundred
    years. There is a fraction that gets removed quickly, but that
    is a small fraction. Most of it hangs around for a very long
    time. And in fact, some of it will still be here even in a
    thousand years. So about 20 percent, actually, of what we are
    producing of carbon dioxide will still be in the atmosphere a
    thousand years from now, which is a long time.
        The climate changes from carbon dioxide actually only,
    well, let me see if I can explain this. Carbon dioxide has a
    unique effect in climate because not only does it take a long
    time for it to go away, the time scale at which it is going
    away is matched very closely by the time scale in which the
    climate can actually respond. So what ends up happening is that
    the temperatures are essentially irreversible. The increases in
    temperature are essentially irreversible once you have cranked
    up the carbon dioxide. You can crank the carbon dioxide back
    down, but the warming actually remains nearly constant for
    about a thousand years. It is essentially irreversible. And the
    reason is because there is a bit of a time lag associated with
    the oceans. That is the fundamental problem here. And it causes
    the temperature that we get as carbon dioxide increases to be a
    little bit less than what its equilibrium value would be. And
    then it causes the temperatures to stay just about where you
    got them to for many hundreds of years. So the two things work
    together. The oceans and the carbon removal work together to
    keep the temperatures almost constant for about a thousand
    years or more. So we can only crank that dial one way. We have
    to decide how far we want to crank it.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, you may have spoken to my next question
    but let me ask it. In the context of different nations'
    responsibility for climate change Dr. James Hansen has pointed
    out that the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today has
    come primarily from countries that have been industrialized for
    decades or more, and that the full effects of these past
    emissions have yet to occur. Can you explain this and to what
    extent did you just explain it in your last answer?
        Dr. Solomon. That is related to that thing I just
    discussed. Even if we kept carbon dioxide and all of the other
    climate forcing factors constant, the atmosphere would continue
    to warm by about a half to .6 degrees Celsius, or let us say
    almost a degree Fahrenheit. And most of that would happen in
    the next century. And the reason is that right now the ocean in
    a sense is lagging the atmosphere. You can kind of imagine
    that, you know, air that absorbs a certain amount of heat. But
    the ocean being much colder is lagging behind. If we kept the
    concentration of everything constant the ocean would have a
    chance to catch up, and then the atmosphere would in turn also
    get a little bit warmer. So that is the factor that Hansen was
    referring to. And that also has a role to play in the
    irreversible climate change that I was talking about before.
    So, yes, this is linked to my previous answer. But it is about
    a degree of further warming.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Thank you, doctor. Mr. Wolf.

                                 DEFORESTATION

        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two questions, doctor.
    How significant in impact is clear cutting in Brazil and
    around? And also here in the United States. And is there a
    formal program with regard to planting of trees, encouraging,
    and formal programs that can sort of ameliorate that, or
    balance it out, or whatever? But can you talk about the impact
    of clear cutting? How much that is making a contribution, and
    also how do you deal with that other than just stopping it? But
    can you make up the difference?
        Dr. Solomon. Deforestation accounts for something like 15
    to 20 percent of the total carbon emissions, and the rest of
    from fossil fuel burning.
        Mr. Wolf. And where is most of that clear cutting being
    done?
        Dr. Solomon. Mostly in places like Brazil. A lot of it is
    in South America. Some is in Indonesia. I do not have off the
    top of my head the full list but those are the main ones.

                         DEFORESTATION & CLIMATE CHANGE

        Mr. Wolf. And by having an aggressive program of planting
    trees, wherever it may very well be around the world, how
    significant can that be with regard to----
        Dr. Solomon. Certainly----
        Mr. Wolf. Is there one for one? Or is it a mature tree
    versus a tree that is only five years old? Is there any kind of
    balance there?
        Dr. Solomon. Well, that is a good question. I am not sure I
    can give you a very quantitative answer on it. Certainly
    avoiding deforestation, or replanting, are really two different
    things.
        Mr. Wolf. Right.
        Dr. Solomon. Right? So replanting would slowly give you a
    significant effect. If we were to plant as much as we possibly
    could I think some estimates have it that we could offset I
    think about 10 to 15 percent of today's carbon emissions. But I
    would have to check that to be absolutely sure.
        Mr. Wolf. I guess what, I was not clear, too, like out in
    Oregon and places like that, for every tree they cut they
    generally plant one or two or three, Weyerhaeuser, the
    companies, whatever it may be. How significant is it, such as a
    tree that is cut, say at, a twenty-five year old tree, versus
    putting several new seedlings in that are one or two years old.
    Is there a, is the fact that it is growing whereas the other
    has kind of stopped its growing, making a different insofar as
    the impact? Or is it, how does that balance out? And maybe you
    cannot answer that, maybe you should just check for the record.
    But do you follow what I am saying?
        We put a new seedling in, okay, we have a Christmas tree
    farm and we cut the tree, the trees are beginning to stop
    growing at a certain age. It still is growing but not to the
    spurt that you get, versus we put brand new seedlings in, they
    grow about a foot a year. The growth is more aggressive, there
    are more trees, but they are smaller. Is there a trade off
    there? Or does that have a balance? Does that make, have----
        Dr. Solomon. Yes. The young trees grow faster, exactly,
    than the old trees.
        Mr. Wolf. Right. And do they make a greater impact on----
        Dr. Solomon. So, yes, the more you replant the more you can
    actually have a positive impact.
        Mr. Wolf. Yes, but----
        Dr. Solomon. But it depends on what happens to the wood in
    the old tree.
        Mr. Wolf. Right. I understand that. But, I mean, how can I
    put this, one for one, is the fact that the tree is growing
    aggressively having a better impact on global warming than a
    tree that is mature, and old, and is not growing very, very
    much at all? Is there a balance, a trade off, a difference? Do
    you get more with that new seedling after five years than you
    do with a tree that is thirty-five years old?
        Dr. Solomon. Sure. In principle, the young trees certainly
    grow faster. And there are varieties of trees that are the
    fastest growing that are used in places that are trying to do
    reforestation projects to help the carbon budget.
        Mr. Wolf. Now is that being looked at? Are there any
    programs down in, say, Brazil and Indonesia that are
    aggressively looking at that?
        Dr. Solomon. Yes. The danger, of course, is that you have
    to decide how much you want to encourage deforestation of old
    growth forests in order to----
        Mr. Wolf. Well, I was not thinking of cutting one for one.
    I was thinking taking areas that have now been plundered and
    stripped. I mean, we have strip mines down in West Virginia and
    in Pennsylvania that they are coming in a putting trees in that
    are making a tremendous, positive difference. I mean, looking
    to reclaim, if you will.
        Dr. Solomon. Yes. Reforestation is certainly a very active
    area that is being looked at.
        Mr. Wolf. I mean, is that one of the recommendations that
    the international panels are looking at? Or is that just sort
    of an afterthought? Or is it something aggressively people are
    saying to do, to push? Are there formal programs pushing that?
        Dr. Solomon. IPCC does not recommend anything and we do try
    to avoid pushing anything. But there are numbers in our reports
    for how much you can actually achieve with that kind of an
    approach. It is one of several options that can be a good one.

                                    ETHANOL

        Mr. Wolf. Okay. A last issue is what impact do you see this
    having on the world, you know, ethanol? Some are saying it is
    10 percent, and would like to go to 15. What impact does all
    this have on the issue of hunger in and around the world? Do
    you see this taking place, say, five, ten, fifteen, twenty
    years from now?
        Dr. Solomon. Yes, it is a big issue how much food
    production is potentially going to be affected by increases in
    biofuels.
        Mr. Wolf. And how about the climate issue, too? What impact
    is that going to have? You talked about drought earlier, on
    food supply around the world in ten, fifteen, twenty years? I
    mean, we have had a famine in Ethiopia in 1984 and the world
    was electrified. The famine came again in the mid-nineties. I
    mean, they have not done very much. They have not done very
    much reforestation. They have done very, very little. So people
    have died because of that. What impact will this have on
    particularly third world countries and the poor with regard to
    this, enough food supply?
        Dr. Solomon. Clearly, it is going to make it more difficult
    to grow food in those regions that are going to see less
    rainfall. And especially developing countries where all of the
    agriculture is rain fed, in Africa in particular. They do not
    have irrigation like what we have. So climate change is
    projected to have a very significant impact on the world's
    ability to grow food, particularly in the developing world.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I am late. I
    was attending another hearing, and Happy St. Patrick's to all.
    Doctor, we have an unwritten rule around here and a rule in the
    House, where we usually do not speak to the audience. We speak
    to our witnesses and to each other. Sometimes we do not listen
    but that is what we try to do. But I cannot help but notice the
    number of young people that are in this room right now behind
    you. And it seems that when I was their age I do not remember
    this many ice storms, or floods, or these kinds of things
    happening which are so horrible, not only in our country but
    throughout the world. My question to you is, was it always this
    bad but we did not have CNN, and Fox, and the internet to tell
    me about it in thirty seconds after it happened, or has it
    gotten worse? Or is it a combination of both?

                            SEVERE WEATHER & CLIMATE

        Dr. Solomon. I would say it is a bit of a combination of
    both. There are some of these things that happen very
    infrequently, and they are always impressive when they do, so
    there is always a temptation to say, ``Uh-huh, that must be
    global warming,'' which is probably not always correct. But the
    example you gave of flooding I think is a particularly
    interesting one. We are seeing clearly that we are seeing more
    rain falling as heavy rain now compared to light rain than we
    used to see. We are seeing that worldwide. We understand it
    physically. It is exactly what we expect. So instead of having,
    you know, just a little bit of light rain, the same amount of
    moisture might fall but more of it is going to fall in those
    big, heavy events. That, obviously, will contribute to
    flooding. So I think that it is pretty clear that that is an
    example of the kind of thing that you can hold up and say,
    ``Yes, we understand that. That should be happening and we know
    why it is.''
        Other things are a lot more difficult to say. Not all kinds
    of extreme events are due to climate change. But heat waves,
    another good example where we are seeing more frequent and more
    intense heat waves. So there are certainly many different kinds
    of climate change that are different now than they were for the
    young people in this room.
        Mr. Serrano. I remember something interesting. I was
    interviewed recently by PBS and they asked me what is the
    greatest accomplishment of the Puerto Rican community in New
    York City, and I said adjusting to the weather. And it threw
    them for a loop. And I remember in March of 1950 arriving in
    New York and it seemed to me that it stayed around, it stayed
    colder longer in New York City than it stays now. Or at least
    it felt that way. Yet, it seems that we have less, not as many
    frequent snowfalls but when they fall, they fall with an
    intensity that they did not fall before. Now, again, am I
    imagining this? Is this CBS and CNN, you know, pounding it into
    my head for 24/7? Or has that also changed?
        And my last question has to do with an ongoing gag in these
    committees, how long before Congressman Serrano mentions Cuba
    or Puerto Rico? And the question is, are we looking at a day
    when climate change will not have us know areas as we know them
    now? The tropics will become colder, and the north will become
    warmer?
        Dr. Solomon. The last one is pretty easy. I think there is
    no evidence that the tropics will become colder.
        Mr. Serrano. No evidence?
        Dr. Solomon. Everybody is going to become warmer. But the
    high latitudes will become warmer to a greater degree than the
    low latitudes. So tropical places will warm, just not as much
    as higher latitudes. And the highest latitudes in the Arctic
    will warm most of all.
        Your other question was about more snow and more heavy
    snow. That kind of goes along with what I said about rainfall.
    I said rainfall, but I really meant precipitation. And you are
    right. There is every reason to believe that we are seeing on
    average more snowfall and more heavy snowfall, particularly in
    the Arctic. I think it is a little harder to say for New York
    but it is probably just emerging from the noise, from the
    variability.

                               FUTURE GENERATIONS

        Mr. Serrano. Yes. Do I have a few seconds here, Mr.
    Chairman? And my last comment or question has to do with the
    folks that are in the room, and it has to do, according to my
    question here, with third graders. And you might have answered
    this already. If you walked into a room, a classroom of third
    graders, or you went into some of the classrooms where some of
    these younger people may be attending these days, without the
    gloom and doom scenario that you do not want to present, nobody
    wants to present, what would you tell them about what is in
    store for the future? And I know this is an unfair question, in
    twenty-five words or less to tell me, you know, what would you
    tell them they can do?
        Dr. Solomon. Well, I guess the first thing that I would
    tell them is that their world will be different from the world
    that any previous generation had experienced, because their
    climate will have been changed by human beings. Sometimes when
    I am making a joke I tell them that this is a really good thing
    you can blame on your parents, and they like that. But I think
    the real interesting thing here is that this is such a
    challenge to society. It is such a challenge for us as a world,
    as a planet, to figure out what we are going to do about this,
    that they do have an opportunity to be part of a change which
    will go down in history as one of the most important things
    that we ever decided to do. One way or the other. We are either
    going to decide to keep emitting at current rates, and make the
    future world dramatically different from the past, or we are
    going to make some decisions that will slow it down and
    possibly stop it. And that is an incredibly important set of
    decisions.
        When you think about the fact that they geography of the
    planet that we see right there on the wall behind us will be
    potentially made different by the actions that we are doing
    right now. We will either bury or not bury a lot of islands. We
    will change the shape of Florida, or not change the shape of
    Florida. We will----
        Mr. Serrano. That is inviting to some people, you know,
    but----
        Dr. Solomon. Well, I thought Florida might be of interest
    to you, sir.
        Mr. Mollohan. What happens to Puerto Rico?
        Ms. Solomon. Probably, it depends on, you know, it is not a
    pretty picture for island nations. And, you know, the drought
    issue, and the accompanying desertification. If you look at
    that map and you see the, you know, the Sahara, and you think
    about what is really happening is the Sahara is expanding
    northward into Southern Europe. That is what I mean when I say
    those places are going to get drier. And you look at our
    country, Southwest U.S. will begin to look like, you know, the
    middle of Mexico, the very dry regions of Mexico. So it is, it
    is a change the likes of which the world has never seen.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And just a thought.
    You know, we spend a lot of time in this country talking to
    other countries about how they should behave in terms of their
    form of government. And that is okay for us to do that. But I
    wonder if we should not evoke just as much energy talking to
    other countries about trees, and about water, and about the
    air. Because at the end of the day it does not matter if you
    are a socialist, a communist, or a Democrat. If the world looks
    the way the doctor is telling us the bigger issue may be the
    world and not the form of government it has within that
    country. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. Mr. Honda.

                             CLIMATE CHANGE METRICS

        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We touched a little bit
    on flashpoints. And the discussion about the impact of the
    possibility of the permafrost softening up, the impact of the
    bacteria action creating CO2 and methane, not
    knowing when that happens, decoralization, seeing the corals of
    the ocean now disappearing because of other kinds of
    activities. And seeing all this, anticipating all of these
    things happening, how would we as a nation and as a globe
    create a calendar of events, looking at checkpoints,
    milestones, and coupling that with the lack of progress or
    progress? Is there a way that we can measure and have a metric
    going on that will show us the impact of every policy that we
    do? And its dynamics on this thing we call global warming, or
    climate change? Because none of this happens in a linear
    fashion, you know? We all impact something in another way.
        And one thing that we have not talked about is diseases.
    How the impact of diseases will be enhanced, or will occur in a
    greater, maybe in an epidemic fashion if we do not pay
    attention to this global change? And the change of our
    environment to a warmer climate? What kinds of metrics should
    we be looking at to develop so that the sense of a tick, tick,
    tick time bomb in our own beings will affect our behavior and
    our sense of urgency?
        Dr. Solomon. Well, you mentioned coral reefs and they are
    also one of the things that I think is a good metric. We are
    already seeing damage to coral reefs. We will probably see a
    lot more in coming years. The issue of ocean acidification is a
    big issue for coral reefs as well as temperature changes. So as
    the carbon dioxide acidifies the ocean the coral reefs are
    getting hit from all sides. The way that is affecting other
    marine factors is also something that I think is a metric we
    ought to be looking at. Things like the viability of fish, the
    populations of fish and how they are likely to be affected.
        Human disease is a really important factor as well. I am
    not sure there is an easy metric there. But the one that seems
    to be the most obvious is that because of increases heavy
    rainfall there are increases in experiences of cholera and
    other waterborne diseases in the developing world. So those are
    the kinds of things that certainly are of great importance to
    look at.
        You know, the difficulty in a sense with climate change is
    that the wider you look the more you find. There are so many
    different things. In my own part of the world in Colorado one
    of the things that really concerns me are the changes that we
    are seeing in our pine forests, which are beginning to be
    attacked by pine beetles in a way that seems to be more intense
    than it ever was before. It is hard to know because we have
    seen pine beetle outbreaks in Colorado before. But we are
    seeing it much more extensively now. And in British Columbia,
    just a little to our north, I think it is more clear that the
    pine beetle devastation there is being caused by global
    warming.
        So almost wherever you look you can find a metric that will
    matter to the people who live in that place. And it is really
    the diversity of effects in climate that I think makes it hard
    for some people to get their minds around. It is hard to find
    that universal, single factor. But I guess again I keep coming
    back to it. If I had to name the ones that concerned me the
    most it is part, number one is rainfall, and the way that that
    is affecting our ability to grow food, and the way it is
    affecting ecosystems is probably going to be huge. And I think
    we are already seeing it. You mentioned coral reefs. I would
    maybe broaden that to biodiversity hotspots in general around
    the world. And that could include the pine beetle, for example.
    Human disease is another one but much more difficult to
    quantify.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Honda. Mr. Culberson.

                      SEA LEVEL RISE AND ICE SHEET MELTING

        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Dr. Solomon,
    forgive me for interrupting you earlier. My time is so limited
    that I have to try to bore in quickly. You testified a moment
    ago, I thought I heard you say that the, if the Greenland Ice
    Sheet were to melt entirely the ocean levels would rise by how
    many meters?
        Dr. Solomon. Seven meters.
        Mr. Culberson. I am sorry?
        Dr. Solomon. Seven.
        Mr. Culberson. Seven meters. And Antarctic was fifteen
    meters?
        Dr. Solomon. Five.
        Mr. Culberson. I am sorry, five. Okay, five, Antarctic. All
    right. And the erosion, or reduction in the Greenland and West
    Antarctic Ice Sheet cannot be attributed entirely to global
    warming. There is an interesting article I picked up in the
    October 3, 2008 of Science that points out that the, they have
    got, quoting from the article, ``two new studies point to
    random wind induced circulation changes in the ocean, not
    global warming, as the dominant cause of the recent ice losses
    in Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.'' The scientists
    doing the study said conclusively, quoting from the article,
    ``In Greenland, at least, you are going to have trouble blaming
    this on global warming, says glaciologist Richard Alley of
    Pennsylvania State University in State College.'' He points out
    in the article that the losses long puzzle glaciologists
    because the atmosphere of the glaciers did not seem to have
    warmed enough to trigger the ice losses and that they went back
    and looked at the records of fisheries researchers. They had
    recorded bottom temperatures off Southwest Greenland from 1991
    to 2006. And they traced the influx of, the ocean apparently
    became much warmer, Mr. Chairman, during this time frame. And
    the scientists traced the influx of ocean warmth back to the
    atmosphere over the North Atlantic. And quoting from the
    article again, ``An abrupt weakening of winds due to a natural
    phenomenon known as the North Atlantic Oscillation drove more
    water from the Irminger Sea near Iceland, around the tip of
    Greenland, up onto the shelf and under the ice. And that
    triggered the ice loss. So we cannot, is that not true? These
    studies are valid?
        Dr. Solomon. I do not disagree with any of that. That is
    why----
        Mr. Culberson. Okay. So you cannot attribute the loss in
    ice in Greenland, in particular, to global warming?
        Dr. Solomon. That is why we did not put a number for how
    much further sea level rise you might see in 2100 due to the
    Greenland Ice Sheet in the report.
        Mr. Culberson. Right. I just want to be sure----
        Dr. Solomon. That is exactly----
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Because your answer to the
    Chairman's question----
        Mr. Fattah. Would you let the witness finish her answer?
        Mr. Culberson. I am sorry, certainly. Yes, ma'am?
        Dr. Solomon. I do not disagree with any of that. As I said,
    it is really hard to extrapolate from what we are seeing now to
    know how much sea level rise from the whole ice sheet to
    expect. I fully agree that that is an issue.
        Mr. Culberson. Right. But I want to make sure that the
    Chairman and the Committee, because your answer to the Chairman
    was that it, as I understood your answer, was that the loss of
    ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet was due to global warming. And I
    just want to make sure that the Chairman and the Committee
    understand that it is, in the case of Greenland in particular,
    they have shown conclusively it is wind induced oscillations.
        Dr. Solomon. I think----
        Mr. Culberson. Driving warmer water up underneath the
    sheet.
        Dr. Solomon. I think there is good evidence that some of it
    is due to global warming. There is good evidence, also, that in
    the last few years the wind system was unusual and probably
    contributed to some of the losses.
        Mr. Culberson. Right.
        Dr. Solomon. So I think it is a bit of both.
        Mr. Culberson. Right. I just think it is important for
    clarification, Mr. Chairman, that we do not attribute it
    entirely to, and there is no question CO2 is at, as
    the, another interesting article I picked up points out, and
    this is from the October 24, 2004 Journal of Science, that
    current atmospheric CO2 levels, Mr. Chairman, are
    higher than they have been for the last full 130,000 years. I
    am not diminishing that at all, Mr. Fattah and Mr. Chairman,
    and Dr. Solomon. It is higher than it has been for tens of
    millions of years. And over the next 100 years, the article
    states, without substantial changes in energy technology or
    economic development atmospheric CO2 concentrations
    will rise to 800 to 1000 parts per million, as you have
    testified. This rise, quoting from the article, Mr. Chairman,
    ``this rise represents a spectacular, uncontrolled experiment
    that humans are performing on the earth,'' and that the
    paleoclimate record may provide the best guess as to what may
    happen as a result.

                             OTHER GREENHOUSE GASES

        Very briefly, they point out at the end of the Eocene era
    50 million years ago there were palm trees growing in Wyoming,
    and there was no permanent ice cap, ice sheets at either pole.
    And that this is astonishing, I think it says in here, yes,
    ``deep water ocean temperatures more than ten degrees warmer
    than today.'' So there is no question what we are seeing today
    is an unprecedented increase in the levels of CO2,
    and clearly CO2 is the primary source, the primary
    greenhouse gas. However, it is not the only greenhouse gas. Is
    that not correct? I mean, methane also has a pretty dramatic
    impact in increasing atmospheric temperatures, does it not?
    Methane?
        Dr. Solomon. Methane's increase is about, contributing
    about a third as much as carbon dioxide to today's warming.
        Mr. Culberson. Right. I think they call it the reflective,
    the radiative forcing of non-greenhouse gases contribute an
    additional one watt per square meter of temperature increase
    compared to CO2, which is 1.6. So you are exactly
    right. It is about a third.
        I wondered if I could, Mr. Chairman, also to follow up. Dr.
    Solomon, you said that the earth will see essentially a one-
    half to one degree increase in global temperatures even if
    CO2 remains at current levels, and that that
    temperature increase is irreversible with carbon dioxide levels
    remaining at their current levels. That was your testimony a
    minute ago?

                              CARBON SEQUESTRATION

        Now, that is not entirely accurate because it is not, the
    CO2 levels are not irreversible. I just, we just
    established for the record that 90 percent of the carbon
    dioxide removed from the atmosphere is removed by the ocean,
    and that you agreed it is proven scientifically, we have got a
    number of studies that show that you can fertilize the ocean
    and remove dramatic amounts of carbon dioxide. So we can
    reverse the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with
    ocean fertilization, carbon sequestration techniques that are
    well established. Woods Hole, the scientist that does this says
    that if you give him a tanker of iron ore he will give you an
    Ice Age. And one of the things I really want us to pursue, Mr.
    Chairman, is to get some research done on this. Because it, I
    think we should certainly do the research on carbon
    sequestration since it is possible to remove dramatic amounts
    of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by fertilizing the ocean.
    We want to make sure it is done properly using, and I think you
    are going to find carbon nanoparticles, nanoparticles of iron
    oxide as the most effective way to do it. And that NOAA is
    perfectly suited to do this research. But that before we launch
    on a program, as the witness has testified, to cut petroleum
    consumption in the United States by 50 percent by 2030, which
    Mr. Barton tells me would drive the United States back to the
    output levels of 1920. And certainly we are going to have new
    technology. But I think in light of the recession and the
    economic difficulties we are facing it is not a good idea to
    pass legislation driving American industrial production back to
    the levels of 1920 at a time of potentially an economic
    depression. Before we launch into that, Mr. Chairman, I want us
    to, if we could, seriously explore carbon sequestration using
    fertilizing the ocean with nanoparticles of iron oxide before
    we drive America back to the industrial production levels of
    1920.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well I----
        Mr. Culberson. That is where we need to go, right, Dr.
    Solomon? Forgive me, Mr. Chairman, if I could just get her to
    comment on that.
        Dr. Solomon. If I may just clarify. Yes, in the absence of
    ways to take the carbon out of the atmosphere, in the absence
    of geoengineering to remove the carbon, the warming is
    irreversible. But you are right, if you could remove the
    carbon, that is a different story.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, we are going to leave the remedies, the
    substantive remedies to the authorizing committees. But what we
    are doing here today, and what the gentleman is helping doing,
    is laying a good scientific foundation for our decisions with
    regard to funding of various programs. And also research into
    promising technologies and techniques that address the
    problems. Mr. Fattah?
        Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am basically done. I
    do not, I am not taking issue with what was said. I do want to
    clarify the record, however, because I think the Chairman just
    asked you what level would we have in terms of a rise if there
    was a melting in terms of the ice sheet. And when my colleague
    rephrased it I think he put it in a different context. But the
    important point is, I think, that the issue needs to be, you
    know, at the very forefront. And both in terms of how to slow
    emissions and to slow the issue of the loss of trees, which is
    also a compounding issue in terms of this problems. But also to
    think more clearly about what we could do about reengineering,
    also, and to foresee any problems that may happen as we go
    about combating this significant challenge.
        But I do want to thank the Chairman for the hearing, and
    thank the witness. Thank you.

                         U.S. PARTICIPATION IN THE IPCC

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. The Intergovernmental
    Panel on Climate Change is by definition an international
    effort. And this is critically important because all nations,
    as has been pointed out here today in various questions from
    various members of the panel, because all nations are being
    asked to participate in decreasing the emission of greenhouse
    gases. To what extent is the U.S. climate community providing
    leadership in the IPCC process? And is this important to the
    quality and success of the IPCC assessments?
        Dr. Solomon. The U.S. has been among the key contributors
    to IPCC from its inception, I think, in 1988. We have made
    major contributions to all three parts of the panel's work. So
    science, the impacts and vulnerability, also the mitigation
    studies. I think it is fair to say that IPCC's success owes a
    great deal to the research and the researchers in the U.S. And
    I am very pleased to have been able to be part of that.

             INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ON EXCHANGE OF CLIMATE DATA

        Mr. Mollohan. What is the state of international
    cooperation in the acquisition and provision of climate data?
        Dr. Solomon. That has actually improved quite a lot in
    recent years, but there is more to do. Maybe ten years ago or
    so there were countries that were really keeping their data
    very close and were not willing to share it with the
    international organizations that distribute it, or with other
    countries. But a large number of those have been brought in
    now. And a lot of that has succeeded because of efforts of
    scientists who meet with other, with their colleagues in other
    countries, and discuss the value of the data, the reasons why
    the data needs to be freed up. And so it has really had a lot
    of success, I think, in freeing up the data and making it more
    available. There is more that needs to be done, but a large
    improvement has happened in about the last five to ten years.

                EFFECTS OF IPCC ASSESSMENTS ON CLIMATE RESEARCH

        Mr. Mollohan. Having led the production of Volume I of the
    2007 IPCC Report, which you did, how does production of these
    assessments affect climate change research and the climate
    science community?
        Dr. Solomon. Well I think the influence on research is very
    interesting. When we work on these assessments it does, I
    think, enrich us as researchers. It gives us a broadened view
    of our science. And I think it is fair to say that very few
    people finish an experience of working on that kind of thing
    without feeling that they have learned a tremendous amount that
    has helped them in their own work. It is also, I think it is
    fair to say, a way to be ambassadors of science to scientists
    in other countries and also to the public. It allows us to do
    some things that really are very unique in the regard of
    capacity building across the scientific community
    internationally.
        It is also, though, incredibly demanding and it does take a
    lot of time away from doing one's own research. It is probably
    right about at the limit of the amount of effort that people
    can devote to it. It has been very popular so people have asked
    for more and more products. And while that has been helpful it
    has gotten to the point where it would be difficult to do more.
        I think the other thing that I want to mention is the
    importance of keeping the research design separate from the
    assessment. One wants to keep the science independent. And one
    does not want to have the assessments drive the science too
    much. And they do not. The way it is currently formulated there
    is a very careful and strong separation between the doing of
    research, the funding of research, the type of thing that you
    do, of course, and the assessment activities. And I think that
    separation is healthy all the way around. But it is important
    to know what the users want and that is an aspect of it as
    well.
        Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Solomon, I have a few more questions even
    in this line of questioning and then some to submit for the
    record other than that. But we are getting to the witching hour
    and I want to make sure every member of the panel has two
    rounds of questioning. And Mr. Schiff has returned so I am
    going to yield to Mr. Schiff. Mr. Schiff.

                       LOCAL EFFECTS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY

        Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief.
    I just have one follow up question on your written testimony.
    You mentioned that new questions arise regarding some of the
    alternative sources of energy, such as how a large solar or
    wind array might modify local climates. I have heard arguments
    made about this, and I apologize if one of my colleagues has
    already asked you about this. But I am interested to know, you
    know, what the state of knowledge is on this. Some of the
    opponents of renewable energy claim that the wind towers are
    going to cool, or may raise temperatures by taking the energy
    from the wind, and the solar arrays may have a reflective
    impact adverse to global warming. What do we know? And what
    additional methods of gathering data do we need to get good
    answers to those questions?
        Dr. Solomon. Yes, it is a very difficult question because a
    lot of the effects are extremely local, or associated with the
    presence of the array in a particular region. So you are really
    drilling down to a level of understanding of the meteorology
    that is, at least in the long term, how it is going to change
    in the long term, is very hard for us to quantify.
        Mr. Schiff. Is even a large, a very large solar array, I
    mean, just by way of background, I may have mentioned this at a
    prior hearing, I was very encouraged visiting an organization
    called Idealab out in my district that spins off a lot of new
    high tech companies. They spun off a company called eSolar
    which will open a solar power plant in a couple of months that
    will, for the first time, through a combination of technology
    that tracks the sun's movement and concentrates sunlight on a
    smaller surface area, produce electricity through solar cheaper
    than you would through natural gas, which I think is a real
    milestone. It will be the first basically non-subsidized solar
    energy. You do not need to subsidize something that is already
    cheaper than the alternative.
        But even with a--and these are scalable--they can be small
    or you can scale them up large. But even with a large solar
    array, does it really have a demonstrable impact even on the
    local climate?
        Dr. Solomon. It depends on the environment, as far as the
    local climate goes. I think you are exactly right that on the
    large scale, you know, the effect on global climate can readily
    be calculated and it is not big. But when you put something
    really concentrated in small region it merits a little bit of
    attention, at least, as to, you know, how big of a local
    perdivation might this be. And I think we have to look at those
    kinds of things carefully. Case by case could be certainly
    quite different. I am afraid I cannot give you a general answer
    on that.
        Mr. Schiff. I mean, how would it even, scientifically how
    would it even work? I mean, how, let us look at a wind farm.
    What, are you reducing the force of the winds because you are
    taking the energy from the winds, and therefore downwind you
    have less energetic winds? And is that the impact you would be
    looking at?
        Dr. Solomon. I think one of the main concerns with wind is
    the fact that it stirs up the nighttime boundary layer. So
    normally at night the lowest layer of the atmosphere becomes,
    you know, quite stable. But when you have a lot of these big
    wind turbines in a concentrated region you can actually stir
    that up, and really change the local meteorology. So, as I
    understand it, that is one of the questions to look at. Whether
    that is a problem or not, you know, lots of places it probably
    would not be.
        With the case of solar, you know, you are absorbing a great
    deal of energy that would otherwise be hitting the ground in
    that area. How much of a local change that produces, and
    whether that is an issue or not is, again, the kind of question
    that I think people are really trying to ask in a very careful
    way, project by project. It is only, I think, to say that we
    cannot afford to ignore side effects, just as I would be
    concerned about the ability to geoengineer and be sure that
    everything was fine before we understood everything, I think we
    also have to at least devote some attention to what the
    alternatives might do to us.
        Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                               CLOSING STATEMENT

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. And Dr. Solomon, thank
    you so much for your testimony here today. We appreciate the
    benefit of what has been very expert testimony. Your taking
    time to do that and your contribution to this issue generally
    are very much appreciated. We look forward to working with you
    in the coming days and weeks and months on these issues. We
    will turn to you for advice in the future if that is all right.
    And most immediately, we will turn to you for comment on some
    questions that members may want to submit for the record. And I
    know that I certainly want to. You have laid a great foundation
    for the hearings to come this week and, again, we are very
    appreciative of your testimony and your appearance here today.
    Thank you.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.026

                                             Wednesday, March 18, 2009.

                   CRITICAL SATELLITE CLIMATE CHANGE DATASETS

                                   WITNESSES

    DR. ANTONIO BUSALACCHI, PH.D, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
    DR. TOM KARL, PHD, NOAA CLIMATE DATA CENTER

                     Opening Statement by Chairman Mollohan

        Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order. Our Ranking
    Minority Member Mr. Wolf will be along shortly, but he has
    asked that we proceed. So good afternoon, Dr. Busalacchi.
        Mr. Mollohan. And Dr. Karl. I have a son named Carl.
    Welcome before the Committee on Commerce, Justice, Science and
    Related Agencies. We appreciate your coming today to help us
    understand the requirements for long term satellite
    observations to support the understanding, prediction, and
    monitoring of climate change and the specific characteristics
    required of the systems that provide them.
        Requirements for precision, accuracy, calibration, and
    continuity influence cost, but meeting these requirements is
    critical to getting value from investments in Earth
    observations. For example, the just enacted Omnibus
    Appropriation for Fiscal Year 2009 provides $74 million to
    restore two climate instruments to the payload of the NPOESS
    satellite, and $150 million to accelerate development of Earth
    observation satellites recommended by the National Research
    Council. In addition, the resulting data must be preserved; it
    must be managed, and made available for analysis.
        We have asked each of you to focus on the critical insight
    into climate change contributed by particular sets of satellite
    observations, together with ground-based, ship, aircraft,
    balloon, and buoy instruments.
        Dr. Busalacchi, we have asked you to cover oceans data, an
    example of which is displayed on the wall behind me. Satellite
    remote sensing has proven quite helpful in oceanography even
    though the penetration of electromagnetic radiation into ocean
    water is limited. Dr. Karl, you have dedicated many years to
    leading the National Climate Data Center with its treasure of
    atmospheric data. We have asked you to cover atmospheric
    observations and the role and requirements of climate data
    systems.
        Your written statements will be made a part of the record.
    And let me welcome you, thank you for taking time, traveling
    distances, to be with us today. We very much appreciate the
    opportunity to have the benefit of your expertise. We will be
    referring to it as we process this appropriation bill. And we
    look forward to your testimony. As I mentioned, your written
    statements will be made a part of the record and Dr.
    Busalacchi, why do you not proceed?
        Dr. Busalacchi. Thank you, Chairman Mollohan.
        Mr. Mollohan. Because if I wait for you to be second I
    might forget how to pronounce it.

                               Opening Statement

        Dr. Busalacchi. Very good. Thank you, Chairman Mollohan,
    members of the Committee. Thanks for this opportunity to
    testify before you this afternoon. I am Dr. Tony Busalacchi,
    Director of the Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center
    and Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science at the
    University of Maryland. I also--go Terps! I also serve as Chair
    of the Joint Scientific Committee for the World Climate
    Research Program. And I will use my time today to summarize the
    key role of oceanographic satellite observations in advancing
    climate understanding and prediction.
        Satellite measurements have revolutionized our
    understanding of ocean circulation, marine biology, and
    interactions with the atmosphere. I am often asked the
    question, ``If we cannot predict our weather more than a week
    in advance, why should one believe we can predict future
    climate?'' The answer to that question rests within the ocean,
    for it is the thermal inertia of the ocean, that is the longer
    time scale at which heat moves within the ocean relative to the
    atmosphere, that enables climate forecast from seasons out to a
    year in advance with the realistic prospect of extension to
    years and decades. On longer decadal to centennial time scales
    it is climate change that brings new risks to marine life due
    to ocean warming, changes in circulation, sea level rise, and
    acidification from increased atmospheric carbon. Yet, many of
    the measurements needed to monitor and predict such changes are
    now at risk because of budget constraints and the lack of a
    national strategy to sustain them.
        Of all the ocean climate variables, sea surface temperature
    is the most important as it is the one variable that couples
    the ocean surface to the atmosphere. Going back to the late
    1970's, sea surface temperature has been provided by orbiting
    infrared radiometers and complemented more recently by
    microwave passive radiometers. Ocean surface temperature is one
    of the most important indicators of global climate change and
    is used in a wide range of ocean climate studies, from that of
    the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic to El Nino in the Pacific
    Ocean. This climate data record, spanning thirty years, has
    been calibrated, validated, reprocessed with surface
    observations from ships, buoys, and drifters.
        In contrast to the meteorological observations used to
    initialize a weather forecast, the construction of such climate
    data records has unique requirements for instrument
    characterization, calibration, stability, continuity, and data
    systems to support climate applications. Space based climate
    observations are not a mere extension of those used to monitor
    and forecast the weather.
        Since 1992 high precision radar altimeters, beginning with
    the U.S./France TOPEX/Poseidon mission, have been monitoring
    changes in sea level. Sea surface topography is not only a
    proxy for the amount of heat stored in the ocean, but much akin
    to the highs and lows on a weather map, provides valuable
    information regarding the global ocean circulation. Monitoring
    the heat stored in ocean eddies is also providing new insights
    as to how heat content can lead to hurricane intensification,
    as was the case with Hurricane Katrina. Unfortunately at the
    present time the U.S. has not yet secured the next series of
    the follow on radar altimeters known as Jason 3.
        A different sort of radar instrument, the scatterometer,
    provides crucial information regarding ocean surface wind speed
    and direction that forces worldwide ocean currents. By
    measuring how a radar signal is backscattered off the sea
    surface of the ocean, a synoptic view is provided of the
    surface wind velocity. These data have yielded new insights
    into the exchange of heat and momentum between the atmosphere
    and the ocean.
        Important information on ocean biology is obtained from the
    color of the ocean, as you see right behind you. This estimate
    of marine biomass can be related to how and where the marine
    ecosystem takes up and sequesters carbon. The first worldwide
    continuous monitoring of ocean color did not begin until 1997
    with the launch of the SeaWiFS mission. In fact, that picture
    was produced by my lab at Goddard when I was the lab chief for
    that project. This class of global ocean color observations has
    continued to the present day with the MODIS sensor on the NASA
    Aqua satellite. Yet once again, unfortunately the continuation
    of such a data record is in serious jeopardy due to degraded
    performance specifications with the VIIRS sensor scheduled for
    the forthcoming NPOESS Preparatory Project.
        While great strides have been made in satellite
    oceanographic research we face some fundamental challenges in
    making the transition from research to sustained operations.
    Last year I chaired the National Academy's ``Panel on Options
    to Ensure the Climate Record for the NPOESS and GOES--R
    Spacecraft.'' This study was in response to a NASA and NOAA
    request for a follow on report to the decadal survey in Earth
    science that focused on the recovery of lost climate
    measurement capabilities resulting from the Nunn-McCurdy
    process. In the decadal survey it was noted there is a lack of
    clear agency responsibility for sustained research programs,
    and the transitioning of proof of concept measurements into
    sustained measurement systems. In our NPOESS study we
    recommended that our nation needs a deliberate, forward
    looking, and cost effective strategy for satellite based
    environmental monitoring. In conclusion, the nation requires a
    coherent strategy for Earth observations which provides for an
    operational climate monitoring and prediction, scientific
    advances, and the continuation of long-term measurements. The
    nation deserves such a strategy.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on
    this important topic. And I am prepared to answer any questions
    you may have. Thank you.
        [Written statement by Antonio J. Busalacchi, Jr. Ph.D.,
    Chairman, Joint Scientific Committee, World Climate Research
    Programme follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.030

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Dr. Busalacchi. Dr. Karl.

                               Opening Statement

        Dr. Karl. Thank you, Chairman Mollohan, and good afternoon
    other members of the Subcommittee. My name is Tom Karl. I am
    the Director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. And I
    have also been asked to lead NOAA's Climate Services.
        First off, I just want to express to you how honored I am
    for asking me to really talk about the role satellites can play
    in the climate change arena, in particular climate data
    records. This is extremely important for us. I emphasize the
    word can, because satellites can play an extremely role but it
    is rare that satellite data that is rapidly produced for
    weather products and derived from satellite sensors directly
    are rarely useful for climate change issues. Rather, what is
    required is an ordered series of sophisticated technical
    processes developed through decades of scientific achievement.
    That is what is needed to convert the raw satellite sensor
    records that we receive into something we call climate data
    records. I will be using that term frequently, so if you do not
    mind if I just call it CDRs that is what I will mean by
    shorthand for climate data records.
        As defined by the National Research Council a CDR, or
    climate data record, is simply a timed series of measurements
    of sufficient length, consistency, and continuity to determine
    climate variability and change. In practice, CDRs or climate
    data record development requires careful integration of
    archived data from many different satellites and sensor
    designs. And this is supplemented with non-satellite observing
    system data, as Chairman Mollohan indicated during his
    introductory remarks.
        Most experts agree that a climate data record, CDR, must
    extend over multiple decades to unambiguously discern changes
    in climate. With shorter periods climate signals or effects can
    be misinterpreted or altogether masked due to normal
    environmental variability, changes in instrument
    characteristics, changes in the behavior of the instrument over
    time, changes in satellite orbits. One thing is clear, CDR
    development cannot be constrained to single satellite missions.
        But CDRs indeed are required for studying climate change.
    In its fourth assessment report in 2007 the IPCC, the
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stated in its
    consensus opinion on the state and likely future changes of the
    Earth's climate that there were a number of confident
    conclusions that could be made in that report, but there were
    also notable exceptions. And those were often linked to the
    quality of the data from which the IPCC had to work with. So
    clearly limitations in datasets are extremely important in
    terms of our understanding of climate change.
        The real challenge in developing climate data records
    suggests that now we do have significant information latent in
    our data archives. There is a number of recent CDR successes,
    Dr. Busalacchi mentioned a few of them, related to important
    issues. And I can just name a few that, I got into more detail
    in my written testimony. Changes in important aspects of the
    climate, like hurricane intensity. If you remember a few years
    ago there was a major controversy between the differences in
    the rates of warming at the surface, and that in the upper
    levels of the atmosphere as measured by satellite and measured
    by surface measured changes. Changes in vegetation have been
    well demonstrated to be extremely important in terms of using
    satellite data and climate data records.
        So based on these studies, the World Meteorological
    Organization, National Research Council, the Climate Change
    Science Program, the Global Climate Observing System, numerous
    other authorities, have increasingly called for a comprehensive
    CDR program derived from a set of forty-four essential climate
    variables. And today there really is some great urgency to
    begin this work before the launch of NPP and NPOESS,
    particularly in light of the massive amount of data that these
    two systems will be generating in the near future.
        So thanks to about fifty years of satellite weather
    observations and more than thirty-five years of computer
    compatible archived data, we can now construct a comprehensive
    set of global CDRs. NOAA has archived data from forty-one polar
    orbiting satellites and fifteen geostationary satellites. NASA
    and other national and international agencies have complemented
    these data with more than fifty other Earth observing
    satellites. NPOESS and NPP promise to sustain even more
    detailed and comprehensive observations in coming decades.
    Since most satellites carry multiple remote sensing
    instruments, the grand challenge in CDR development is to
    scientifically stitch together all these data from different
    sensors and different satellites.
        This morning I am pleased that I will be able to describe
    NOAA's new CDR initiative, developed in coordination with NASA.
    Over the past two years NOAA and NASA have worked on a
    coordinated interagency solution to develop and sustain climate
    data records. Thanks to the efforts of this Congress and the
    continued support of satellite sensors and CDRs in the 2009
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, NOAA will begin to
    implement its part of the program. This will include harvesting
    mature research technologies and applying them to decades of
    archived satellite data. Further, NOAA will continuously extend
    the resulting CDRs using current and future satellite
    observations, including those from NPOESS and NPP.
        Given the unique knowledge and extensive experience
    required to develop world class CDRs, NOAA will largely execute
    its program through competitively selected experts in academia,
    industry, nonprofits, NOAA cooperative institutes, and other
    federal agencies. We will work to ensure that the community
    knowledge gained through state of the science research
    programs, such as NASA's Earth Observing System, is captured
    and incorporated into NOAA operations. NOAA will complement
    these developments by upgrading its world class data archive
    and access systems.
        Indeed, keeping up with the sheer volume of the data from
    existing and planned satellites is critical for NOAA's
    scientific data stewardship. NOAA is currently operating and
    continuing to develop its comprehensive large array data
    stewardship system, otherwise known as CLASS. This will provide
    the information technology necessary to support the CDR program
    among other programs, and programs like the Climate Data
    Modernization Program continue to make older previously
    inaccessible data available for analysis.
        So in conclusion there is no question that significant
    climate change information is currently embedded in the world's
    archived satellite datasets. NOAA and its partners are now
    embarking on a comprehensive, systematic, and sustained CDR
    effort to really help unleash the potential of these data from
    the past, present, and next generation of operational
    satellites to inform the nation about ongoing and future
    climate change. Thanks.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.038

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Dr. Karl. Dr. Busalacchi.
        Dr. Busalacchi. Yes.

                             GAPS IN SATELLITE DATA

        Mr. Mollohan. Earth Observing Satellites currently flying,
    Terra, Aqua, and Aura, are all now beyond their design life.
    The last of the NOAA polar orbiting environmental satellites
    has been launched and there are only a few defense
    meteorological satellites awaiting flight. A major shift is
    coming with the long delayed NPOESS satellite series. Gaps in
    data and shifts in instrument capabilities have the potential
    to disrupt the climate record. Will the MIS instrument on
    NPOESS provide continuity in microwave imaging of the oceans,
    extending the data records from the special sensor microwave
    image, SSM/I, flown on the DMPS satellites? And how will other
    changes in available microwave measurements affect
    oceanographic research? For the record.
        Dr. Busalacchi. So the first part of your question speaks
    to this need for national strategy. Right now, the ad hoc mode
    of one sensor after another, so we really have not between the
    agencies, NASA and NOAA, developed this sort of joint strategy
    where these missions need to be planned ten, twenty, thirty
    years into the future.
        Now specific to the issues with respect to SSM/I and the
    continuation there, first of all the NPOESS series will
    continue the SSM/I, what is known as the DMSP series of
    satellite observations for things like sea ice concentration,
    atmospheric water vapor concentration. So that is relatively
    secure. One of the pending problems is a sensor called AMSER on
    Aqua, which does all weather sea surface temperature. This is a
    sensor that sees through clouds. The long history of sea
    surface temperature retrievals going back to the late 1970's,
    as I said, is an infrared technology which cannot see through
    clouds. So this C-band, or it is in kind of the six gigahertz
    range, this C-band technology is on Aqua right now. And as you
    alluded to, Aqua is on sort of its last legs. It may last two
    or three more years, and it may end within the next couple of
    years.
        Then we have a gap and not until about 2012, there is
    another AMSER-type sensor on the Japanese platform called GCOM.
    So we have a potential gap there between, of about four years
    where we may not have any all weather sea surface temperature
    until the first MIS sensor, which is being designed but is
    still not cast in stone. The design for the sensor is still not
    cast in stone for this all weather capability in 2016. So the
    critical gap is this all weather sea surface temperature
    capability that we may have a problem with at around 2010 or
    so.

                        STATE OF CLIMATE DATA COLLECTION

        Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Karl, summarizing the status of data
    collection, where do you feel really good about it and where do
    you think we really need to pay attention to it?
        Dr. Karl. Well, thank you for that question. I am very
    pleased, because this is the first time we have actually been
    able to have a formal program for what I described as climate
    data records. And I am actually feeling good that this is a new
    opportunity for NOAA to treat data from satellites uniquely
    different than what we have done in the past. Before we
    processed it very quickly to produce weather forecasts. And
    that was our primary motivation and goal. Now today, formally,
    we are saying the agency is recognizing the value of these data
    for looking at long term and shorter term climate variability
    and changes. So I am feeling pretty good about that from the
    standpoint of it is going to encourage important scientific
    data stewardship in the agency that will actually transcend the
    agency. Because we are actually recognizing there is a lot of
    information beyond NOAA itself that we want to build on and
    leverage. I think the program that we have set up is going to
    do that. So I am feeling pretty good about that.
        There are other areas where there is still quite a bit of
    work that we have to worry about, anticipate. One can imagine
    in the future as we have petaflop computing capability readily
    available to us we are going to be involved in producing
    climate data records. We are also at the same time ingesting
    all of the other data that we are receiving. Some of the
    important questions that will be asked will be requiring us to
    integrate these data, both the model data, the observational
    data, both from satellites and the climate data record program.
    And so it clearly, we will really have to think hard and strong
    in out years as to how these rapidly growing data volumes can
    be made easily accessible. And we will have the infrastructure
    necessary to move them around the country as rapidly as
    possible.

                               DATA ACCESSIBILITY

        Mr. Mollohan. And I would think meaningfully accessible. I
    mean, just thinking about the volumes of data, the historic
    data, and I want to ask you about that. But combined with the
    contemporary data in all the different ways it is coming down.
    It mean, just think about it. We have had testimony here, we
    are doing winds, and temperatures, and ice melt rates. I mean,
    it is a mind boggling, massive amount of data. And to retrieve
    it and capture it meaningfully, and store it, and then begin
    managing it in a way that can be manipulated and extracted for
    meaningful purposes. Where are we in that? Do we have the
    systems? Do we have the capability? And to what extent is data
    being extracted, I suppose selectively or however, and useful,
    and how far do we need to go? What do we need to do in order to
    achieve those goals?
        Dr. Karl. One of the things that is absolutely critical,
    clearly the infrastructure of the systems is undoubtedly you
    cannot do without. Before I head in that direction let me just
    say through the U.S. Global Earth Observing System Program, and
    its international geo-component, we have worked cooperatively
    with all the agencies to ensure that when we actually talk
    about building new data systems we really think about it in
    terms of, and I hate to use these acronyms, but service
    oriented architecture approach. But simply, that is a short way
    of saying we want to build systems so that it is very simple
    for each of the agencies to link together their software, what
    they already have available, what they have already invested
    tons of manpower and dollars in, and be able to link it
    together in a way in which we all develop on agreed upon
    standards. And so I think that process is really critical. And
    I am encouraged to see a lot of cooperation among the agencies
    there.
        But critically, one needs systems then to be able to store
    the data and transport the data. Certainly the capability of
    the so-called Internet II, very, very important. We are finding
    in our data center increasingly the requests for data, large
    volume data from, we have a different suite of users. One suite
    are the academic, research types and they want as much data as
    you can send out to them. The other equally important user, in
    fact in some cases a far greater number of users, want data in
    bite size nuggets that they can digest because they are
    actually wanting to use it for practical problems. And so the
    real challenge is to figure out how in these systems we can
    serve the whole spectrum of users out there. And that is where
    the systems have to work with the user requirements, and the
    people who were actually designing the software, and the
    scientists who are actually helping to understand the data,
    have to really keep these two goals in mind. And I think that
    is sometimes where we often find that maybe we can do a better
    job from the standpoint of trying to think about systems that
    are as flexible as possible in that regard.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, bring the Committee up to date and
    start from the beginning. We have had EOS and we have had
    EOSDIS. And the distribution systems for, is that the
    beginning? Or where are we with regard to satellite data? Where
    did we begin----
        Dr. Karl. We actually began, we had in NOAA something
    called the satellite active archive. And it was from our
    agency's standpoint, it was very tailored toward people who
    were experts in satellite usage. And so the formats that you
    would get would be very unique. Few people could deal with
    them. And so the limited use of satellite data that we have in
    our records was largely due to that.
        EOSDIS came and said, ``We are going to serve all the users
    from kids in grammar school to senior level researchers.''
        Mr. Mollohan. Which was a NASA program?
        Dr. Karl. It was a NASA program.
        Mr. Mollohan. So they were going to, and are, I assume,
    bring the information down, distributing it to different----
        Dr. Karl. Sectors.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Computer or data centers, by
    sector, and then manipulate the data and make it accessible out
    of those centers. So where are we with that? Is that the right
    architecture for today and for the future? And where should we
    go from there?
        Dr. Karl. Well, you know, I think that certainly the
    architecture that NASA used was very appropriate for, remember
    they were looking at their specific missions. And so they were
    developing responses to the particular missions they have. For
    what we are trying to do in NOAA, our architecture is going to
    have to combine both the in situ, the historical data, as well
    as the modern data. And so, when we look at our architecture,
    the way we are trying to envision this is to have data centers
    that are equally complementary, but that can back up data from,
    for example, if one data center went down, you would not even
    notice it as a user because you could pick up data from another
    data center. And so our approach is to have redundancy in our
    system. But that we would have centrally located a couple of
    hubs that would have comprehensively all the data.
        Then in terms of community of researchers that we work
    with, they would store data that they would be working with,
    but we would want them to, after a certain point in time,
    document what they have done, be able to upload it to the
    central hub, so that we would have the documentation. We would
    be able to go back and retrace the steps that they did to
    correct the data, develop the climate data records. So our
    architecture is one in which you might think of it a little bit
    in the way of spoke and hub.
        Mr. Mollohan. I want to follow up a little bit with that on
    the next round. But Mr. Ruppersberger?

                  RESOURCES FOR WEATHER AND CLIMATE PREDICTION

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you. The issue of, first,
    basically you are saying that the satellite is clearly the best
    resource that we have to help you to predict the weather? You
    talked about the oceans, I have heard both of your testimony.
    But what is the best resource you have? Is it satellites?
        Dr. Busalacchi. I would say for monitoring and prediction,
    you cannot say that there is just one----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Busalacchi, right?
        Dr. Busalacchi. Busalacchi.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Busalacchi.
        Dr. Busalacchi. One best technology. You actually need the
    combination of both satellite observations and in situ
    observations. Each have their own inherent strengths and
    weaknesses. So we need sort of a combined approach. So I will
    not say that satellites are the best because they have
    deficiencies, they also have strengths. So it really needs to
    be this coordinated approach. I would say in the past we have
    been going down two tracks that have been parallel. We have had
    the in situ, or ground sea based observations. We had the
    satellite observations. We need to start bringing them
    together, and integrating them, and designing, again, that is
    part of this national strategy I was alluding to. Bring
    together the strengths of both sorts of measurement
    technologies.

                       LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR SATELLITES

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, you know, the issue that I think
    you are saying, you are loud and clear, is that we need a long-
    term plan. That is step one. And it is good news that, I hope,
    that we are not into science, so we can deal with science and
    what the conclusions of science are and not idealistic issues
    that are out there. So that is going to help, I hope. So we
    need to put a plan together.
        But we are appropriators. We have to make decisions on
    priorities, on what we spend and what we do not spend.
    Satellites are extremely expensive, as you know. And you have a
    three-way competition, the way I see it, between DOD
    intelligence, and then NASA, and then NOAA with NASA. And what
    I do not see, and that needs to be developed, it seems that
    everybody, each one of those entities wants to have their own,
    they want to own their own, especially the Department of
    Defense. And that probably goes back in culture or whatever.
    But, you know, we just do not have the money for all of it
    anymore. And what I think, when you are developing a long term
    plan, there are certain things that the intelligence community
    are not going to give you. They might help you, but they are
    not going to give you. But there might be other things that
    they can. And I think there has got to be from your side, the
    scientists' side, a lot of communication and negotiation on how
    you can take advantage of these satellites that are up there to
    protect our national security. And yet use it also, because
    weather is part of our security and our national security. It
    is not about the bad guys coming in, it is about weather and,
    you know, as you know, and you have seen with Katrina and in
    other areas.
        And I would like to know if you have had any conversations?
    Do you agree with my premise, that there needs to be more
    cooperation? Because I think in the end, when it comes down to
    who is going to get what, it is going to be DOD first,
    intelligence second, and you all third. And we just cannot. And
    even with NASA itself, there is just too much duplication of
    effort. Too much money spent. And now with cybersecurity out
    there, and we kind of know that we have been attacked on a
    regular basis, you know, with other countries on the cyber
    issue, there is just too much out there not to have a plan and
    to be involved. Could you please comment on my comment?
        Dr. Busalacchi. Sure. So clearly, there needs to be better
    definition of the roles and responsibility amongst those three
    or four parties that you described. In our NPOESS experience we
    saw front and center the problems with once you get beyond
    weather. So there clearly is continued opportunity for
    coordination on the weather front across DOD, NOAA, and NASA.
    And problem with the NPOESS came when we came to climate
    because, as I said, there are these unique requirements for
    climate above and beyond weather. Now if we can----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. And weather can be used by DOD, too, so
    that----
        Dr. Busalacchi. That is right. So weather, I think, is
    manageable. Where some extra effort needs to be made is for the
    climate sensors, because climate is not high, in the past has
    not been high. It is gaining greater priority within the DOD.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Weather kind of changed World War II,
    did it not?
        Dr. Busalacchi. Right now, and climate is becoming a
    national security issue with respect to vulnerable areas
    overseas. I will defer to Tom.

                     INTERAGENCY COOPERATION ON SATELLITES

        Mr. Ruppersberger. But what I want to hear, if you can
    answer this, is there an effort, ongoing effort, is there a
    negotiation going on between those three entities?
        Dr. Karl. I can mention, I actually can bring this issue a
    little bit higher from where I am coming from, from this
    climate data record perspective. The value of that program is
    to try and look at all the assets that are out there, and to
    make silk out of a sow's ear in some respect. From the
    standpoint of many of these instruments that have been put on
    satellites have not been put up there to measure climate change
    and variability. They have been put up there to do other
    things. That does not make them ideal to monitor climate. But
    there is value, there is information there, that we want to be
    able to make use of.
        That discussion, I think, is going on not only amongst the
    agencies. I know I have spent the last couple of years and many
    meetings with my NASA colleagues and some of my other
    colleagues in other agencies, talking about how we can best
    look at the past data and put together the best climate data
    records. But also, this discussion is going on internationally
    among the scientific community. Global Climate Observing
    System, there is a number of documents that talk about look at
    the same essential climate variables that we have identified in
    the Climate Change Science Program strategic plan, trying to
    identify how we could best go about coordinating this
    internationally, and put together a coordinated effort to
    produce the best information we can have about climate change.
        Now, that is not quite the same as saying, you know, what
    is it that we need in the future? There are other groups, there
    is a Committee for Earth Observing Satellites, that are looking
    at internationally what each nation is bringing to the table.
    And, of course, we are represented by more than NOAA and NASA
    and all of our space agencies.
        So there are discussion at that level that are taking
    place. And I will admit this is not an easy problem and I think
    you raise an extremely important point.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. One of my suggestions will be clearly we
    have to emphasize a plan. There needs to be, I mean, I chair
    the Technical and Tactical Committee on Intelligence, which
    when I finish I am going to go down and have a hearing in that
    regard. And I know that there is a lot of play now between the
    intelligence community and the DOD. And where there is
    duplication of effort, again, wasting money. And believe me,
    the money is not there so somebody is going to be hurt and I
    think it might be you.
        Another suggestion I have, too, when I asked you the
    question I did it on purpose. You know, what are your
    priorities? And you said, well, satellites is just one of them,
    you have another one. I do not want you to change your answer
    because that is a good answer and that is a scientific answer
    based on your research and conclusions. But I would emphasize
    how important that the satellites are, because you are fighting
    for that money against intel and DOD right now. Okay? Thank
    you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Ruppersberger. Mr. Serrano.

                       OCEAN HEAT CONTENT AND HURRICANES

        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Busalacchi, in
    your testimony you stated that monitoring the heat stored in
    ocean eddies is also providing new insights as to how upper
    ocean heat content can lead to hurricane intensification, as in
    the case with Katrina. Was this something you knew prior to
    that? Or something you picked up after you studied the data?
    And either way, can it lead to helping us predict what is going
    to happen in the future?
        Dr. Busalacchi. Thank you for the question. Prior to
    Katrina, clearly we recognize that the atmosphere and the ocean
    is coupled. But specific to this intensification of Katrina, it
    was after the fact when studies were done looking at the track
    of Katrina compared with the satellite altimeter data that
    showed this warm blob of water in the Gulf of Mexico. That is
    now leading to improved hurricane models that are much more
    coupled between the atmosphere and the ocean, and have this
    feedback between the atmosphere and the ocean. So that is
    leading, as a result of this sort of retrospective analysis, to
    increased forecast skill and studies of intensification for the
    hurricane problems.

                    INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ON SATELLITES

        Mr. Serrano. To both of you, I noticed you mention the
    international community. And I am always interested in knowing
    what role our foreign policy plays into these issues. When you
    say the international community, does that include nations that
    we may not have good political relations with? I mean, like, do
    we deal with Iran? Do we deal with Cuba when it comes to issues
    of climate change?
        Dr. Busalacchi. Our best success stories for satellite
    climate studies are our friends and partners, France, Japan,
    Brazil, India. These are great success stories. Germany as
    well, great success stories.
        Given the budget challenges, I think it really is
    reasonable to be going down this path, a partnership approach.
    But it has been our historical friends.
        Mr. Serrano. Okay. But are we allowed? Does our government
    allow you to sit at the table with countries we don't have a
    relationship with when it comes to dealing with these issues? I
    always wonder if we----
        Dr. Busalacchi. In an international forum?
        Mr. Serrano. Right.
        Dr. Busalacchi. We are allowed to sit with our colleagues
    from some of the nations you mentioned. But there are
    restrictions with respect to any exchange of technology. The
    discussions are all within papers that have appeared within the
    peer review literature. That is the level of the discourse.
        Mr. Serrano. So if you see something approaching a country
    that we are not crazy about, you are not at liberty to tell
    them there is something coming your way?
        Dr. Busalacchi. I don't deal with that sort of prediction.
        Mr. Serrano. Or are they not at liberty to tell us
    something is coming our way?
        Dr. Busalacchi. That is correct.

                              COOPERATION ON CDR'S

        Mr. Serrano. Okay. Dr. Karl, in reading your testimony, I
    was impressed with the tremendous challenge that you confront
    as you seek to convert raw material, sensor data into climate
    data records, CDRs as you said. I thought they were rewritable
    CDs you were talking about, the CDRs or recordable CDs.
        In your statement you stated that CDRs that are not
    developed using multiple approaches and multiple satellite and
    earth-based observing systems are often problematic. As you
    move forward with this important project, do you foresee
    difficulties with getting this necessary cooperation on
    multiple fronts? It seems that you will not only need
    cooperation across agencies, but perhaps even with other
    governments in order to successfully use this information,
    which somehow a little bit touches on my prior questions.
        Dr. Karl. No. In fact, I have a story I can tell you why
    this is important, and why I think it actually can work and has
    worked in the past.
        We had an issue a few years ago where we had two--it first
    started off with one group trying to calculate from satellites
    what the change in atmospheric temperature had been since 1979.
    And in their published reports there were error bars put on,
    you know, how good they thought they could do. And then we had
    another independent group use a slightly different approach.
    And they published papers in their error bars. And their error
    bars didn't--when you overlap the changes that they both
    thought were occurring, they didn't overlap. And their error
    bars didn't overlap.
        And so the question was well who could you decide which was
    right and which was wrong? Because there was many, many papers
    written both defending the techniques that were being used. It
    wasn't until a number of other groups using slightly different
    approaches and other measurement approaches, not only
    satellites but in-situ data that we actually got to be able to
    really understand what the air structure was, how far we could
    go in terms of doing an analysis.
        And in the end, just recently there was a paper published
    showing that right now we think we truly do understand what our
    limits of certainty are and be able to tell you--being able to
    tell you what the changes in tropospheric temperature have been
    since 1979, because we have had multiple groups looking at it
    independently using satellites, using in-situ data. So I think
    that is--that is an example why we think it is really important
    to have multiple approaches using multiple observing systems.
        And I think the cooperation comes in this business that we
    are in, there is a tremendous drive by scientific teams to try
    and probe as deeply as they possibly can. So if there is any
    possible way of looking at data that people might not have
    thought of before to look at, they really push the envelope if
    you provide the encouragement and the resources for them to do
    that. And that is why I am so excited about the CDR program,
    because I think it does offer us an opportunity to encourage
    that kind of exploration that perhaps we might not otherwise
    have gotten.
        Mr. Serrano. And how often? You have an example, but is
    this is a common occurrence of NOAA agreements?
        Dr. Karl. No agreement tends to be a common--I will give
    you another example.
        Mr. Serrano. It sounds like the U.S. Congress.
        Dr. Karl. No comment on that. Hurricane intensity is a very
    important topic. You know, are hurricanes becoming more
    intense? And we have had a flurry of papers over the past
    number of years talking about whether you could discern from
    the data and how you could discern changes. We have got in-situ
    data. We have data that hurricane centers, both our hurricane
    center and the Pacific Hurricane Center, one by Japan, one by
    Australia, have tried to make their best estimate about
    hurricane intensities. And, of course, the procedures have
    changed over the years.
        So the question comes in are those data really climate data
    records stitched together in an appropriate way? Probably not.
    But you have got a number of individual research teams looking
    at that. But then recently we have been able to encourage them
    to take a look at the satellite data. And what would you get if
    you objectively compiled the satellite data.
        So we have stitched together a number of geostationary
    satellites, because the advantage of geostationary satellites
    is they are always looking at the same spot. And hurricanes
    don't go up so far to the poles that we will miss them, like
    you would have with the polar orbiter. You would want to have a
    polar orbiter if you had something important going in the
    poles.
        But in any case, there has been a number of other teams
    that have looked at these satellite data. We have helped them
    reprocess that data. And we are finding some very interesting
    confirmations. Differences in the rates of trends about things
    like hurricane intensity. Confirming, yes, we are seeing some
    increase in hurricane intensity since 1979, 1983.
        The next step is okay, is that linked to increases in sea
    surface temperature? Is that linked to any of the anthropogenic
    changes we have seen? Those are other questions. But you can't
    even begin to answer those questions without having the basic
    data to start out with.

                           SEVERE WEATHER AND CLIMATE

        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, in closing, this reminds me of a
    question I think I asked yesterday or the day before. I seem to
    remember when I was much younger that it didn't seem like the
    weather was so severe. So is it that the weather has gotten
    worse or is it that CNN and Fox can give it to me live with
    pictures right there with the reporter being blown away by the
    wind. And the answer I think was a little of both. But you say
    that you have noticed increased intensity since 1979 or so?
        Dr. Karl. And I agree with you. It is a little of both. In
    fact, there was a report that the Climate Change Science
    Program, inner-agency program--NOAA led a report that we
    released last spring called ``Weather and Climate Extremes and
    the Changing Climate.''
        And depending on the kind of weather and climate extreme
    you look at, what you have said, Mr. Serrano, is exactly right.
    For example, tornado frequency. You know, we are able to spot
    those much better today than ever before. And if you look at
    the raw numbers, you can be pretty much deceived.
        For some of the other aspects of climate extremes--sorry
    about that, some of the other aspects of climate extremes, that
    is not the case. And things like heavy downpours, there is very
    good evidence now that we are seeing an increase in heavy
    downpours in this country and other countries.
        And it is very important, because it has important
    implications for infrastructure development, things of culverts
    in terms of runoff, flooding of basements, that kind of thing.
        Mr. Serrano. Oh, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Fattah.

                                CDR DEVELOPMENT

        Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Karl, to the best
    that I can understand this in layman's terms is that there is a
    lot of data that has been collected over the last 50 years from
    satellites. And even though they weren't up there necessarily
    looking at climate change, this data could be from an empirical
    basis, very helpful in terms of trying to quantify what exactly
    is going on.
        So you are in pursuit of this information. This is the CDR
    program now.
        Dr. Karl. Right.
        Mr. Fattah. In this stimulus package, we funded both
    climate sensors and this--in this effort that you are involved
    in. Can you give the Committee a sense of how far along you are
    going to be able to go with that appropriations?
        Dr. Karl. Yeah. I can tell you we actually have a list of
    how many climate data records we think we could actually
    produce from the existing set of sensors we have out there. And
    the list is about a hundred or so. That is quite a number. And
    the cost of--you know, if you look at what is the average cost
    of doing a climate data record, it is a couple of million
    dollars.
        And then there is also--you have to be able to sustain
    that, because you want to make sure that, you know, year after
    year you are able to update. And that cost is, you know, not
    the same amount as the up-front costs, but it is a significant
    fraction to continue those climate data records.
        So, you know, you can do that math. And you can see that
    this is a great start. But it is something that we will
    certainly have to sustain if we want to look at that entire
    list.
        And I should say that list was derived from this agreed
    upon set of essential climate variables from which there is--
    the next step further, for example, I gave you the hurricane
    example, hurricane intensity. Hurricane intensity is not really
    one of the essential climate variables. But we think it is
    pretty darn important. But it is derived from things like cloud
    information and derived from winds which are an essential
    climate variable.
        So that is why that list of 44 is a little bit larger when
    we look at how many we think we could actually get.

                           CLIMATE DATA MODERNIZATION

        Mr. Fattah. These data archives, I assume a significant
    number of them are accessible. Are there others that are not
    assessible for non-financial reasons?
        Dr. Karl. Yeah. We have something called a Climate Data
    Modernization Program. And we are trying to make as much data
    as possible computer accessible. And simply because there are
    still paper records, we actually--believe it or not--are still
    getting punch paper tape, 15-minute precipitation measurements
    from 2,000 sites that we have across the country. These are 15-
    minute rainfall data, which are extremely important in terms of
    trying to measure rainfall intensity. So as part of the Climate
    Data Modernization Program, we are taking those punch paper
    tapes and actually converting them to something digital that we
    can use on computers.
        So the answer is yes. There is data out there that were not
    accessible. But through the Climate Data Modernization Program,
    we are trying to make those accessible.
        Mr. Fattah. It sounds like something like hanging chads or
    something.
        Dr. Karl. That is pretty close, pretty close.
        Mr. Fattah. Let me thank both of you for your testimony.
    Thank you, Chairman, for hosting this hearing.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
        Mr. Serrano. Do you think we could ask for a weather report
    for the Phillies, Orioles, and Yankees opening days?
        Mr. Mollohan. You can ask any question you want, Mr.
    Serrano.
        Mr. Fattah. Whatever the weather, let me just assure the
    gentleman from New York, the Phillies are the World Series
    champions. And we intend to retain that honor.
        Mr. Serrano. Just remember 26 World Series championships.
        Mr. Mollohan. Stop. Mr. Bonner.
        Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I always regret when I am late to a panel, because you are
    half way through your testimony. And you have already answered
    a round of questions. And I am always embarrassed when I have
    to ask the same question that you have answered three times. So
    if this has already been asked, let me apologize.

                          SATELLITE DATA & HURRICANES

        As I have asked the previous panel earlier today though, I
    think I am the only member of this Subcommittee who lives along
    America's Gulf Coast in Mobile, Alabama. So first of all, thank
    you for what you do to help us better understand bad weather,
    especially hurricanes, better prepare for them, and get a
    better handle on what impact that we have globally and
    certainly here in this country might have in terms of
    connection to bad weather.
        In answer to Chairman Serrano's question about whether it
    is that we know more, whether it is that we are having more
    information presented to us, I tell you, there is certain
    weather reporters from the Weather Channel that when they show
    up in your backyard, you want to get out of there. That is the
    warning signal that you are waiting on to know that it is time
    to evacuate.
        And I also think it is important. We don't say enough
    thanks, those of us from Louisiana, and Mississippi, and
    Alabama, and Florida, and Texas to thank the American people,
    not only for the work that you all do, but also for the
    generosity of the American people in time of a hurricane.
    Katrina being the good example, 90,000 square miles, hundreds
    of millions of dollars that came in to help.
        But my question is this. You said in your written
    testimony, Dr. Karl, that researchers at NOAA's National
    Climate Data Center spent four years carefully merging and
    intercalibrating a patchwork of data from 29 geospacial
    satellites, both U.S. and foreign, to develop a CDR to
    facilitate efficient global analysis of hurricanes and go on to
    discuss that. The panel earlier this morning suggested that we
    may see one meter rise, because of the melting of the ice over
    the next century that could have an affect on beach erosion. It
    could certainly have an affect on hurricanes.
        But based on your work over the last few years, what would
    you anticipate that we could look at over the next few years?
    Over the next century seems so far away for most people. But we
    are going to be coming into hurricane season in just a few
    months. And more importantly over the next few years as
    communities discuss maps, and rebuilding, construction code,
    and other things that we seem to have more control over, based
    on your knowledge and data, what are some of the things that we
    could anticipate and look forward to or dread that might be
    just over the horizon?

                                 SEA LEVEL RISE

        Dr. Karl. Yeah. I can tell you, you have identified an
    interest--a topic that is of great interest to NOAA. And we
    have had considerable discussions especially recently. I will
    give you an example with the Governors of the coastal states
    talking about this very issue of sea level. And exactly the
    same issue that you raised there is concern for, you know, what
    should the long-term strategy be. But there is a near term and
    an immediate strategy.
        And one of the things that I can tell you that NOAA is
    talking very seriously amongst the climate interests and our
    coastal interests is issues related to what we could bring to
    the table in terms of helping to develop, for example, a sea-
    level prediction system that would incorporate not only a tidal
    type of information that you have, but information about what
    we have available from expectations on global climate change,
    our capabilities with respect to storm surge modeling.
        The key issue here is to try to tie that kind of
    information together. We have got a lot of very important
    individual pieces. Tying it together is the challenge right
    now. We have been engaged with discussions with USGS about this
    very issue. And part of the reason these issues come up also is
    we do these assessments. And you may have seen there was
    assessment recently from the Climate Change Science Program on
    sea-level rise. And they focused on the mid-Atlantic area.
        But if you go and look at that report, you would recognize
    although there is a lot of good individual pieces of
    information we have, tying it all together is the real
    challenge. And I think that is an area that we have some
    potential. And so you say what could you look forward to in the
    future? Hopefully that will be an area we will be able to say
    more about in the future.
        The interesting thing about tides, in sea level, is when
    you look at the short term, people certainly recognize storm
    surges and hurricanes have a big effect. But even the patterns
    of wind flow during certain times of the year will change the
    sea-level rise that we are measuring from tides in substantial
    ways.
        So if you look on the East Coast and Carolinas, an October
    storm is much more devastating than an April storm, because of
    the prevailing wind patterns. But anyway, good question.
        Mr. Bonner. Well, again, thank you for being the unsung
    heroes on many occasions. I have had the opportunity to call on
    you late at night on a Saturday or early in the morning on a
    Sunday and get information that was helpful to our Governor,
    and our mayor, and others to try to get information out to the
    community so that we could get people out of harm's way. So on
    behalf of all the wonderful people who work there, please
    accept our thanks.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Bonner.

                         DEFINITION OF RADAR ALTIMETER

        Dr. Busalacchi, tell the Committee what is a radar
    altimeter?
        Dr. Busalacchi. A radar altimeter for me remains one of the
    most remarkable pieces of engineering for me. This is a
    technology we use to monitor and measure sea-level rise, as was
    just mentioned. We have been having these precise radar
    altimeter measurements going back to about 1992. But in simple
    terms, it is very much like the speed gun in a police car.
    Except this time the speed gun is orbiting 1,300 kilometers
    above the surface of the earth. It is measuring changes in sea
    level to a few centimeters.
        So that is like standing here on the steps of the Capitol,
    pointing this speed gun down to Jacksonville, Florida, and
    measuring changes in the Saint Johns River to about one inch.
    So I continue to be amazed by the technology. In fact,
    technology then that allows us to measure sea-level rise on a
    global basis. But then with respect to Representative Bonner's
    question, have a better understanding of the regional changes
    in sea-level rise going into the future.

                          DEFINITION OF SCATTEROMETER

        Mr. Mollohan. What is a scatterometer?
        Dr. Busalacchi. A scatterometer is another radar
    technology. This time you send down a radar pulse to the
    surface of the ocean. And you know when you look at the ocean
    or a lake and you see those little ripples, well those ripples
    get bigger and bigger based on the strength of the wind. And so
    how the radar is back scattered off these ripples tell us
    something about both the strength and the direction of the
    wind.
        So that is how we measure global wind velocity. So that is
    what we use into our climate models for the ocean. But it has
    also proven to be--even though it is more of an oceanographic
    sensor, a very useful sensor and retrieval for marine weather
    and for improving hurricane forecasts.
        And so that is one of these areas where we have technology
    that has been in place since about 1999. We have not secured
    the next generation of sensor. And I know NOAA is in active
    discussions with Japan, for example, to provide a follow-on
    sensor for hurricane prediction, extreme weather, and for
    climate predictions.

                          CURRENT STATE OF INSTRUMENTS

        Mr. Mollohan. That prompts the question are the instruments
    that we are using, these two instruments, are they adequate to
    today's capabilities for climate change and operational
    purposes?
        Dr. Busalacchi. Very good question, sir. I would say for
    the global problem, the scatterometers and altimeters, that
    have technology of fifteen to seven years, they are adequate.
    But now when you speak to operational oceanography, and getting
    back again to Mr. Bonner's question, when you start coming into
    the coastal zone, this class of the older technology does not
    have the resolution to get us to within 25 kilometers.
        So these new sensors, as mentioned in the decadal survey,
    the extended ocean conductor wind measurement for--it is a
    scatterometer measurement. We can get within five kilometers of
    the coast. The surface water ocean topography sensor, which
    will get us closer into the coast for sea level, that is the
    next generation of sensors that I believe need to be put in
    place to continue the global scale but as we get into the
    coastal scale and operational oceanography. What we would call
    the combination between blue water, open ocean, and brown
    water, the coastal ocean. It is these next generations of
    sensors. They are going to be needed to get us closer to the
    coast and get to these more regional specifications that we
    need.
        Mr. Mollohan. Where are we in the development, and
    construction, and deployment of these new sensors?
        Dr. Busalacchi. So these sensors, both of those that I
    mentioned, are in the middle tier of sensors recommended for
    the decadal survey. So they are slated nominally for 2013 to
    2016. And Tom is better to speak to what the thinking is with
    the know with respect to scatterometers.
        So the next generation of sensors, again, looking at least
    five years from now I would say.
        Mr. Mollohan. And will they be on line soon enough to
    provide a continuity of information?
        Dr. Busalacchi. No. That is where there are some potential
    gaps for both the continuation of the altimeter and
    continuation of the scatterometer. Those are some serious
    issues where we may be at a point where we would have a gap.

                      GAPS IN ALTIMETER AND SCATTEROMETER

        Mr. Mollohan. What kind of gaps respectively?
        Dr. Busalacchi. For altimeter we have the Jason-2 sensor up
    there now. It was launched last year. Nominal lifetime about
    three or five years. So this is the first time--this is about
    the third series of altimeters. The first time that an
    altimeter is up and we have not yet secured the follow-on
    altimeter. So we may be faced with a gap of several years.
        And scatterometry, as I said, the QuikSCAT sensor was
    launched in 1999. It is on its last legs. So in that regard it
    is almost too late.
        Mr. Mollohan. So how do we accommodate those gaps? And what
    do we do about it being too late with regard to gathering the
    information that is necessary to get----
        Dr. Busalacchi. Well, one is to keep our fingers crossed
    that the present sensors continue. So, again, that is not the
    best way to have a strategy.
        Mr. Mollohan. It doesn't sound very scientific.
        Dr. Busalacchi. That is correct. But in all fairness, our
    NOAA colleagues have been in deep discussion with EUMETSAT,
    which is the operational arm that manages weather satellites in
    Europe, with respect to this Jason-3 satellite. But yet it has
    not yet been secured. And as I alluded to, NOAA has been under
    discussion with Japan with respect to a follow-on
    scatterometer.
        Mr. Mollohan. And how adequate are these measures?
        Dr. Busalacchi. So the Jason-3 is the--would be the
    continuation of this global measurement.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Dr. Busalacchi. So that would continue the sea-level rise.
    This issue of heat content. But it won't get us close to the
    coast. So that is where we need this SWOT mission.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Dr. Busalacchi. Similarly, the discussions with Japan for
    the follow-on dual frequency scatterometer would continue the
    present class of scatterometer observations. But, again, it
    won't get us close to the--close as the decadal survey extended
    ocean and vector wind measurement mission would.

                             GAPS IN DATA FOR CDRS

        Mr. Mollohan. How important or significant is the gap or
    the lack of information with regard to our understanding of
    global climate change?
        Dr. Busalacchi. This speaks exactly to the issue of climate
    and data records. Where a break in a climate data record--once
    it is broken, you can't replace that record. So, again, it is
    not the same as weather. So that is, again, to reiterate, all
    part and parcel need for the strategy so that we don't have
    gaps in the record. We don't have these uncertainties. Is there
    a mismatch in the record, because their gap is a result of new
    technology or is it a result of a geophysical change in the
    earth system?
        Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Karl, do you have a comment on this?
        Dr. Karl. I think Tony's described the situation very
    adequately. What I would add is there are some things for which
    you cannot ever make up a gap. And there are other things where
    you have got ancillary measurements. And it certainly increases
    your errors, because you are going to have to do some infilling
    in ways that you might not otherwise want to do.
        And I will bring up an example. And that is the TESIS
    instrument. This is measuring the total amount of energy from
    the sun. We have been doing that for 29-30 years now. And if we
    have a gap there, there is no way we can recover, because we
    can't do this any other way. And why that is so important,
    particularly when you are trying to understand anthropogenic
    climate change, if you have got this missing component. How
    much energy is coming from the sun? So what is causing climate
    change? Is it changes in the sun, or is it changes in what
    humans are doing?
        So that is an area where there are some things where if we
    have a gap, there is just no way out of it. We are essentially
    starting over, because if you miss five years and begin to
    measure again, our measurements aren't good enough right now to
    say we can absolute measure the amount of energy from the sun.
    But we can do, and we have these overlap, stitch together these
    records.
        For some of the other areas, it is certainly not ideal. But
    I will give you an example. If we can't get into the coast with
    an altimeter, the next generation of altimetry measurements,
    then you are stuck with relying on only tide gauges. And tide
    gauges are--you know, we don't have tide gauges everywhere
    along the coast.
        So there are stop-gap measures. They are nearly not as
    satisfactory as one would like to do with next generation
    instruments. And especially kind of the questions that Mr.
    Bonner asked, you can address them, but not as well as you
    would like to.

                        NATIONAL CLIMATE SERVICE AT NOAA

        Mr. Mollohan. I may come back to this after votes. But I
    want to be sure to get this into the record. There is a whole
    lot of discussion in the last short period about the formation
    of a national climate service in NOAA. So a couple of questions
    about this, please.
        How would operational requirements for satellite data
    change if monitoring climate were to become a NOAA mission? And
    how would land measurements be included?
        Dr. Busalacchi. That is a great question. And I might put a
    preface there. As you know in Jane Lubchenco's testimony, she
    indicated that her intent was to form a national climate
    service, maybe comparable to what we have got in terms of a
    national weather service ready.
        The important thing for us is that as Tony mentioned
    earlier this afternoon, we actually then will have a voice at
    the table when we are developing the requirements for future
    generation satellites. So that the climate instruments aren't
    looked on as a second cousin so to speak. So I think that will
    have an important change in terms of how we view the kinds of
    instruments we put up and the expectations of those
    instruments.
        And the other area that I think is going to be extremely
    important for climate is we just talked about is the need for
    overlap and be able to project. And you can never view this
    perfectly. But for those instruments that are critical for
    continuity, where would we place our priorities for an overlap
    so that we could stitch together the records, which is a little
    different than the continuity, for example, for weather
    observers. If you are missing one day, you are out of weather
    forecasts for a day that are as high quality as what you had
    previously. If you miss a day in climate, you may find you are
    making some really difficult work for yourself ahead in terms
    of trying to observe the climate record.
        So that will be important, the continuity, the kinds of
    things--the ways in which satellites are launched, their
    orbits, their calibration procedures, before they are launched.
    Their calibration during operation are fairly stringent for
    climate. They are certainly important for weather. But usually
    for climate, the stringency for calibration and accuracy are
    significantly higher.
        So those would be important ways in which the change from
    the standpoint of land products, land is absolutely critical
    for understanding the climate. Just in the ocean is critical.
    But you can't understand what is happening to the climate
    system without the land components.
        There are all kinds of products that have been derived from
    instruments like this long instrument we have had, the Advanced
    Very High Resolution Radiometer, AVHRR, to the next generation,
    or it was MODIS. And now we are going through VIRS. We would
    expect those products to continue, in fact, grow for climate
    purposes.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, would the laboratories of the current
    ocean atmospheric research organization be distributed among
    the different NOAA services?
        Dr. Karl. That is a great question. And it one of the
    things that as soon as Jane Lubchenco comes on, we are going to
    be talking about how her vision of a national climate service
    fits into some of the goals and principles that we have drawn
    from a number of reports that have been written. The Academy of
    Science just released two reports related to delivering better
    climate change information from the Climate Change Science
    Program. Another one is about betters ways of informing us
    about climate change decisions. A report by Dr. Busalacchi's
    working group to our Science Advisory Board on the benefits and
    challenges of various options for developing a climate service.
        So we drew on all this information trying to put together
    some principles and guidelines and NOAA could follow. And we
    are looking forward to being able to brief Jane Lubchenco, Dr.
    Lubchenco, and explain to her what issues are at stake and how
    she would like to go forward.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Dr. Karl.
        Dr. Busalacchi, do you have a comment on those questions?
        Dr. Busalacchi. Certainly given what we have been doing
    with NOAA. I think from on one hand, a scientist's perspective,
    but also looking at some of the work we have been doing with
    assessing what users needs are of climate information. It is
    actually quite gratifying to seeing the government now
    seriously going down this path of the national climate service.
    And so it is very gratifying.
        And then looking at these different models with respect to
    the land data, I think some of the architecture that we spoke
    of with NOAA is these sort of partnership approaches,
    federation approaches, NGO approaches that would sort of expand
    the disciplines: atmosphere, ocean, land. In order then they
    could support NOAA as a lead agency for a national climate
    service but in partnership with the other agencies that have an
    important stake such as NASA, USDS, Department of Agriculture,
    et cetera.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
        Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Serrano. I have no questions.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Fattah.
        Mr. Fattah. We have a vote, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you.
    I have a few questions for the record about this gap and what
    we may do about it.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Mr. Bonner, I think we have a few
    minutes. We have got 333 members who haven't voted if you have
    some questions.

                    INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ON SATELLITES

        Mr. Bonner. Just two quick follow-ups. And, again, it may
    be in your testimony. Forgive me if I don't see it. Who are
    some of our leading global partners that we rely on for
    satellites and for this type of information?
        Dr. Busalacchi. Japan, France, Germany, Canada, Brazil. Our
    leading nations where we have enjoyed very strong equal
    partnerships over the past 20 years or so in this game.
        Dr. Karl. And, you know, there is a list of--right now we
    are working quite closely with Korea with their GPS radio
    occultation measurements, which are another way to try and get
    us better information on about what is going on very high up in
    the atmosphere.
        Quite frankly this job is one in which it really behooves
    to work closely with our international partners, because,
    again, we talked earlier about climate data records, having
    multiple looks at it, bringing together different sensors,
    different designs. It really makes a system more robust.

                           NOAA AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

        Mr. Bonner. And then just one follow-up. And maybe you all
    are not the right people to post this question to. But under
    the Chairman's leadership, we have had many people over the
    last several weeks come in and talk about the importance of
    science education, math education, and how we are struggling
    with that here in this country. Many countries seem to be doing
    a better job. I am fortunate that the only state school, it is
    a residential campus, one of only 13 in the nation for high
    school, for math, and science, is in Mobile where I live.
        I guess my question is what is NOAA doing to reach down? We
    are talking about needing to develop next generation technology
    and equipment that will help us. What is NOAA doing to reach
    down to young people at elementary, certainly middle school and
    high school, to get them to think about perhaps a career that
    might take them through your service?
        Dr. Karl. Now that is a great question. And I think NOAA
    has participated in an inter-agency process here. Two years ago
    we published something called a climate literacy guidebook. And
    I think that is going to be updated here very, very quickly. We
    have worked with other organizations like the American
    Meteorological Society to try and encourage interests,
    particularly if you capture, as you say, the primary school and
    the younger children with an imagination that this is actually
    an exciting opportunity.
        I also serve as President of the American Meteorological
    Society this year. And one of the things that I am always
    excited to see is support. NOAA supports numerous post-
    doctorate and doctorate candidates through graduate
    fellowships. And the quality of the candidates I see is pretty
    amazing.
        But the challenges are far beyond what we have ever had in
    the past. And it really is important that we reach out. And I
    know NOAA, Dr. Louisa Koch, who runs our education program and
    NOAA, is actively engaged in this and has some very good ideas
    to try and bring this out more formally.
        Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, since encouraged by you, let me
    try to----
        Mr. Mollohan. Sure, sure.

                      PARTNERSHIP WITH JAPAN ON SATELLITES

        Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Get my questions in right now.
        You almost sounded like you were on this side of the table.
    You have referred twice to we are in the discussions with Japan
    about trying to deal with the gap. Just in terms of the global
    capabilities here, does that mean that unless Japan cooperates,
    that is, I assume sends up a new satellite, or gives you
    access, or gives NOAA access to data, that is the only way
    feasible to not have this gap?
        Dr. Busalacchi. In the near term, that is correct. We won't
    have that. And even then that is in 2016, that particular
    mission.
        Mr. Fattah. So are those discussions going well? You can't
    comment? You don't know?
        Dr. Busalacchi. I would have to defer to my NOAA colleague.
    That is in NOAA.
        Dr. Karl. Yeah. And I can say that this issue comes up not
    only with Japan but with all the countries. We have engaged
    stridently with the international community about free and open
    data exchange. And that is an issue that is of vital importance
    to not only this country but other countries. Our policy in the
    U.S. has always been to provide our data freely and openly. You
    know, if there is a cost of sending tapes, you know, certainly
    that is involved in the charge. But----

                             GAPS IN SATELLITE DATA

        Mr. Fattah. But this is a 2016 launch?
        Dr. Busalacchi. The second GeoComm would be 2016. That is
    correct.
        Mr. Fattah. Okay. So we don't have any other capacity by
    2016 then to solve this on our own if we had to.
        Dr. Karl. Unlikely.
        Dr. Busalacchi. And that is why I will read it again. Hence
    the need for such a strategy.
        Mr. Fattah. Well, that is enlightening. Thank you.

                               Closing Statement

        Mr. Mollohan. Let me ask my colleagues. You are just
    covering a series of questions that I wanted to cover. Just a
    few nuances that I think you could address. We could submit for
    the record. There are a couple of other questions for the
    record.
        Mr. Serrano, Mr. Fattah, do you need to come back? I was
    going to ask you gentlemen to stay. Because we covered that and
    we can submit a couple for the records, we have got a series of
    eight two-minute votes. And then we vote to recommit. We won't
    be back until almost 4:00. So I think it is better to thank you
    all very much for appearing here today. We ask you to be
    responsive to some questions that we are submitting for the
    record that we surely will have.
        And we most assuredly appreciate the good work that both of
    you do. We understand how important it is. We are beginning to
    understand how it all fits together. And we want to
    increasingly understand that. We can't do that without your
    expertise. And we want to be responsive and help you all do
    your job. And you are helping to lay a good scientific factual
    basis for us to consider appropriations.
        So thank you for your appearance here today. Usually I
    would give witnesses a chance to sum up and say what they
    haven't said. But perhaps you can submit that for the record if
    you need to do it. Thanks so much for your appearance here
    today.
        The hearing is adjourned.

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.046

                                              Thursday, March 19, 2009.

             CLIMATE SATELLITE REQUIREMENTS, NASA AND NOAA PROGRAMS

                                   WITNESSES

    DR. BERRIEN MOORE, PH.D., CLIMATE CENTRAL
    DR. RICHARD ANTHES, PH.D., UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC
        RESEARCH

                     Opening Statement by Chairman Mollohan

        Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order.
        Welcome, gentlemen. Good to see you today.
        Dr. Moore and Dr. Anthes, welcome before the Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies.
        Well, we appreciate your coming today to help us understand
    the requirements for long-term satellite observations to
    support the understanding, the prediction, and monitoring of
    climate change and the specific characteristics required of the
    systems that provide them.
        Requirements for precision, accuracy, calibration, and
    continuity influence costs, but meeting these requirements is
    critical to getting value from investments in Earth
    observations.
        Both of you have wonderful backgrounds in these areas, and
    we really appreciate your coming before the Committee this
    morning to share that with us.
        For several budget cycles, this Subcommittee has been
    wrestling with cost growth, schedule slips, and payload
    descoping of the NPOESS Program. Traditional wisdom says that
    one should be able to control two of these three factors, but
    in this disastrous case, control of all of them has been lost.
        To restore essential climate change scope, the just enacted
    Omnibus appropriation for fiscal year 2009 provides $74 million
    to restore a clouds and radiation sensor to the NPOESS
    Preparatory Program and a second copy of this instrument and a
    complementary solar instrument to the payload of the first
    NPOESS satellite.
        $150 million is provided in the 2009 Omnibus and $400
    million in ``The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
    2009'' to accelerate development of Earth observation
    satellites as recommended by the National Research Council, as
    you well know.
        To gain the benefit of flying the suite of climate
    instruments and satellites, the nation needs effective data
    systems and centers, numerical models capable of simulating
    these and other data, and an organizational structure to engage
    the research data provider and user communities.
        Information products must be developed and provided for use
    on regional to global scales and covering time spans from the
    seasonal to the multi-decadal.
        Dr. Moore and Dr. Anthes, we look forward to gaining your
    insights as we work to ensure that the nation has a credible
    climate change research and operational program to complement,
    guide, and inform the major investments being made in
    transformative energy technologies, infrastructure, and policy.
    And continuity, we understand, is very important.
        Your written statements, gentlemen, will be made a part of
    the record. Before I call on you for your oral presentations, I
    would like to call on our Ranking Minority, Mr. Wolf, for his
    comments.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not really
    have any comments.
        I am going to digress just for a moment because I see that
    Dr. Moore is from Princeton, correct?
        Mr. Moore. Not part of the University.
        Mr. Wolf. But you live in the Princeton area?
        Mr. Moore. Yes.
        Mr. Wolf. I know this is off the subject, but as a
    scientist, I had a bill in that deals with the whole issue of
    Lyme Disease and everything else. And I have talked to a lot of
    people in the Princeton area.
        What are your feelings on the whole issue of Lyme Disease?
    Are you concerned about it when you go out and are----
        Mr. Moore. That is interesting. And this is off----
        Mr. Wolf. Yeah. You can just maybe, so we do not take----
        Mr. Moore. What is striking to me was that from my previous
    post at New Hampshire, I had a small staff of six or seven. Two
    out of the six or seven had Lyme Disease.
        As soon as I moved to Princeton, I went into a hardware
    store and the very first thing he said to me, he said beware of
    Lyme Disease.
        Mr. Wolf. Yeah. Well, maybe what we can----
        Mr. Moore. And it is a very serious problem, I think,
    throughout the northeast.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, what we might want to do, if I can be in
    touch with you, I have a bill in with Congressman Smith. We set
    up an independent analysis to see, but I just thought I would
    just raise it because when I have been up in the Princeton
    area----
        Mr. Moore. Very serious.
        Mr. Wolf [continuing]. Yeah, the deer fences. In my area, I
    had a Lyme Disease conference several months ago, and I thought
    25 to 50 people, but 300 people came. They all had Lyme,
    chronic Lyme.
        So, anyway, welcome, and I will be chatting with you about
    that. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. You are welcome, Mr. Wolf.
        Gentlemen, if you will proceed with your testimony.
        Mr. Anthes
        Mr. Anthes. Okay. Sure.
        Well, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Wolf and members of
    the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on this
    important subject of NASA/NOAA relations.
        It has been said that the Earth is covered two-thirds by
    water and one-third by Academy reports on NASA/NOAA relations
    and the transition to research observations.
        Mr. Mollohan. I caught that in the last paragraph.
        Mr. Anthes. So I am pleased to add to that one-third and
    maybe mitigate against sea level rise.
        So, anyway, I am Richard Anthes, Rick Anthes, and I am
    President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
    Research. This is a consortium of 73 research institutions and
    research universities that manages the National Center for
    Atmospheric Research or NCAR on behalf of the National Science
    Foundation.
        And I want to bring us back to the vision statement in the
    NRC Earth Sciences Decadal Survey which I co-chaired with my
    colleague here on my left. And I am not going to read the whole
    thing, but basically it says that understanding this complex
    planet and how it supports human life and how humans are
    affecting its ability to do so in the future is one of the most
    challenging intellectual problems facing humanity. And it is
    also one of the most important challenges for us as we seek to,
    as a society, to achieve prosperity, health, and
    sustainability.
        So addressing these societal challenges, both the
    intellectual ones and the practical ones of how we coexist with
    the rest of life on the planet and how we address issues
    related to sea level change, shifts in storm tracks, and,
    hence, severe weather, precipitation, droughts, heat waves,
    water availability, and so on; the key to understanding these,
    addressing these challenges requires a coherent program of
    sustained earth observations. And I emphasize coherent and
    sustained, neither of which we have today.
        And then we need the models to make sense of all of these
    different data from satellites, from ground-based sensors, from
    aircraft, and so on. We need models to make sense of these
    observations and to predict into the future not only weather
    but also climate.
        NASA and NOAA are the leading agencies responsible for
    global observations and prediction models and it is important
    to make sure that these agencies have well-defined missions and
    responsibilities and are adequately resourced to meet these
    essential national needs.
        Yet, the present federal agency paradigm with respect to
    NASA and NOAA is obsolete and nearly dysfunctional. In spite of
    the best efforts by individuals in NASA and NOAA, and I in no
    way am critical of the people, the present leadership of NASA
    and NOAA, the obsolete paradigm has NASA developing and
    demonstrating new observational techniques and measurements and
    then transitioning these technologies to NOAA or sometimes DoD
    for use on a sustained multi-decadal basis.
        Well, why is this not working? The traditional focus on
    research to operations neglects the need for long-term earth
    observations in favor of emphasis on weather forecasts. And as
    a weather forecaster from a long time ago, I have nothing
    against weather forecasts or improving weather forecasts, but
    it is not sufficient.
        The focus only on weather observations leads to the neglect
    of measurements that have very high climate value but low
    direct support for weather forecasting. So our ability as a
    nation to sustain climate observations has been complicated by
    the fact that neither NASA nor NOAA have the mandate and the
    required budgets to do so.
        So while funding for earth sciences fortunately is
    improving thanks to the economic stimulus and to the fiscal
    year 2009 enacted budget and the proposed fiscal year 2010
    budget, as far as I can see at the high level, we are still
    short for what is called for in the Decadal Survey.
        And NOAA certainly does not have an adequate budget for
    sustaining needed weather observations, much less climate
    observations.
        So the first step, the Decadal Survey, which gets a lot of
    attention on the 17 missions, we had another recommendation in
    there that as far as I can tell has been neglected.
        We recommended that the White House Office of Science and
    Technology Policy, OSTP, in collaboration with the relevant
    agencies and in consultation with the scientific community
    develop and implement a plan, a real plan for achieving and
    sustaining global earth observations.
        And my one take-home message from my oral testimony that I
    reiterate the importance of this recommendation and urge its
    implementation in the new Administration.
        I thank the members of this Committee for your stewardship
    of the nation's scientific enterprise for many years, for
    holding these hearings, and I commend you for supporting the
    more robust funding for earth sciences in the recent fiscal
    year 2009 appropriations process.
        [Written testimony by Richard A. Anthes, President of the
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.050

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Doctor.
        Dr. Moore.
        Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member Mr. Wolf,
    other members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here
    to testify today.
        My name is Berrien Moore, III, and I am Executive Director
    of a new nonprofit in Princeton. It is a sporting time to leave
    a University and go to a new nonprofit in this economy.
        I appear here, however, as Chair of the Committee of Earth
    Studies of the Space Studies Board of the National Academy. I
    endorse what my colleague, Dr. Anthes, had said about the
    Decadal and about the recommendation calling for the plan. And
    I would like just to speak informally about my written
    testimony.
        First of all, regarding the budget, we have been very
    appreciative, the scientific community, for the near-term
    budget actions, but satellites are developed over a five or six
    year period. And what I have seen is that there has never been
    an adequate out-year budget that would really allow one to
    implement the recommendations in the Decadal Survey.
        And I do not know what the out-year budget for 2010 is for
    earth science, but I have read about what the NASA out-year
    budget is for NASA and I am worried.
        The second thing in addition to the resources in the out-
    years, there is this question of controlling costs. I think we
    have got to find a way to control costs better. I am not
    certain what those techniques are and how we might do it, but I
    do know it is a serious problem.
        I have some thoughts about that that we can talk about
    later. Now, let me deal with the question of climate and the
    nature of the climate problem.
        First of all, it is a very serious societal issue. Let me
    just mention two or three things.
        Carbon dioxide emissions are up 40 percent from 1992.
    Nineteen ninety-two is the year of Kyoto. So rather than
    winding back emissions to 1990 levels as suggested in Kyoto, we
    are up 40 percent.
        Secondly, sea level rise is increasing twice as fast as
    expected. Summertime Arctic Sea ice is decreasing far faster
    than any model had predicted.
        That brings me to the issue of how do we approach this
    problem of climate. We fundamentally have to approach the issue
    of climate, which is a long-term issue, with very sophisticated
    computer models. And they involve, as Rick Anthes just
    mentioned, more parts of the earth's system than just weather
    forecasting.
        A weather forecasting model really only needs sea surface
    temperature. It does not need to know anything about ocean
    circulation to forecast tomorrow's weather. But as you start
    looking out 10, 20, and 30 years, more parts of the earth's
    system come into play.
        Now, this poses a very real problem. How do we validate a
    projection out 30 years? With weather models, we validate it
    every day and if we do not like the model or the modeler, we
    can fire them. But how do we do this with climate models?
        And there is a very interesting technique that is emerging.
    We take various modes of climate. The most popular, the most
    well known is El Nino or La Nina. These are the two climate
    modes that start in the western Pacific Ocean and they actually
    ripple all the way around the planet. But how well do our
    climate models predict El Nino and the patterns of El Nino?
        Now, with this, you do not want to just talk about what
    happens in the western Pacific. You want to see how well do the
    climate models catch all of the dynamics of an El Nino
    condition. We know that it affects rainfall over Brazil. It
    affects air mass transports over Indonesia. It affects sea
    surface temperatures off of Africa. It affects California
    weather.
        How well do we catch the whole system? Well, in order to
    know what the whole system is doing, we have to have earth
    observations of sea surface winds, of precipitation, of
    vegetation cover, the things that would be affected by El Nino.
        Well, you do not just have to worry about El Nino. There
    are other patterns. There is something called the North
    Atlantic oscillation and this is something that has a ten year
    periodicity. It changes every ten years.
        So we can go back to the last 20 years of climate records,
    satellite observations, and see how well did we capture the
    North Atlantic oscillation. And this then becomes a fundamental
    test for our models in the way in which we look to the future.
        Let me just conclude with one set of observations that I
    think are particularly relevant given the recent failure of the
    orbiting carbon observatory to make orbit. This is something
    that I know quite well.
        In fact, in 2000 and 2001 when I was at the University of
    New Hampshire, I competed against the orbiting carbon
    observatory. I suggested an alternative way of doing it using
    lasers. The orbiting carbon observatory was going to use
    reflected sunlight off of the planet to determine how much
    CO2 there is in the atmosphere.
        The value of that determination is one could actually work
    backwards. You look at how much CO2 there is in the
    atmosphere. You look very carefully around the planet. And
    there are slight differences. The biggest difference is there
    is more CO2 in the northern hemisphere than there is
    in the southern hemisphere. Why? There is more industrial
    activity in the northern hemisphere.
        Well, it turns out there are east/west differences also.
    And if you look very carefully, you can work backwards to where
    is the CO2 coming from and where is it going to. The
    orbiting carbon observatory was to make those observations.
    Unfortunately, it did not make orbit.
        So what do we do in the future? Well, one thing we know for
    sure we are going to be measuring greenhouse gases and gases
    like CO2 from now on, at least for the next 100
    years. Therefore, we best get on with it because we absolutely
    must understand where is carbon dioxide coming from, where is
    it going to.
        The other that I would like to mention because you raised
    it, Mr. Mollohan, it is very fortunate that we are going to fly
    the CERES, the C-E-R-E-S, this is the cloud and radiation
    instrument, and the total solar radiance measurement.
        Why? Well, the solar radiance measures go look at how much
    energy is coming from the sun. So that is what is coming into
    the system. The CERES instrument looks at the planet and
    determines how much of that solar energy is reflected off the
    top of the atmosphere, how much enters the atmosphere, and then
    how much later comes out not as solar energy but as heat. That
    is the energy budget.
        And greenhouse gases like what I just mentioned with
    CO2, what the greenhouse gases do is they change
    that equation ever so slightly. So with the total solar
    radiance and the CERES instruments, we are beginning to monitor
    the earth's radiation budget which is the fundamental thing.
        My testimony mentions also what the Decadal Survey laid out
    for more detailed measurements of that budget, but I will
    conclude here and simply say that we face some very real issues
    with this question of climate. It is a serious and legitimate
    scientific problem and it is an important societal issue. We do
    not have the observational capability to adequately address
    this problem.
        Thank you very much.
        [Written statement by Berrien Moore III, Ph.D. Executive
    Director climate central Princeton, New Jersey follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.062

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Dr. Moore.
        Thank you both.
        Let me pick up with both of you and either of you can
    answer. Well, Dr. Moore, since you ended your testimony with
    this, why don't you just pick up the first answer.
        This whole week, we have had excellent testimony, and if we
    were not impressed before the hearings started at the beginning
    of the week, we certainly are now about the seriousness of the
    phenomena of global warming and the drivers, particularly
    CO2 emissions from human activity, which impressed
    upon us the importance of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory.
        So I would like you to talk a little bit about that--more
    why it was so important and the gap it bridged and what we are
    relying upon now and what we can substitute or how we respond
    to the failure of the launch and then when we are looking
    forward, what do we rely upon in the future.
        Mr. Moore. All right. First of all, I want to be very clear
    that I did as I said. I competed against it and so I had in
    some sense an interest in this topic.
        As I mentioned, what the Orbiting Carbon Observatory was
    going to do is to measure very precisely the differences in
    CO2 concentration around the planet. And those
    differences directly reflect where CO2 is coming
    from and where is it going to. We know that a lot of
    CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. Some goes back into
    regrowing forests.
        You cannot make that measurement what scientists call in
    situ. There is no way you can go out and adequately measure
    CO2 exchange at the surface of the ocean. It is
    impossible.
        Mr. Mollohan. And I do not want to interrupt you, but I
    want to be interactive with you on this. So we are talking
    about CO2 from any source?
        Mr. Moore. Right.
        Mr. Mollohan. So you would have identified it coming from
    stationary sources, you would identify it coming from mobile
    sources, and the OCO would identify not only the source but its
    distribution after it emanates from the source? Is that----
        Mr. Moore. Yes. But I think most importantly, it would at
    fairly large regional scales say how much CO2 is
    coming off of that region and how much is going back into that
    region. And you really get the net and you get that, I think,
    with OCO probably would have been able to get maybe monthly
    means, maybe weekly, but I think probably monthly at a regional
    scale.
        The finer you can make that measurement and the more
    densely you can make that measurement, the better you are at
    being able to get back to finer spatial scales and finer
    temporal scales.
        I mentioned that OCO worked off of reflected sunlight.
    Essentially it almost measures the greenhouse effect. That is,
    it looks at how much sunlight comes in and some of that
    sunlight is absorbed by CO2. And then as the
    sunlight is reflected back off the planet, it measures that.
    And it essentially can measure by the fact that CO2
    absorbs energy how much CO2 there is in the
    atmosphere, but it requires sunlight.
        So that means it makes no nighttime measurements and it
    makes no measurements in the high latitudes like over Moscow in
    the wintertime because there is just simply not enough
    sunlight. It makes no measurements over very cloudy conditions
    because you are not sure about where is the sunlight coming
    from. It is bouncing off of clouds.
        But it was going to make a real contribution. I think to go
    forward, we would probably go forward with an active instrument
    which was not really ready. That is what I suggested in 2000,
    but I probably was overreaching.
        But by now in 2009, I think it would be logical to take the
    next step in which case now you take a laser and you shine the
    laser down, not damaging anything, on the wavelength that
    CO2 absorbs energy. So in some sense, you take the
    sun with you. And that way, you would make measurements day,
    night. You make them over the high latitudes in the wintertime.
    You make them off the tops of clouds. You make them between the
    clouds. But we have to get on with that.
        The Decadal Survey recommended a mission. It is called
    ASCENDS. I will not bother you with the acronym. It is just
    easier to remember ASCENDS. And that is the second tier of
    missions. And this takes me right back. We are not even on a
    path to implement a third of the Decadal Survey because of this
    lack of out-year monies. And, therefore, ASCENDS is not in that
    first third.
        Mr. Mollohan. It is in the second third; is it not, Dr.
    Anthes?
        Mr. Anthes. Well, let me first say why these high
    resolution global measurements of CO2 are useful
    from my point of view.
        You have all seen the Mauna Loa record.
        Mr. Mollohan. The what? I am sorry.
        Mr. Anthes. The Mauna Loa record in Hawaii that shows the
    Keeling curves as one of the most fundamental benchmark
    observations we have ever taken. And it shows how the carbon
    dioxide has been going up gradually, up and down with the
    seasons, up and down, but there is a clear upward trend. The
    ups and downs are because Mauna Loa is in the northern
    hemisphere.
        And so in the summer, when all the plants are taking up
    CO2, the actual CO2 goes down in the
    northern hemisphere, but then it goes up in the next winter
    when the plant activity is not as active. And then it goes down
    again the following summer. So you can see ups and downs
    seasonaly, but the trend is unmistakably going up. Nobody, not
    even the most skeptical global change, global warming person,
    denies this Mauna Loa record.
        But the Mauna Log record is a global measurement and it is
    way up in the atmosphere. It is an average. It does not look at
    where the CO2 being emitted over China is, where the
    CO2 emitted over the U.S. is, the southern
    hemisphere.
        So we need these observations on the regional basis and
    every day so that, number one, we can verify models, verify,
    check our models, make sure our models of the carbon cycle are
    working correctly because if they are not showing higher
    CO2 concentrations over China, for example, or the
    East Coast of the U.S., then there is something wrong with the
    models.
        We also need it, too, for checking the effectiveness of
    policies. If we try to limit CO2 emissions somehow,
    we need to know whether these policies we enact are being
    effective.
        And so these are two reasons why we need this spatial
    distribution and temporal resolution, to check our
    understanding of the carbon cycling models and to verify
    treaties, if you will, to know where the major emissions are.
    So that is why we need them.
        Now, the orbiting carbon observatory had a lot of positive
    things. Number one, it should have been up there right now.
    ASCENDS is going to be, even under the best scenario, eight,
    ten, twelve years in the future. So there is going to be a huge
    gap in this needed capability.
        ASCENDS and OCO are different technologies. As Berrien
    mentioned, OCO is passive. You do not need an active laser. So,
    therefore, it is cheaper and perhaps more useful for long-term,
    monitoring.
        However, OCO does not observe anything during the night.
    And the active technology does get observations during the
    night. So we are always faced with these tradeoffs. The
    different technologies have advantages in some areas and
    disadvantages in others.
        I understand that NASA is looking at the pros and cons of
    redoing OCO, relaunching an OCO. I think that process is very
    good and I support it. They will be looking at the pluses and
    minuses of, doing another OCO versus, say, looking at other
    satellite systems that are up there now or moving ASCENDS up in
    the queue.
        I think that is a good process and you need objective
    experts looking at the pros and cons of these things.
        Mr. Mollohan. What about relying on foreign instruments?
        Mr. Anthes. Well, if the foreign instruments can do the
    job, that would be okay, but let me say how would you like to
    rely on foreign governments to defend the U.S.?
        Mr. Mollohan. How would you like to rely on foreign
    governments to get your humans into space?
        Mr. Anthes. Exactly. So, you know, I think that the U.S.
    needs some capabilities----
        Mr. Mollohan. We have done it before.

                  COOPERATE AND COLLABORATE WITH OTHER NATIONS

        Mr. Anthes. I know, so I think this brings up a really good
    question about how much we cooperate and collaborate with other
    nations. We need to do as much as we can and we do. We have
    many good collaborations with the European Space Agency,
    Brazil, Japan, even countries which are not that closely----
        Mr. Mollohan. But your point is we should do it?
        Mr. Anthes. We have got to have a minimal----
        Mr. Mollohan. It is so important that we should do it?
        Mr. Anthes. We have got to have a minimal capability. You
    would not rely on another country for weather forecasts.
        Mr. Mollohan. Right.
        Mr. Anthes. And we should not rely on them for climate
    forecasts. We have to have your own, at a minimal level, at
    least at a sustaining level, and then rely on the other
    observations of other countries to fill in the gaps. But we
    have to have a bare-bones capability on our own in my opinion.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Bottom line question, what do you
    recommend----
        Mr. Anthes. I have been waiting for----
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. If you have a specific
    recommendation?
        Mr. Anthes. I would recommend waiting for the NASA full
    evaluation.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
        Mr. Anthes. I think there are pros and cons and I hesitate
    to be----
        Mr. Mollohan. Fair enough. Thank you.
        Mr. Wolf.

                             NEW NASA ADMINISTRATOR

        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Just to follow-up, when will that be? There is no NASA
    Administrator. There is no NASA Administrator on the scene. The
    gentleman who was speculated to be, there is now speculation
    that he will be the special envoy for Darfur. So he went from
    NASA to Darfur in about two months.
        And so when? Who is doing this? Who has the responsibility?
    Will they act before there is a new Administrator? When is the
    expectation that this will be decided?
        Mr. Anthes. Well, the study is underway right now being led
    by the Earth Sciences Director at NASA, the study for whether
    to do OCO or not. Who makes that decision, I suppose there is
    an acting Administrator.
        I think a NASA Administrator is needed as soon as possible,
    if that is your question. But I think the studies are going on
    and hopefully when the study is done, we will have a NASA
    Administrator. But I take your point. We need a good NASA
    Administrator.
        Mr. Moore. In that regard, I think the technical issue--I
    certainly support what Rick Anthes said about having--let this
    process going forward, evaluating the pros and cons, but if the
    decision is to refly OCO or if the decision is to advance the
    active mission, there is going to need to be--that has a
    financial implication. And I do not believe that there is
    adequate funds in the current budget to execute either of those
    decisions.
        And in that sense, Mr. Wolf, I concur that the technical
    issue could be evaluated at the scientific level, but there is
    a policy and financial issue that probably is above that pay
    grade.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, I am not optimistic about the future of
    having the resources in the sense that our country is broke. I
    mean, we are broke. It seems that the Congress does not know it
    and no one else knows it, but everybody knows it. It is sort of
    like what are we doing.
        Today my staff just showed me an article. A UN panel will
    next week recommend that the world ditch the dollar as its
    reserve currency in favor of a shared basket. Well, that would
    be disastrous. We lose our triple A bond rating, according to
    Moody's, in year 2012.
        And it just seems to be kind of, the headlines today, the
    fed bails out another 1.2 trillion, and the speculation is that
    the deficit that will come out tomorrow, CBO's figures come out
    tomorrow, that the deficit for this year will be $2 trillion.
        And when I see some of this money going out, if we could
    only put it in science and math and science and physics and
    chemistry and biology and cancer research and research on
    autism and research on Alzheimer's and the things that really,
    you know, help the nation and, yet, it just seems, you know, I
    do not know if it is going to be the money.
        And everyone has testified since, and I commend the
    Chairman for having these hearings, everyone has said it has
    been great for the stimulus and they are looking forward to the
    money and what will it be on the out-years.
        You know, I just, unless there is a--maybe what my mom and
    dad taught is that, you know, you do not have to save. Maybe
    you can just go down to the Bureau of Engraving and just print
    money and get a lot of paper and a lot of ink and just keep
    things running and running and running.
        And I have always thought it was a zero sum game, but
    apparently maybe--so I think there are going to be some long-
    term problems.
        I have a bill in with Congressman Cooper. We put it in
    yesterday. There were 26 Republicans on the bill and 26
    Democrats. Interesting, but we hear that there is no
    bipartisanship in this place and here it is probably
    happenstance that we had 26 and 26.
        If we put every spending program on the table and set up a
    bipartisan commission, but also to look to make sure that we
    have the funding for things that you are talking about--did you
    take the train down?
        Mr. Moore. Yes.
        Mr. Wolf. When you go home, are you taking the train home
    today?
        Mr. Moore. Yes.
        Mr. Wolf. Do not read the paper for about two hours. Go
    through my old neighborhood up in Philly. When you go by there,
    all the factories are in decay. Just look at the factories all
    through the Maryland area and Pennsylvania. They are all
    closed. The windows are broken. The graffiti all over. The
    trash has been dumped all along there.
        You must get off at the Trenton stop. You know the sign on
    the bridge, Trenton makes, the world takes. For the record,
    what does Trenton make? It does not make anything. It has a
    violent MS13 gang problem.
        So economically we need to put more money into the things
    that you are talking about and have a renaissance for this
    nation to do precisely what you are recommending. And, yet, I
    fear that the way this situation is going with regard to the
    spending that there will be additional tremendous spending, but
    it will not be in the area that what you all talk about. And
    for our children and grandchildren, it will not be very, very
    bright.
        Doctor, this problem was around for a good while on the
    coordination. And should this Committee put legislative
    language in requiring that there be one office that coordinates
    between NASA and NOAA or do you develop in the White House--and
    the White House Office on Science, I think, is relatively
    ineffective.
        I do not know how many people. Does anyone know how many
    people are in the office down there? They actually recommended
    in the last Administration that their budget be cut. I think
    they are down to a handful of people. Does anybody here know
    how many are in the office? Do you know how many are in the
    house? Are you with the office?
        Ms. Shanley. No, but I thought there were about 40.
        Mr. Wolf. Forty. Yeah, 40. And then two years ago,
    Marburger recommended that it be cut, cut, reduced, cut. Maybe
    we need a National Security Council, but a Science Security
    Council, not necessarily in the White House, but sort of to be
    the coordinator because when you do have scarce resources, you
    have to make a decision, you know, as a business or an
    individual what are you going to do, and one to advocate for
    the sciences, but also to be able to make these decisions.
        Would that make sense? So we are not solving the world
    problem, but this problem, should this Committee put language
    in recommending that there be a mechanism established within 60
    to 30, 90 days to deal with this issue because this issue is
    not new? It has been going on when the Republicans had
    Congress. I was on this Committee and it was still a problem
    then.
        What do you think should be done? Should we legislate in
    the appropriations bill something to require the coordination
    and what do you think about the concept of having a Science
    Security Council that can coordinate this, because we do now--
    Secretary of State does international relations, but we have
    the National Security Council that sort of coordinates these
    between with regard to the different agencies. So it is really
    two questions and if both of you have any thoughts.
        Mr. Anthes. Well, I hate to recommend legislation without
    thinking more deeply about it. But, you know, we recommended,
    the Decadal Survey recommended that OSTP develop a plan.
        Mr. Wolf. And has that been done?
        Mr. Anthes. No.
        Mr. Wolf. And how long has the recommendation been on the
    table?
        Mr. Anthes. Well, 2007, so two and a half years or
    whatever.
        Mr. Wolf. That is like Waiting For Godot. You remember that
    play, Waiting For Godot? Godot never shows up.
        Mr. Anthes. Well, I think from what you are saying and what
    I have heard is that OSTP needed to be strengthened, not
    diminished. And I think there is hope that under this
    Administration OSTP will be strengthened and can take this on.
        But there are probably a variety of ways that this plan can
    be developed, but we really do need a thoughtful national plan
    to sort out the roles of NASA and NOAA on long-term sustained
    climate observations.
        Mr. Moore. I think that we recognize that there is a
    mismatch between the responsibilities and capabilities of the
    different agencies and that sometimes the largest of ideas like
    climate can fall through the smallest of cracks in Washington I
    have discovered. And sometimes the smallest of ideas will not
    fall through the largest of cracks. I have never quite
    understood what happens.
        But clearly we have got to get the house in order, the
    government in order in terms of handling this question of
    climate and earth observation. We do not have it in order.
        Mr. Wolf. And how long has it been a problem?
        Mr. Moore. Oh, I think for at least a decade.
        Mr. Wolf. And sometimes you have to give one person the
    responsibility. If everyone's job is to take the trash out, no
    one takes it out.
        My sense is it may not be a bad idea for the Committee to
    put language in directing the Administration to have a
    mechanism to kind of coordinate.

                            CHINA AND GLOBAL WARMING

        Okay. I think there are a couple of other questions. The
    other question, with regard to global warming, how much of a
    factor is China and how successful can we be in resolving the
    problem, however it should be resolved, without having the
    active participation of China and also India, but particularly
    China?
        Mr. Moore. China passed the U.S. in terms of total carbon
    emissions about 18 months ago. So as a country, they are the
    largest emitter now on the planet. Their per capita emissions
    are still much lower than our per capita emissions. But as a
    nation state, they are the largest emitter right now.
        That is I think primarily for two reasons. They have had a
    very rapidly growing economy and, hence, an energy system that
    has been expanding. And the primary source of electrical power
    is coal. And coal produces more CO2 per energy unit,
    so it is a less efficient fuel, if you will, than natural gas.
    So their----
        Mr. Wolf. I heard they put a new coal power plant when I
    was there in July every week to----
        Mr. Moore. Every week, right. I think it is about every
    week with a 300 megawatt power plant was coming on. But I am
    not positive about that. But they are the largest emitter. It
    is a very intensive economy. It is based on a large electrical
    power plant growth employing primarily coal.
        Now, what could be done if there are ways in which we are
    going to address carbon either with cap and trade or with a tax
    or some regulatory means, then I think it will encourage
    technologies to offset that CO2 emission.
        And one of my dreams, and perhaps it is just a dream, is
    that the U.S. leads the world in carbon capture technology and
    then we have something to export other than McDonald's.
        Mr. Wolf. Does it make sense insofar, and, Doctor, I want
    to get to you too----
        Mr. Moore. And I would like to see that built in Trenton.
        Mr. Wolf. Yes. Well, I agree. Does it make sense to do a
    cap and trade or does it make sense to do--there was an article
    in the Washington Post by a fellow from Denmark, I forget his
    name now, that we, rather than doing that, put more money into
    research and development.
        Do you recall the gentleman's name? Bjorn. Either of you
    may know of him. Is he controversial in a good sense? I mean,
    Brad Pitt is controversial. I mean, is he credible?
        Mr. Moore. I do not think so.
        Mr. Wolf. You do not think so. Okay.
        Mr. Moore. No.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, his recommendation says more money into
    research and development to have green technologies----
        Mr. Moore. I think that is legitimate. In looking at his
    full portfolio of ideas, I find many of them suspect and they
    change rapidly.
        Mr. Wolf. Are you familiar with that idea that he----
        Mr. Moore. But I think the idea of plowing money into green
    technologies, we ought to be pushing very hard in my view on
    renewable resources, solar, wind. I mean, the United States has
    a wind belt right across the middle of the country.
        I think one of the challenges for our technology is as we
    go to alternative energy systems, we have to restructure the
    electrical grid so that it can handle these types of energy
    sources that may come on and go off.
        Mr. Wolf. I want to give the doctor a chance at it, but you
    did not answer the other question of how--you talked about
    China, but can you solve the problem without China being an
    active participant? No, Dr. Moore. They will not pick up your
    nodding. You have to actually verbalize.
        Mr. Moore. I think you have to have all of the major
    emitters involved.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay. And the very problem is we have begged
    China to deal with the issue of Darfur and rather than solving
    the issue, the genocide in Darfur, they are developing genocide
    in Darfur by selling weapons to the Janjaweed and to the Sudan
    government that is doing the terrible things.
        And we have genocide that has been going on for five years.
    China goes to Darfur and says what they are going to do is
    build a new embassy and a palace for Bashir who has been
    indicted by the ICC.
        So I guess the point I worry about is you can talk about
    these things intellectually, but China, and if you--have you
    been there lately?
        Mr. Moore. Yeah. Yes.
        Mr. Wolf. You can see. I mean, they are pulsating. Their
    economy is just--and I see no indications that they are going
    to slow down because if they do, they are worried they are
    going to have riots in the street and the government will be
    overthrown. And they have great unemployment out in the rural
    areas. So I think they are going the other way. And so I think
    without having something, whatever it is, that they participate
    in would be very difficult.
        Doctor, do you have any comments?
        Mr. Anthes. Well, let me just be brief because Berrien said
    it, but let me just summarize it in my own words.
        No, the U.S. cannot solve CO2 emissions,
    greenhouse gas emissions by itself. I think we are roughly a
    quarter of the world's emitters. Nevertheless, that does not
    mean we should use this as an excuse to do nothing.
        Mr. Wolf. I agree.
        Mr. Anthes. We should----
        Mr. Wolf. But look at the other side, though. How
    significant is China and then a little bit India in the
    solution?
        Mr. Anthes. Well, they are big. They are a very big part. I
    think we can lead the way in reducing or leveling off our
    emissions, in a way that will not hurt the economy by investing
    in renewable energies that we can then export to countries like
    India and China. So I do think we need to set an example by
    doing the right thing, and at the same time doing the thing
    that is right for us, which is getting into the development of
    renewable technologies that we can create jobs and then export,
    and help solve the other countries' problems as well. So it is
    not, it is not an either/or situation. I think we can do right,
    and do right by us.
        Mr. Wolf. But you are saying that we do need China and
    India to participate?
        Mr. Anthes. Absolutely.
        Mr. Wolf. Because if you have a cupboard and there is mice
    in the house, and your half of the cupboard you clean every
    night. You put Mr. Clean in, and very clean. The other side of
    the cupboard is China, and they just put in crumbs, and candy,
    and do not put the lid on the cake. The mice are coming. I
    mean, you can keep it as clean as you want to be on your side
    but, and so I think we need to make sure that they are
    participants. And I really see them not being willing to. And I
    really worry that what we may very well move on, that this
    could become such a political, I would hope that the whole
    issue of global warming is really resolved by the scientists
    and not by the politicians. We see how great the politicians
    were at solving the AIG problem and they are all on television
    now saying that they did not know what was in it, and this and
    that, and that. I mean, I think we need scientists, real
    scientists, people who are honest, ethical, decent, moral who
    are basing their decisions on science to come up with some of
    the solutions. And then I think there needs to be pressure,
    both from a positive and a negative, on China. Chinese people
    are wonderful people. I mean, they want freedom. They are
    thirsting for freedom. And so, perhaps this government will
    collapse and we will see freedom in our lifetime, the way of
    the Berlin Wall. But to make sure that China participates. And
    also, we cannot forget India. We respect and understand how
    they want to participate and have opportunities for their
    people, but we also want to make sure that they do it in an
    appropriate way and are participants. And let us hope that if
    we bring the, do you want to say something?
        Mr. Moore. Yes, very briefly.
        Mr. Wolf. We bring, because I am getting ready to offer an
    amendment to this bill to change the sign over the river to
    say, ``The world makes and Trenton takes.'' So I will hold off
    on that amendment to see if we can get Trenton to buy the place
    to put them, but.
        Mr. Moore. I would prefer the sign to say, ``Trenton makes
    and the world buys,'' rather than takes. Two things about this
    carbon dioxide problem that are very, very important and why
    this Earth observation is so critical. In order to stabilize
    the concentration in the atmosphere of CO2, and my
    testimony talks to this. If you stabilize the emissions, and we
    are far from that. Suppose you could stabilize magically, we
    wave a wand and tomorrow the emissions stabilize. The
    concentration in the atmosphere would keep right on going up.
    In order to stabilize the concentration in the atmosphere,
    which is what everything is really all about, you have got to
    drop emissions by 80-plus percent. So this is a, and we are
    going in exactly the opposite direction as a planet. So in
    order to stabilize the concentration in the atmosphere you have
    got to pull the emissions way down.
        Secondly, once you stabilize the emissions in the
    atmosphere, climate will not instantaneously stabilize. We have
    already kicked off a set of changes in the climate system, such
    that even after stabilizing the concentration in the atmosphere
    temperature increases will continue. The temperature, put it
    this way, it lags the greenhouse gas. You have set in motion
    melting the Arctic sea ice. That is going to continue right on,
    even after you stabilize the CO2. So this is a very,
    very tough problem. And it really requires, I think, everyone,
    everyone on the planet to address it.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. Mr. Honda.

                             Mr. Honda's Questions

        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome. Thank you
    for being here this morning. We get a lot of information on
    scientific data, we get a lot of information on different
    cycles and how they all interact globally. And a lot of these
    things have been affected by human behavior. And I think that
    what we are talking about, or alluding to, is human behavior
    again in the form of policy and international cooperation, or
    the lack of cooperation. Leadership or lack of leadership. Can
    you talk to us a little bit about it in the context of human
    behavior? How we can move this country to a point where we
    become not only a nation that is responsible?
        We should have started earlier. And from your point of
    view, you have seen a lot of things happen. And you have a
    context of science and you have the lenses of the kind of thing
    that you would understand coming from that point of view, have
    some critique of the process, human process, political process,
    of this country when it should have started. How should we
    start now? And what are the barriers and obstacles to
    international cooperation. Because, let us face it, there is
    mistrust of us and there is mistrust of them. And so moving,
    addressing that as we watch the cycles continue and change and
    creating, so we know it is going to be creating. How should we
    move as a country in terms of our national policy relative to
    human behavior and political, and policies and address that?
        Mr. Anthes. Wow. Maybe we should ask some psychologists
    here or some religious leaders.
        Mr. Honda. No, because let us face it, the last
    international conference, the countries that came together said
    let us wait until the country has another leadership because we
    know that until that happens they are not going to commit
    themselves to any long term pathway until the other place came
    in. And so, we are prepared to have to have so many other
    countries thinking and their desire for us to be involved. And
    I know what I heard you say, that we cannot solve this problem
    without cooperation of the other emitters. So what is the human
    dynamic that we as policy makers need to embrace as we move
    forward? Knowing full well of the academic, scientific things
    that are in play right now. And the devastation that is
    occurring right now. And do we continue to play our fiddle
    while Rome burns, or do we look at some sort of movement that
    moves the spirit of trying to solve the problem globally and
    domestically?
        Mr. Anthes. Well, I think this gets to my answer to Mr.
    Wolf's question, about can the U.S. solve the global warming
    problem by itself. No, but we can be the leader. We can take
    the high road. And we can start taking actions and set an
    example for the rest of the world that will appeal to the best
    qualities of human beings, not the worst. And so I think this
    is a leadership problem and it involves leadership at the top,
    but more than one leader. And it is to appeal to the best side
    of human nature rather than the side that says it is not my
    problem, let us just wait for the next generation, the next
    administration, the next election to solve it. So I think it
    does take leadership, and to appeal to the highest aspects of
    human nature.
        Mr. Honda. Then what is the next step in order to engage?
    We behave responsibly. Now what is the next step in engaging
    the other countries to overcome the obstacle of this perception
    that we have of mistrust that we have developed over the
    decades?
        Mr. Anthes. Well, this involves, again, starting out by
    being a leader and setting the example, and then negotiating.
    And I am not an expert in that. But if you do not take the high
    road yourself you do not have much of a negotiating position.
        Mr. Honda. So do you have colleagues in the other countries
    that we mentioned of like mind and spirit?
        Mr. Anthes. Absolutely.
        Mr. Honda. And are there discussions around this dilemma
    of, we have met the enemy, the enemy is us, and how we get
    around the politicians and have the politicians understand that
    our behavior sometimes may be the obstacle? And how do you
    create that pathway for us to be able to move down so that we
    can develop this road of competence? What is the mechanism to
    do that? And, I mean, if you know the other folks you talk to
    them, I am sure.
        Mr. Anthes. Well, the scientific community is pretty much
    united on these issues internationally. There is not a U.S.
    science and a French science and a Chinese science.
        Mr. Honda. Right.
        Mr. Anthes. Science is science. And so I think our role is
    to provide you all with the best science that we have. It is
    your role to establish the policies as governors and to work
    with the rest of your counterparts to try to help solve these
    political issues.
        Mr. Honda. You know, the Chinese emperors used to have
    their advisors. And they gave the best advice at the risk of
    their lives. Here we call them kitchen cabinets, and we are
    supposed to give the best advice that we can to our policy
    makers. As knowledgeable, intelligent cadres of folks in all
    these countries come together, would there not be a statement
    that the community, the scientific community, can make besides
    saying there is no Chinese carbon cycle, there is no U.S.
    carbon cycle? The sinkholes are not, you know, they are all
    India?
        Before we had the Cold War ending we had scientists from
    around the world getting together and saying, ``This is
    madness. Stop.'' Where is the scientific community on that, to
    help our policy makers be moved to do something in a timely
    manner?
        Mr. Moore. Oh, I think that there are two very prominent
    levers, if you will, or very prominent statements. The last
    four assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
    Change reflect the very best thinking on the science, the
    impacts, and the mitigation strategies. And those are
    assessments of the best thinking of the international
    scientific community. And so I think you could look to the
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the gold standard
    in terms of our contribution.
        And the second in terms of an additional activity I think
    on this issue of Earth remote sensing, it after all is remote
    sensing of the planet. We have partners around the planet. And
    I think that it, and it was actually an initiative of the
    previous NOAA administrator, the so called Global Earth
    Observing System of Systems.
        Mr. Honda. Right.
        Mr. Moore. I think that type of activity, if it is actually
    funded and not just a set of meetings that are held with
    nothing of no consequent coming out, might be a very real way
    forward so that it would be, it would reflect U.S. leadership
    in an international context. But at the end of the day, we have
    to begin to put things in space. We cannot just plan and plan
    and talk about it. Just as at the end of the day we have to
    begin to change the energy system. We can make plans forever.
    But if we do not begin to execute, carbon dioxide is going to
    continue to increase in the atmosphere and we are not going to
    know what is happening.
        Mr. Honda. The testimonials written here divided the
    comments into scientific information and human behavior. And I
    still get answers in terms of human behavior embedded in more
    science. And I guess I am just looking for someone to say, you
    know, if we go to war we lose. We have lost the battle. If we
    wait too long and do not say what needs to be said, then the
    political leaders who depend upon information will be lacking.
    Because when we are taught to be science students we are driven
    to take notes, observe data, record it, and make a conclusion.
    I have not heard a conclusion that is embedded in the direction
    of human behavior relative to how we use all this information
    in terms of moving towards cooperation. I mean, it is said you
    cannot do it alone. That is a given, I think. I would hope that
    is a given. That we need to engage India and China, we need to
    provide that leadership because, that is the right thing to do.
        I know what I want to hear. It probably is obvious. But,
    you know, sometimes we have to hear from the community that
    says we did all the study. We need more money for the other
    studies to embed more information. But how much more
    information do you need, you know? Papa Bear, Mama Bear and
    Baby Bear already knew someone slept in the bed. And the
    conclusion was, you know, someone was here.
        It may be that you are, your position is such that you
    cannot make any other statements other than this. But I am
    trying to drive you to a point where----
        Mr. Moore. I think that this particular problem had a
    period of as it evolved where there was a lot of disinformation
    brought into the system.
        Mr. Honda. Right.
        Mr. Moore. And the reason is this is a very big problem.
    Fossil fuel, look at the Antarctic ozone hole and that involved
    fluorocarbons in spray cans.
        Mr. Honda. Right.
        Mr. Moore. And look how tough that was. Fluorocarbons in
    spray cans is not in the center of the economy of
    industrialized countries.
        Mr. Honda. Right.
        Mr. Moore. Fossil fuels are. They are right in the center
    of economic development. And therefore you are right at the
    core of the fabric of industrial society when you are talking
    about energy. And as a consequence I think that there was a
    period of time where there was a lot of disinformation. Most,
    at least half of our citizens in the United States still think
    that it is just bogus. And so I think that we have to really
    come to grips with the nature of this problem. And then we have
    to say it is not all that bad. We can actually do something
    about it. The color of money is green, what is wrong with that?
    And so that we begin to move from problem identification to
    doing something about it. And that involves jobs, it involves
    redoing the energy structures, it becomes more efficient. I
    think that there is a real opportunity here for the United
    States to really execute leadership.
        Mr. Anthes. I do not know if this is what you are looking
    for, and I am not trying to match that, necessarily. But let me
    give you a simple, personal recommendation, not as representing
    anybody. I think the administration and Congress of the United
    States should take a leadership role internationally working
    with other nations to reduce the global dependence on carbon as
    a source of energy. And do so by setting an example, and do so
    by in a way that it does not disrupt, it does not disrupt our
    economy but rather builds it. And I think this is a serious
    issue for society of the whole world. It is not like an
    asteroid is going to hit us next week or next month. But in the
    next generation and the generation after that it is very
    serious. The western governors already know it is serious and
    are working, and really want to know what is going on with the
    water cycle in the west. And so they want the information right
    now for mitigation purposes, for adaptation purposes. But if
    you want a simple answer I think we need to take a leadership
    role in getting us off the carbon, carbon as a source of
    energy.
        Mr. Honda. Last question, Mr. Chairman. These regional
    leaders experiencing these kinds of natural occurrences, can
    they find other natural occurrences that are similar in other
    parts of the country, other parts of the world, and develop
    partnerships in working with each other?
        Mr. Anthes. I am sorry, I missed the first part of that.
        Mr. Honda. If our western states' leadership understands
    the kind of natural disasters that they are going through, and
    they understand the dynamics and causes, is it reasonable to
    look for other natural occurrences in other parts of the globe
    and create alliances so that this leadership and help and
    connectiveness would pay off in the long run so that we start
    to understand that we are in the same boat. I do not care if
    the hole is in the front of the boat and I am in the rear, the
    boat is going to sink. So, I guess it is like creating sister
    cities.
        Mr. Anthes. Well yes.
        Mr. Honda. Have we thought of that?
        Mr. Anthes [continuing]. Hurricanes are not important to
    the Western United States but they are very important to the
    Southeastern United States. And they are also important to
    China, to Taiwan, to the Philippines. They are important to
    Australia, tropical cyclones. So there is another example of a
    piece of this global warming problem that needs to be, that can
    bring people together.
        Mr. Honda. But if our states like Montana have leadership
    there that understands coal and coal research, clean research
    around coal, they can partner with other parts of the world
    like China, where coal is produced, and we would like them to
    sort of understand that you can do the coal and here is the
    technology. And we can sort of figure out how we can solve your
    problem and our problem, and then address the world problem. I
    am looking for ways to link so that we do not sink, and that we
    do not say ``them'' and ``us.'' Because I think USA really
    spells out US ALL, right? And so I am just trying to push the,
    beyond just the science button. The human, because you touched
    the, you said human behavior. Thank you.

                          ORBITING CARBON OBSERVATORY

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Honda. Gentlemen, just to tie
    up the Orbiting Carbon Observatory questions, you are clear
    that you did not think that we could rely on Japan's Abuki
    carbon mapping spacecraft or the European weather satellites
    that we cannot and we should not do that. And is that a fair
    summation of your testimony?
        Mr. Moore. I would say that in evaluating what to do right
    now about reflying the orbiting carbon observatory or not, we
    need at least to evaluate what we are able to get out of the
    capabilities that are on orbit right now. In my view, they
    certainly are valuable today but they are inadequate for the
    challenge. And therefore, we are going to have to decide to do
    something. But you need to at least know what you have on orbit
    right now as you evaluate what is the something that I am going
    to do. And how much of a difference will that make? So we need
    to evaluate what difference would an orbiting carbon
    observatory style of technology make to what is on orbit right
    now versus another type of technology. And then that helps
    inform the decision. And I think that is what NASA is doing, is
    they are looking at what are the capabilities of what we have
    on orbit right now? How long would it take to do an alternative
    mission, OCO or an active mission? And how much would it cost?
    So all of those are part of the decision. I would trust that
    NASA could do that analysis, particularly engage the scientific
    community.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. So you are saying, this is your
    opportunity to express an opinion about that and I am giving it
    to you. But you are suggesting that you would be more
    comfortable expressing, making that judgment and expressing
    that opinion after NASA has had an opportunity to complete the
    review that they have announced?
        Mr. Moore. Yes. And as I have indicated, I have a personal
    opinion, is that I think that we should move forward with the
    active mission. But I certainly think that----
        Mr. Mollohan. Now when you say----
        Mr. Moore. I am capable of changing my mind once I see what
    NASA concludes after they look at this question.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Dr. Moore, when you say the active
    mission----
        Mr. Moore. Yes?
        Mr. Mollohan. Active, you are talking about a----
        Mr. Moore. Using a, where you actually shine the light down
    from the spacecraft using a laser----
        Mr. Mollohan. A laser. A laser.
        Mr. Moore [continuing]. As opposed to using the reflected
    sunlight from the sun.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Okay.
        Mr. Moore. And that, and it is in that context that I use
    the word active.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
        Mr. Moore. That you are actually shining, the spacecraft is
    providing the light, if you will, to probe the atmosphere as
    opposed----
        Mr. Mollohan. And what are you saying about the active
    mission?
        Mr. Moore. And I would believe that would be, to me that is
    the logical next step.
        Mr. Mollohan. What is the active mission?
        Mr. Moore. ASCENDS. A-S-C-E-N-D-S.
        Mr. Mollohan. All right, ASCENDS. So you would want to, you
    would want to accelerate ASCENDS from a priority position
    between 2013 and 2016, and a second tier mission in the decadal
    recommendation?
        Mr. Moore. Well I, right now I----
        Mr. Mollohan. I do not want you to say more than you are
    comfortable saying.
        Mr. Moore. I think that in terms of then going, I have said
    what I would think the logical next step is, which is this
    active mission.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
        Mr. Moore. The issue of acceleration, I think, that really
    requires this analysis of what is on orbit, and how much does
    it cost, and how quickly could we achieve----
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. It merits a process that is underway.
    Thank you. Dr. Anthes, do you have any more thoughts on that?
        Mr. Anthes. No, I think that is right. And these things are
    never simple. You look at one mission, like a Japanese mission,
    versus OCO, versus ASCENDS, they are never identical. So they
    are measuring different aspects of the same problem. And so you
    cannot say, ``Well, we can just rely on the Japanese.'' Even if
    it was a U.S. mission, laying aside the politics and whether we
    can rely on foreign countries. These missions are never the
    same, whether it is VIIRS and MODIS. They are similar, but they
    are not the same. And they have different costs.
        Mr. Mollohan. They just do not do the same thing.
        Mr. Anthes. They do not do quite the same thing, and they
    are, they have different resolutions, different high def versus
    low def kind of thing, and so this is why you need a thorough
    study, a trade study, and looking at costs and everything. And
    if you move ASCENDS up what is not going to get done? You know,
    because you have ice measurements are important, soil and
    moisture are important.
        Mr. Mollohan. It all has to be looked at in context.
        Mr. Anthes. It all has to be looked at.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well let me ask you this, and this is just a
    quick question and answer I think, do you have any informed
    judgment if NASA were to come forward and say, ``Gee, we ought
    to redo the OCO,'' about cost and timing? Just how much it
    would cost and how long it would take?
        Mr. Anthes. If they did this?
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes, if NASA recommended that?
        Mr. Anthes. Yes, I would support it.
        Mr. Mollohan. No, I say, do you have an informed judgment
    about how much that would cost and how long it would take?
        Mr. Anthes. Study?
        Mr. Mollohan. No, sir.
        Mr. Anthes. Oh, you mean the mission, redoing it?
        Mr. Mollohan. Implementation.
        Mr. Anthes. I have heard two, two to three years.
        Mr. Mollohan. And----
        Mr. Anthes. From a go decision it would take two to three
    years to get another OCO try, another launch.
        Mr. Mollohan. And cost?
        Mr. Anthes. About three, let me just tell you, let me give
    you the cost this way. About twice the AIG bonuses.
        Mr. Mollohan. Now that is going to require that I do
    mathematics. And I have two scientists in front of me that
    probably did really well in mathematics. So I am going to rely
    upon your calculation not mine.
        Mr. Anthes. Okay.
        Mr. Mollohan. What would that be?
        Mr. Anthes. I hear the AIG bonuses are about $165 million.
    Twice that would do another OCO. And this gets back to Mr.
    Wolf's question about, well do we have the money to do these.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, that is another issue. We will grapple
    with that. But, thanks. So you are saying about----
        Mr. Anthes. A little over $300 million, yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. $300 million, okay. You, Dr. Anthes, in your
    closing I was struck by this, your going ahead and saying it.
    In your closing testimony, your last paragraph, you say that
    you have noted that the NRC is starting a study, assessment of
    impediments to interagency cooperation on space and Earth
    science missions. I mean, hearing your testimony and hearing it
    today from both of you, this whole notion of who has what
    responsibility--roles and missions--between NASA and NOAA is
    extremely important. So I want to give you an opportunity to
    talk about that. And you are suggesting explicitly in your
    testimony, Dr. Anthes, that we should move forward with fixing
    that. And if we have the right director at OSTP then that is a
    good place to start, if I understand your testimony correctly.
    This seems like a really fundamentally important question to me
    as we move forward and try to be efficient and intelligent
    about how we deal with these very expensive systems to address
    this very important problem. So I would like to give you all an
    opportunity, and Dr. Anthes, since I am quoting your testimony,
    why do you not start?
        Mr. Anthes. Yes, just saying it in another way, our long
    term sustained climate observations, there is no mandate for
    either agency to do that. NOAA has a mandate to do weather
    observations. They are thinking about a climate service, and
    observations, long term climate observations have to be part
    of, or have to be the foundation of a climate service. But NOAA
    does not have the mandate for making long term sustained
    climate observations. They certainly do not have the budget;
    they cannot even support weather observations. So how do we
    think they are going to be able to support taking on climate
    observations in addition to the weather observations? NASA does
    not have the responsibility for long term, continuous,
    sustained observations. They are more a demonstration agency,
    demonstrate this technology, move on to the next one.
        So the paradigm has to be fixed. And therefore, some
    agency, one agency, must be given the responsibility and the
    budget to do these long term sustained observations, and not
    rely on goodwill between the two agencies, good cooperation
    between the administrators of the two agencies, relying on
    foreign governments to chip in, and that kind of thing.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes, relying on, each relying on the other to
    do a mission that neither has. So what you are suggesting.
        Mr. Anthes. It is ad hoc. We depend on goodwill. And there
    is no national plan or commitment or responsibility assigned--
    --
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Mr. Anthes. That is what we would like to see.
        Mr. Mollohan. First things first. Dr. Moore.
        Mr. Moore. I think the difficulty is highlighted by the
    fact that we made the recommendation in January of 2007 to
    OSTP. We met with OSTP to endorse the recommendation, to
    provide the background thinking, and nothing ever happened. And
    I realize that any form of reorganizing government one can be
    dueling with windmills and waste a lot of time. But it does
    seem like to me that this question of climate, which was not
    really on the table thirty years ago when NOAA was formed, it
    really is a new topic, relatively speaking, relative to the
    structure of government. And we just do not have a system that
    is in place to do something about it.
        I do think that there is a chance. I know Professor
    Holdren, who is going to be the new head of OSTP.
        Mr. Mollohan. That was my next question.
        Mr. Moore. I have a great deal of faith in John Holdren.
    But whether or not he can take this big problem on, from the
    platform of OSTP, remains to be seen. It is extremely important
    and needs to be done, though.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, he can probably take it on if the
    President tells him to take it on.
        Mr. Moore. That is true.
        Mr. Mollohan. You say, you suggest you know Dr. Holdren.
    Have you ever heard him opine on this issue?
        Mr. Moore. I have certainly heard him discuss the issue of
    climate. I have heard him speak about that repeatedly, and his
    understanding of the climate issues particularly as they relate
    to energy systems. I think the question of earth observation
    has not been something that has been as much a part of his
    background. And I think that is where we really need some
    focus. Because that is what falls between NOAA and NASA. It is
    the implementation of the observational program.
        Mr. Mollohan. What is his concentration? Is he an Earth
    scientist?
        Mr. Moore. He is a physicist, and I think his concentration
    in recent years has been on energy systems.

                            NPOESS SATELLITE PROGRAM

        Mr. Mollohan. Well, that should hold him in good stead. Dr.
    Moore, you were recently quoted as suggesting, and this kind of
    relates to your previous testimony, of accelerating the--well,
    let me ask you if this is accurate. Suggesting that ASCENDS,
    the laser sounder that you have talked about, currently slated
    for the 2013 to 2016 time period, should be accelerated. But
    you have had a more thoughtful answer here, so let me not go
    into that.
        For several years now, this Subcommittee has had to wrestle
    with large cost overruns on the NPOESS satellite program and
    its VIIRS imaging instrument. Dr. Moore, you recently
    participated in a major review of this program. What
    recommendations can you share with us today based on this
    review? And how does this affect the future use of satellites
    to study, to monitor, and predict climate change? What should
    we be doing the same? What should we certainly be doing
    differently?
        Mr. Moore. Well, this is obviously a very big problem. And
    it is not isolated to NPOESS. It is not isolated to weather
    satellites. It seems to be a problem that cuts across
    government. The Department of Defense, NASA, other missions,
    the NPOESS program as you have mentioned. I think there are
    three things that I have taken away as I have worked on this
    and worried about it.
        First of all, I think that management by a committee, if
    you will, is very difficult. So if you have one or two, I mean,
    if you have two or three agencies involved in the management
    structure that is extremely difficult. And so I think that the
    Integrated Program Office as a form of management is
    problematic.
        The second thing is that there is almost an awkward or,
    insidious is perhaps too strong of language, relationship
    between the various branches of government. So that when one
    has a program one says it is going to cost X, knowing full well
    it is going to be 2X. And Congress, who is worried about money,
    might be willing to go along with the X because it means less
    pressure on the budget. But they probably know it is going to
    be 2X, too.
        Mr. Mollohan. I just want to stop you. I totally agree with
    that. We saw that in spades with regard to space station. Every
    year they came in here and testified, ``Oh, this is the budget
    this year and we can do it.'' And you knew somebody had told
    them that, they knew it, and we knew it. So we were complicit
    in it. I used to sit down at the other end of the table and
    think this is crazy.
        Mr. Moore. And, and my community is partnered in this
    because I, ``Oh sure, we can do that. We have the technology at
    hand.'' Knowing, ``Well, maybe not. But if I do not get the
    proposal then I will not have the technology.'' So there is an
    insidious relationship that I----
        Mr. Mollohan. We bring these three agencies together, the
    Defense Department, and NASA, and NOAA. And they have different
    cultures, different values with regard to budgets and money,
    and different experiences in getting additional money when the
    inevitable cost overrun comes along.
        Mr. Moore. Right.
        Mr. Mollohan. So that is difficult. But we are going to
    have these combinations in the future. I mean, just for a lot
    of reasons, trying to achieve efficiencies I am sure. Or, maybe
    we will not if it is impossible to do. But I would like for you
    to address this question a little bit from the standpoint, and
    Dr. Anthes you as well, from the standpoint of the different
    cultures, the different modes of operating, the different
    resources, availability of resources. And then, not so much
    dwell on the problems, but address them. But how should we do
    these expensive missions? How should we do them better in the
    future?
        Mr. Moore. All right. I think the, taking the NASA/NOAA, I
    actually think that the way in which we implemented those
    programs in the past, that is the polar orbiting satellite
    system that was NOAA run, for essentially NASA served as the
    procuring agency if you will and then turned those over to
    NOAA.
        Mr. Mollohan. The developing agency?
        Mr. Moore. The developing agency. The difficult with that
    with regards to NPOESS is that I think the Department of
    Defense was not comfortable having NASA have that role. And so
    it created this new object which did not work.
        I think that we do not have a good model on how to solve
    that. It is either going to be to use the NOAA/NASA
    relationship with the Goddard Space Flight Center to handle
    this NPOESS program or you are going to have to use a
    Department of Defense system. I do not know quite how to go
    forward with that because I think it is a fundamental problem
    in the way we actually structured it to begin with.
        The other thing that I think is right at the heart of these
    cost growths, we fib when it comes to the technology readiness.
    We are, shall we say, overly optimistic. And we do that for two
    reasons. One, we want to go forward with the program. And two,
    we have never adequately developed a funding mechanism to
    develop the basic technologies before the mission begins. There
    is this tendency, ``Well, I will develop them once I begin.''
    So we have been unwilling to actually put the up front money on
    the table to develop the kind of technologies. And I do not
    think that is restricted just to the space business. I think
    there has been a tendency in the country of being unwilling to
    invest in the kind of technologies that this country needs
    until we actually need the technology, and then we kind of do
    it on the fly.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay, thank you. Mr. Bonner, you have
    questions? Mr. Wolf.
        Mr. Wolf. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to comment. It
    is really not a question unless they want to answer it. You
    will not solve the problem with the current office in the White
    House. And the bureaucracy will be such that there will be the
    competition between the Defense Department of its environment,
    and of NASA, and of NOAA. There will be the weakest agency will
    be the least effective. That will certainly be NOAA. And then
    it will sort of move up. NASA, because of contractors and
    things. And then next you will go to the Defense Department
    that will drive it. The Interagency, and I do not know, what is
    the good doctor's background? Has he been in government before,
    who is going to head up the office? What is his background?
        Mr. Anthes. He is a professor at MIT.
        Mr. Wolf. Yes.
        Mr. Moore. Harvard.
        Mr. Anthes. Oh, Holdren, Harvard, okay. Sorry.
        Mr. Wolf. And has he been in government before? Has he
    been? Well, he will probably get chewed up, probably relatively
    fast. We had a situation a number of years ago, violent gangs
    running through the country. Was that the FBI's responsibility,
    or was it the ATF's responsibility? Or was it the DEA's
    responsibility? Or was it the Marshal Service's responsibility?
    This Committee put together a Gang Intelligence Operation that
    coordinated them all, and gave the decision to drive that issue
    to the FBI. Until that time, each agency comes in to gather
    whatever it can for its own area. So you will not solve it. And
    I would predict that it would continue unless you give one
    person, one agency, the responsibility with the ability of the
    support of the White House to kind of deal with that.
        Years ago, I was at the Department of Interior in a
    previous administration. There was great competition, who was
    going to deal on the coastal zone issue. The coastal zone issue
    was clearly in the Department of Interior because that was
    where everyone in Interior felt it should be. It was clearly in
    CEQ because that is where CEQ thought it was. And of course,
    the people at Commerce and NOAA thought it was clearly in the
    Department of Commerce and NOAA. And competition on just who is
    going to have the oversight over coastal zone management. So
    this is a bigger issue. And I think until we have one person,
    one agency responsible generally, and this good doctor will
    come into town and think that he can call up and have things.
    There will be things leaked to the press, or leaked to this
    group, and the end result was nothing will happen. But thank
    you both for your testimony.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. Mr. Ruppersberger.

                                      COST

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Sorry, I had three committees at the
    same time. So, I know the Chairman talked to you about the
    issue of cost. We have DOD, and we have intelligence, and then
    we have NASA and we have NOAA. And there is not enough money
    for everyone to be there. And we need to somehow have more
    dialogue so there is not repetition. And the intelligence or
    DOD in science might be able to use some of that. Now you may
    get a push back from DOD and intelligence. I am on the
    Intelligence Committee and we are going to say it is
    classified. So sometimes we have things that are
    overclassified, also. But with that mind, I know you have
    already answered that question. The decadal survey, I noticed
    that in your example that the decadal survey estimated cost of
    the James Webb Telescope to be about $1 billion, when it was
    three or four times that. And some scientists have said,
    basically, if we would have known the cost would be three or
    four times, in the billions, that we might have looked at other
    areas or other ways to do what James Webb does. Now, we know we
    have in place and we know we have new technology coming
    forward. How confident are you that this survey you have now as
    it relates to the cost factor, because that is what we do as
    appropriators, is where it needs to be?
        Mr. Anthes. You mean in estimates of the cost?
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Cost.
        Mr. Anthes. Well, I think that they were pretty good when
    they were made. And they were as objective as people could feed
    us the information. But as my colleague says, once a mission is
    funded it seems to take on a life of its own and the budget
    suddenly goes up two or three times once it is funded.
        So I think something needs to be put in place that before a
    mission is----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. This is pretty much exactly what I am
    saying, because by the time it gets to us as appropriators, it
    is a whole different ball game.
        Mr. Anthes. Right.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. And the costs are over. And so are you
    going to answer the question? What do you think needs to be
    done?
        Mr. Anthes. These are difficult to estimate costs first of
    all. So if they are 25 percent over, I don't hold that against
    them. It is very difficult. But when it is three times, four
    times, something is wrong.
        So I would recommend----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. In answer to your question.
        Mr. Anthes. Yes. I would recommend something like an
    independent, non-advocate review of the cost estimates of these
    missions before they are funded. And this would be done by
    engineers, by people who really understand space missions,
    technologies, launches, and all that. And have an independent,
    non-advocacy review of these things that would be done before
    they are funded.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Who would put that together?
        Mr. Anthes. I don't know. It wouldn't be NASA. It wouldn't
    be NOAA.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Wouldn't it be a representative from
    NOAA?
        Mr. Anthes. It would be a completely independent group,
    probably funded separately. And as I say, a non-NOAA, non-NASA,
    non-government advocacy, even non-scientist advocacy review. It
    would be an objective assessment of the cost before it is
    funded.
        And then if people were low balling the estimate just to
    get the funding, they would--you would have an independent
    check of those estimates, because right now the estimates are
    done by advocates for the missions.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Where you would get more accountability.
        Mr. Anthes. Exactly.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Let me ask you this. Is there anything
    in the current earth science decadal that you would change
    based on what you know now that you didn't know in the
    beginning when it came out?
        Mr. Anthes. I stand by the decadal survey and the order
    that it was done. I think it is important to stand by that at
    least for five years. And then maybe take a look at where
    things are. I stand by it.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. We are leaderless.
        Mr. Moore. Let me just add to what Rick Anthes said. First
    of all, I would like to endorse it. Secondly, I think that this
    is an area where as the Academy does these decadal surveys,
    that might be the time to first involve an independent cost
    team activity, so that the scientists are making the
    recommendations and in some sense setting out what their vision
    is for the program.
        In fact, you have mentioned the fact that some people have
    said, ``Well, if we had known this was going to cost as much on
    James Webb, we might have done something differently.'' So I
    think that in the decadal survey process, we need to have some
    better form of getting budgetary information, because that does
    influence the order in which you put things.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. No question. You know, one of the things
    that we have seen in the construction of satellites and with
    DOD intelligence side, is a constant--you start with a project
    and then you expand the scope.
        Mr. Moore. Yes.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Another thing you see is that there have
    been a lot of failures recently. And we cannot continue to have
    these failures, because Russia and China are this close to us
    right now. But that their research and development phase, the
    budget for that has been cut at least ten percent.
        But, you know, when you manufacture something in science
    and engineering, it really isn't manufacturing. There shouldn't
    be any mistake when you have done the research and development
    and proper testing. You know, once you are ready to go through
    specifications and whatever you need to know.
        And this constant over budget and not on time is a big
    issue. But I wanted to point out just as an example in the
    decadal----
        Mr. Moore. Decadal.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Whatever. But here you have got some
    estimates in there for the first phase for some survey that
    cannot be completed before 2016-2017. Now when that is in the
    actual--when that is in the actual report as the inflationary
    issues and the projections for funding, is it considered when
    that is being--when the report is being written?
        Mr. Moore. Well, what we decided to do in writing that
    report was to put those--to lock them in 2006 dollars, so that
    we had a constant dollar value. And so those numbers were in
    fiscal year 2006 dollars.
        I think that that at least was one step that we could
    control. I think that all of us felt that the second way in
    which you could begin to control costs was to put--to start
    missions with an extended early phase of technology
    development.
        And that if the mission then began to grow in costs, you
    could in a sense put it in the breakdown lane and not jam up
    the freeway with a stalled car in the passing lane. And so in a
    sense, you could move it to the side and then let missions that
    are not going through an enormous cost growth, go ahead.
        I think that would encourage missions then to say, well, we
    don't want to go to the breakdown lane. We have got to find a
    way either to descope or get these costs under control.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Let me ask you this. To your knowledge,
    has the scope and costs changed for any of the Tier 1 missions
    in the survey now? Following through with what you said.
        Mr. Moore. Many of them. Yes, they have gone up
    significantly.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. See that is an issue that when we are
    sitting here as appropriators when we are having a plan, and we
    constantly have the cost overruns, and then we have to make
    priorities on space versus other areas. And we have to maintain
    our space dominance, because that is one of the reasons we are
    the most powerful country in the world.
        Mr. Moore. Yes.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. And I mean from the military
    intelligence point of view, we have even had hearings here with
    NOAA and all these issues, the climate issues, that we are
    dealing with and the research and science. So what it does, it
    doesn't give us a lot of confidence in the projections, where
    we are going down the road. And that is difficult, because we
    have to have a final number when we appropriate.
        Okay, thanks.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay, Mr. Honda.

                               SCIENCE EDUCATION

        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the area of
    education, what is the most critical thing, in your view, that
    we need to teach the American public to get them to recognize
    the pressing nature of the climate change problem? And what is
    the most effective way to teach it? And which agencies are best
    equipped to take on that job? And are NASA and NOAA capable of
    working together on this?
        Mr. Anthes. Well, one of the problems is the
    politicalization--I have trouble saying that word.
        Mr. Honda. Me, too.
        Mr. Anthes. Of climate. If you look at the--there is a huge
    gap between what Democrats think about global warming and what
    Republicans think about global warming. The gap is far greater
    than it should be.
        Mr. Honda. Okay.
        Mr. Anthes. And there are other parts of science where--
    which I won't get into that there is the same kind of gap. And
    then this means that people are putting their political or
    personal views ahead of the science and maybe on both sides.
        The gap between two parties, the two leading parties of
    this country, on fundamental physics and science and biology
    should not be--ideally should be statistically zero difference.
        We should agree on the science. Then we can get into values
    and various tradeoffs and priorities. But there shouldn't be
    disagreement on the basic science and yet there is. So you have
    asked a very important question about how we at least get
    people of all kinds of persuasions to agree on the science and
    then move the debate to what we should do about what that
    science indicates.
        Mr. Moore. I think there is another aspect of this. And
    that is for very complicated things. And the earth's climate is
    a very complicated thing. I think a picture is truly worth a
    thousand words. And I think that if we had a better way of
    presenting what we know visually about how the planet is
    changing, I think that you could bring the body politic along a
    little bit.
        In 1980, in September, the area of arctic sea ice--the area
    of arctic sea ice in September of 1980, was just about the same
    size as the 48 states. The area of arctic sea ice last
    September, it was as if every state east of the Mississippi had
    melted. All of the states from the western border of the
    Mississippi, they had melted and North Dakota melted. In other
    words, the area of arctic sea ice was that big a change.
        I don't believe one percent of the body politic in the
    country has ever seen any of this. And yet that imagery I think
    would really begin to say this is not political. This is not a
    Republican or a Democrat, because arctic sea ice did what
    arctic sea ice did----
        Mr. Honda. Right.
        Mr. Moore [continuing]. Irregardless of party.
        Mr. Honda. So you are saying that we need some techniques
    that can record visually some of these changes so that we have
    not only inconvenient truth, but a demonstration of
    incontrovertible facts.
        Mr. Moore. Right.
        Mr. Honda. I will let that speak for itself and raise the
    questions.
        Mr. Moore. I think that satellite data and climate models
    are almost exclusively the domain of scientists.
        Mr. Honda. So can I conclude from what you are saying is
    that whether NASA, NOAA and the other agencies work together,
    they should in order to bring all these cycles together so that
    there will be visually demonstrable on PowerPoints and--because
    we have the technology and the computer power now to model all
    that and to show all that visually? And then fill the picture
    in with words and then teach----
        Mr. Moore. That is just a personal interest of mine.
        Mr. Honda. As a school teacher, I agree with you that we do
    a lot of talking, or we do a lot of reading. But in order to
    learn, we have to hit all the senses in order for us to
    comprehend what it is that is being said.
        And some of this stuff, you know, it takes an expansion of
    our minds to be able to wrap it around and say how is it that
    permafrost, if it has started to soften up, creates so much
    CO2 in an instant, along with methane, that it
    will--it could occur in a flashpoint in such ways that no
    matter what we have in terms of sequestration, it will be
    insufficient.
        Mr. Moore. You were mentioning earlier with Rick Anthes
    about human behavior. I think that that image of the earth
    rising over the lunar horizon, that image really changed human
    behavior. I mean, I think that had--it spoke fundamentally to
    human beings. And noone was the same after seeing that image.
    And I think that there are other ways in which we can go beyond
    just the scientific utility of space observation to really
    understanding what--how the planet is changing.
        This wonderful record of David Keeling. And David began
    that measurement as part of the International Geophysical Year
    in 1957, the same year that Sputnik went up. And it was all
    part of the same enterprise, the International Geophysical
    Year. And the Keeling record of CO2 increasing in
    the atmosphere like this, I think if that were on every gas
    pump on the planet and we updated it every year, that people
    would get it after a while.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you.

                            DECADAL RECOMMENDATIONS

        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
        Gentlemen, I would like to discuss some of these decadal
    recommendations and the status of these programs.
        In the first group we have CLARREO, SMAP, ICESat-II and
    DESDynI. And the time frame for these missions projected would
    be launches between 2010-2013. Give the Committee an
    appreciation for how they are progressing. And if there are
    troubles, talk about the troubles with us. And then we can talk
    a little bit about what--if there is a different approach.
        Mr. Moore. It is my understanding that the two that are
    receiving the most funding are the Soil Moisture Mission and
    the ICE Mission. Perhaps because without your constraints, I
    don't know, but I believe that the earliest either of those
    would be launched would be in the 2015-2016 time frame.
        And the other two I think are just getting going. And I
    guess that would say that of the first-tier instruments that
    were supposed to be--that we were hoping for launch in 2010-
    2013, none of them will make that.
        Mr. Mollohan. And is this for technical difficulties? Is it
    the funding schedule, Dr. Anthes?
        Mr. Anthes. I would say frankly our--the decadal survey was
    an optimal--an optimum report and assumed everything would go
    well. And assumed that the budgets would be there. There would
    be no mission creep. That there would be--the decisions would
    be made quickly. And we would get started on it right away. And
    probably none of those things are actually true.
        We certainly didn't have the budget. There is a gap, which
    is now around six or seven hundred million between what the
    decadal survey required. Now that is a gap, even assuming there
    were no cost overruns or mission creep. So it would be easy and
    fun just to say we didn't get that money and that was part of
    it. But it is not the only reason.
        Mr. Mollohan. When you both co-chaired the study, you were
    engaged in carefully reviewing this; is that correct? Do you
    still agree with the--if the order or the way these are
    ordered? Forget about the dates for a second, Tier 1, Tier 2,
    Tier 3.
        Mr. Moore. The way we ordered them within the tier was just
    from the cheapest to the most expensive. We reviewed the----
        Mr. Mollohan. Down through the whole list or through tier
    by tier?
        Mr. Moore. Tier by tier. At each tier, we just took the
    logic behind that was let us get going on the one that is least
    costly, because if we have a cost growth in the one that is
    least costly, we will do less damage than if you have cost
    growth in the one that is most costly.
        Mr. Mollohan. Just so I understand, Dr. Moore, from top to
    bottom, the first tier through the third tier.
        Mr. Moore. No.
        Mr. Mollohan. It is within the tier as you ordered them by
    cost.
        Mr. Moore. Within the tier it is by cost.
        Mr. Mollohan. And they got in the tier by importance of the
    mission?
        Mr. Moore. No, by technological readiness. For instance,
    the ICESat Mission, you notice it is ICESat-II.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Moore. And that was because we had already flown one.
    And it had technical problems. And so we thought well of those
    things that are--that we ought to know how to do, it is when we
    are making a slight adjustment off of a technology problem.
        So our moisture mission had been accepted. And it was
    called HYDROS when it was originally accepted. And then it had
    been cancelled. And so we thought well that has much more--it
    should be much further along. The DESDynI Mission involved a
    radar aspect that had been studied for ten years and had almost
    become a mission at least three or four different times.
        And so at least on three of the four, we thought these were
    things that are well in hand. And, therefore, we should have
    the least cost growth here. And the next tier were those that
    had a little more technology development. And then we could
    start on that technology development now so that by 2013 that
    technology would be in place.
        Unfortunately, that has been--that turned out to be overly
    optimistic.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. What turned out to be overly optimistic
    is the advance technology research and development for the Tier
    2 missions so that----
        Mr. Moore. I think that was one part. And then we were I
    had been surprised at the cost growth on those missions that we
    felt were well in hand.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. And you are talking about Tier 1?
        Mr. Moore. The Tier 1.
        Mr. Mollohan. What were the reasons for that cost growth?
    And this is important. It is a really important question for us
    to understand. It would be great if you could help us with
    that.
        Mr. Anthes. Well, I think there wasn't the independent,
    non-advocate review of the cost estimates of our cost
    estimates. Now we got the best information we could from
    experts at JPL and Goddard. And I think we got honest
    estimates. These were non-advocate estimates. And we are not--
    at least I am not an engineer myself. And I am not an expert in
    costing out space missions. And I have a full-time job that is
    not to do that.
        But I think somebody needs to have a full-time job that
    does that, because the cost of this non-advocate review is
    going to be minuscule compared to the overrun of any one of
    these missions. And that ought to just be something we set up.
        Mr. Mollohan. So the numbers associated with this in your
    report are rough calculating?
        Mr. Anthes. I think they are better than that, because we
    got it from people who are objective in NASA that have
    experience. And so they were better than ballpark. And they had
    a little bit of margin assigned to them but evidently not
    enough. But once you fund one, you say that we are going to do
    this, then people start wanting to embellish the mission and
    add more stuff. They think we have already got it, so now let
    us make it a little bit better, and a little bit better, and a
    little bit better. And so you get mission creep.
        And anyway, I don't know all the reasons. But every one of
    them--it seems like every mission goes way over and something
    is wrong. If only half of the missions were over and half were
    under the estimates and you had a margin, then you would say
    okay, well that is life. This is a real issue.
        Mr. Mollohan. So as the Appropriation Committee, we should
    be getting a very firm fix on what is the project.
        Mr. Anthes. Well, I think you should be getting--you should
    get evidence that these things have gone through a non-advocate
    cost review.
        Mr. Mollohan. And that they are not going to change.
        Mr. Anthes. And they may change, because we are not perfect
    and these are complicated missions. And some are going to go
    over and some that shouldn't go over. But you ought to get a--
    --
        Mr. Mollohan. A little flexibility.
        Mr. Anthes. In my opinion, yes, a little flexibility. And
    then there ought to be people held responsible. They could lose
    their jobs when something goes over three times, four times
    what they estimated it to be.
        Mr. Moore. And we had put in the report that if missions
    started to grow in costs--I mean, it is in the report that they
    should be put in the breakdown lane until they sober up. And I
    think it is extremely difficult. It appears to be very
    difficult for the management system to put things in the
    breakdown lane. I think it is very difficult politically.

                                 MISSION COSTS

        Mr. Mollohan. To put things in the ``breakdown lane,'' tell
    me what that means.
        Mr. Moore. Well, you say all right, we are having a large
    mission--a large increase in costs here. We have to restructure
    this or we need to--before the standing army becomes a marching
    army, we need to resolve those technology issues. We need to
    resolve those technology issues that are leading to the cost
    growth. And let other missions go ahead that are not suffering
    that kind of cost growth.
        In other words, if something can in a way--if a mission can
    use its fact that it is the first in the cube to almost grow
    uncontrollably, then you have a very big problem. And so there
    has to be some management structure that says all right, well,
    the technology is not as in hand as we thought. Therefore,
    before the mission gets a large standing army, let us work on
    those technology issues so that we can bring this mission back
    on line downstream. But let them let other missions go ahead.
        And I think the psychological impact of saying oh, well, we
    are now parked until we get our--you know, our act together.
    And these other missions are going ahead. That would begin to
    help control the costs. Right now that just does not happen.
        Mr. Mollohan. Both of you are eminent scientists. From your
    perspective, what would be an appropriate control, one that
    would be effective oversight, pick up cost overruns, pick up
    things that shouldn't be happening, but at the same time would
    not be too intrusive. What would be your concept of how that
    might work?
        Mr. Anthes. Well, I would have this initial review of the
    costs, and the mission, and the requirements by experts who
    know how much a laser costs, and how much integration costs,
    and how much a launch costs, and those kinds of things. And has
    an ability to assess the risk of developing this laser that has
    never been developed before on time and within budget. And then
    once they give you, us, the estimate, this is a $350 million
    project but there is an uncertainty of a hundred.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, that is the process.
        Mr. Anthes. And follow it through.
        Mr. Mollohan. Give me an example of an entity that would do
    that. Is that a government agency? Is it the Government
    Accountability Office? Is it a contractor that you hire to
    oversee it?
        Mr. Anthes. It might be a private firm that has non-
    government people in it and whose reputation is, you know, gold
    standard. That their reputation for making these estimates is
    that depends on their continued going forward. And then the
    government would contract with this private firm.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Mr. Anthes. I don't know if any exist like that.
        Mr. Moore. Well I think the aerospace company has that
    role. I don't think it is often used as often used in the
    civilian side of things. I think that certainly it has not been
    my experience that they have been used in the earth observing
    side of things. But clearly some form of a non-advocate has to
    be looking at it.
        But there also has to be the ability to say this is not
    going ahead.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Let me ask you with regard to the
    breakdown lane, are any of these projects in Tier 1--should any
    of these projects in Tier 1 be in the breakdown lane?
        Mr. Moore. I think there needs to be an independent cost
    review of all of them. And find out where we are. And----
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, you all have to be very disappointed in
    the way this is playing out.
        Mr. Moore. I am surprised at what happened in that first
    tier. We gave you the rationale, or I gave you the rationale
    that was shared by the whole panel that well almost--because
    everyone has tried to get into the first tier. I mean, there
    was a sense of you are either there or you are never going to
    make it. And so we said all right, the only way in here is
    things that we know that had been studied to death, that had
    been missions before.
        And we went back to JPL and Goddard repeatedly getting cost
    estimates. And so I think we were both surprised that
    something--if it had been the second tier that we had started
    running into trouble, I would have understood it more. But to
    see it happen early, I think indicates that we have a problem
    in the United States about executing these programs.
        Mr. Mollohan. So your response to my question do any of
    them need to be in the breakdown lane or are any of them in the
    breakdown lane in effect is that--well, let me ask you again.
    Can you----
        Mr. Moore. I think there----
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. In your judgment----
        Mr. Moore. I think there ought to be a--I think we ought be
    having this cost reviewed to see where we really are.
        Mr. Mollohan. That is fair enough.
        Mr. Moore. Otherwise I am a little too removed from it.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes, fair enough.
        Mr. Anthes. I would like to state that the aerospace
    industry is part of the problem.
        Mr. Moore. I think the Aerospace Company, not the aerospace
    industry.
        Mr. Anthes. Well, I think that you need this independent
    group that doesn't have any dog in the fight, that is not
    trying to bid on the mission, is not trying to create jobs from
    the mission, is not trying to--you know, it is people who are
    retired from government or retired from aerospace industries
    are real experts that can do this in a totally objective way.
    It can't be part of the government; it can't be part of the
    aerospace industry; it can't be any kind of advocates.
        Okay, we agree actually.
        Mr. Mollohan. You do?
        Mr. Moore. Yes. I was just clarifying that there is a
    company called the Aerospace Company.
        Mr. Mollohan. I actually got that.
        Mr. Moore. And as opposed to aerospace companies.
        Mr. Mollohan. Gentlemen, we are going to recess for just--I
    will be right back.
        Mr. Anthes. Actually, I have to catch a plane, so I am
    going to have to leave.
        Mr. Mollohan. Let us do this. Let us thank you all very,
    very much for your appearance here today. I had a couple other
    questions. I will submit them for the record. It has been very
    valuable and very insightful. I compliment you on your good
    work in the study and subsequent and for your excellent
    testimony here. We may be following up with you.
        And I missed the opportunity being from the First
    Congressional District of West Virginia, the heart of the West
    Virginia high sulfur bituminous coal fields that pump out so
    much of that CO2. I missed the opportunity to talk
    with you about that a little bit. I was going to plan on doing
    it off the record, just the difficulties with all that.
    Recognizing we need to do something.
        Thank you for your appearance here today. It's very
    valuable.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you for your service to the country.
        Mr. Anthes. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1219B.073

                               W I T N E S S E S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Anthes, Dr. Richard..............................................   363
    Augustine, N. R..................................................   225
    Avery, Dr. S. K..................................................   103
    Busalacchi, Dr. Antonio..........................................   317
    Cicerone, Dr. Ralph..............................................     1
    Fisk, Lennard....................................................    57
    Karl, Dr. Tom....................................................   317
    Moore, Dr. Berrien...............................................   363
    Nye, Bill........................................................   161
    Pratt, Dr. Harold................................................   161
    Rankin, S. M., III...............................................    57
    Serum, Dr. James.................................................   103
    Solomon, Dr. Susan...............................................   265