[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