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

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                      2011

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                    HEARINGS

                                    BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND 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
     JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
     PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania

     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,
                  Diana Simpson, Darek Newby, and Brad Daniels,
                               Subcommittee Staff
                                    ________
                                     PART 7
                                                                       Page
     Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education--Part 1......    1
     Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education--Part 2......   55
     Office of Science and Technology Policy Fiscal Year 2011 Budget
    Overview..........................................................  107
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration Fiscal Year 2011
    Budget Overview...................................................  189
     National Science Foundation Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Overview.....  423

                                    ________
             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                      2011

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                    HEARINGS

                                    BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND 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
     JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
     PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania

     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,
                  Diana Simpson, Darek Newby, and Brad Daniels,
                               Subcommittee Staff
                                    ________
                                     PART 7
                                                                       Page
     Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education--Part 1......    1
     Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education--Part 2......   55
     Office of Science and Technology Policy Fiscal Year 2011 Budget
    Overview..........................................................  107
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration Fiscal Year 2011
    Budget Overview...................................................  189
     National Science Foundation Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Overview.....  423

                                    ________
             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                    ________

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
     56-820                     WASHINGTON : 2010

                                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                       DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman

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

                     Beverly Pheto, Clerk and Staff Director

                                      (ii)

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                      2011

                                  ----------

                                           Wednesday, February 3, 2010.

              SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATH EDUCATION

                                   WITNESSES

    DR. OLIVER HILL, VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY
    DR. ELEANOR MIELE, BROOKLYN COLLEGE
        Mr. Mollohan. Good morning. The hearing will come to order.
        Welcome to the first hearing of the Subcommittee on
    Commerce, Justice, and Science for fiscal year 2011.
        Before we begin our initial hearing, a bit of housekeeping.
    I would like to reiterate for the benefit of members of the
    Subcommittee that it is my intention to recognize in order of
    seniority those members present at the start of each hearing
    followed by members in order of their attendance. This
    continues the policy we had in place last year.
        Turning now to today's business, in testimony before this
    Subcommittee last year, it was stated that U.S. graduate
    education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics,
    STEM, is the model for the world and undergraduate STEM
    education is among the best in the world. However, testimony
    also revealed that K through 12 STEM education in the United
    States is woefully lacking in preparing our students to compete
    and innovate in the changing world economy.
        We learned last year that it is essential for students
    before the age of ten to see themselves as becoming scientists
    and engineers or they will not choose these fields for study
    when they are older.
        Advances in STEM hold the key to the future economic growth
    of the United States and the essential resource on which this
    program will be built is today's children.
        In fiscal year 2010, this Subcommittee added appropriations
    for K through 12 STEM education and STEM teacher preparation to
    the budgets of NSF, NOAA, and NASA with the expectation that
    these funds will be used in part to improve STEM education in
    grades K-6 and that they will contribute to efforts to embed
    inquiry-based instruction in science education. The fiscal year
    2011 budget request continues many of these investments.
        Our hearing is particularly timely given Tuesday's New York
    Times op-ed by Susan Engel of Williams College entitled Playing
    to Learn. In it, she describes an ideal elementary education as
    follows, and I quote:
        ``In our theoretical classroom, children would also spend a
    short period of time each day practicing computation, adding,
    subtracting, multiplying, and dividing. Once children are
    proficient in those basics, they would be free to turn to other
    activities that are equally essential for math and science,
    devising original experiments, observing the natural world and
    counting things, whether they be words, events, or people.
    These are all activities children naturally love if given the
    chance to do them in a genuine way.''
        Achieving this ideal is a key goal of our appropriations
    for STEM education. Today and tomorrow we will hear from
    witnesses who have examples of improvements in STEM education
    that are ongoing. Through their testimony, we will see the
    effects of federal investments and learn more about the
    challenges of improving STEM education and adopting inquiry-
    based learning.
        Today we will hear from Dr. Oliver Hill, Virginia State
    University, and Dr. Eleanor Miele of Brooklyn College. Dr. Hill
    has helped improve math achievement for students in the public
    schools of Petersburg, Virginia. His testimony will shed light
    on another point in Dr. Engel's op-ed. She states, and I quote,
    ``In order to design a curriculum that teaches what truly
    matters, educators should remember a basic precept of modern
    developmental science. Development precursors don't always
    resemble the skill to which they are leading,'' end of quote.
        Dr. Miele has just written a textbook on inquiry and has
    worked with K through 12 teachers to include inquiry in their
    science teaching and to make effective use of their
    surroundings in New York City.
        Thank you both for coming.
        Following the opening statement of Ranking Member Wolf, we
    will ask each of you to provide a summary of your written
    testimony which we will include in the hearing record and then
    we will go to questions from Subcommittee members.
        Mr. Wolf.
        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am pleased to join the Chairman in welcoming our expert
    witnesses today on science, technology, engineering, and math
    education starting our hearing schedule for the fiscal year
    2011 appropriations cycle.
        I look forward to working again with you, Mr. Chairman, and
    the rest of the members of the Committee because we have such a
    wide-ranging jurisdiction.
        This is an important hearing. I know that looking at the
    STEM money for higher education grants last year that almost 50
    percent of the STEM money that was appropriated laid on the
    table and no one accessed it. And so the money, that figure
    could be 50, could be 40, again, but a lot of money was
    appropriated and was not used.
        The Committee had a language in their working with Mr.
    Mollohan that we asked the National Science Foundation to look
    at what programs are working around the country in math and
    science and physics and chemistry and biology with young people
    and put together a best practices that can go into every school
    or school district in the country.
        But I think even if you fund the money, if you do not have
    the interest and do not have people pursuing it, you know, and
    so when you look at what has taken place.
        So I think that is one of the problems. How do you create
    the interest? We are graduating fewer physicists, Ph.D.
    physicists today than we did in 1956. And the world has changed
    and physics is awful important.
        And I think it is a big issue and so I appreciate you are
    here for your testimony.
        And I thank you, Chairman, for having this hearing and I
    yield back.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf.
        Dr. Hill.

                             MATHEMATICS EDUCATION

        Dr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I would like to thank the Committee for this
    opportunity to speak to you today. I do think this is an
    important topic.
        I am the principal investigator on two grants from the
    National Science Foundation to Virginia State University that
    are studying innovative approaches to improve the mathematic
    performance primarily of minority students in the local
    Petersburg school district. We know that a mathematics
    background and competence are the primary gatekeepers to a STEM
    career.
        When we started working with the Petersburg district in
    2007, it was the lowest performing school district in the
    State. None of its schools were accredited. And by 2009, all
    but two of the schools were fully accredited and those two
    missed it by just a few points. We expect all to be accredited
    this year.
        On standardized mathematics performance, the two schools we
    worked directly with had 127 percent and 74 percent increases
    in scores respectively.
        Our project was not the only thing at work here. For one
    thing, they hired a new dynamic superintendent, which had a big
    impact on the district. But our research indicated the dynamic
    effect our interventions were having on the students.
        The project involved training teachers in the innovative
    pedagogy the Algebra Project and organizing the community
    around support for the schools.
        The Algebra Project curriculum was developed by Dr. Robert
    Moses, who was a recipient of MacArthur Genius Award. The
    pedagogy helps students connect abstract mathematical
    principles to their every-day language and experience.
        The Algebra Project approach also relies heavily on
    community involvement. With their help, we are in the process
    of developing what we are calling a K through 16 model with
    Petersburg and the University with the idea that we need to
    make contact with students early and often starting at the
    kindergarten level and grooming them toward a STEM career.
        This relationship involves programs like dual enrollment
    courses, providing math and science grad students as teachers,
    providing college students tutors, and providing services to
    students through involvements of departments like psychology,
    sociology, and nursing because many of the problems that these
    kids face are not academic issues.

                               COGNITIVE TRAINING

        One of the most innovative aspects of our project is
    testing the impact of cognitive training on the mathematics
    performance of students. Students coming from low socioeconomic
    status backgrounds and even many with middle-class backgrounds
    often lack the capacity for abstract thinking required for
    success in higher level mathematics and science courses. This
    is a major barrier to pursuing STEM related careers.
        These deficiencies are usually addressed through content-
    based remediation and tutoring programs, but there have been
    numerous studies documenting the failure of these types of
    content-based interventions to have meaningful impacts on basic
    skill development or educational achievement, particularly
    among minority students.
        The approach of direct cognitive training represents a
    unique method of developing the underlying thinking skills
    needed for success in STEM. This approach is not the usual
    teaching of critical thinking skills which represent fairly
    high level cognitive processing, but rather builds the basic
    architecture of cognition by training basic cognitive skills
    such as processing, speed, attention, and working memory.
        At one time, it was thought that these kinds of skills were
    set by the time that one reached adolescence, but we now know
    that these skills are malleable even into adulthood.
        We have been using the procedures developed by an
    educational firm called Learning RX which runs cognitive
    learning centers around the country. The data collected in
    these centers over the last few years has indicated tremendous
    gains of three to four grade levels in reading and other
    cognitive skills after only 15 weeks of a fairly intense one-
    on-one intervention.
        We are testing whether meaningful results can be obtained
    using an on-line version of this program that can be
    administered in groups, which would be much more practical in a
    school setting. Our initial data looks very promising.
        This approach has the potential to revolutionize education
    in general and STEM education in particular. We think it
    addresses one of the primary development problems that block
    success in mathematics and science classes, that is weak
    cognitive skills.

                               THE ROLE OF HBCUS

        I teach at Virginia State University which is a
    historically black university and I want to speak for a moment
    about the role that HBCUs can play in addressing the under-
    representation of minorities in STEM careers.
        HBCUs have the students who could fill those majors. VSU
    loses literally hundreds of potential STEM majors each year
    because of difficulties with math. We need to focus more
    research dollars to investigators at HBCUs to develop promising
    interventions to attract and hold minority students in STEM
    majors.
        Initiatives targeted to HBCUs at funding agencies like NSF
    and NIH need to receive greater support. And if I could build
    on what Mr. Wolf was saying, one of the difficulties at largely
    teaching universities like HBCUs is kind of a catch 22. You
    have to have the publication record. You have to have the time
    to put on research in order to attract the federal dollars. We
    need to have more innovative programs that allow particularly
    young investigators at the HBCUs to have the time to devote to
    both developing a research program and being able to write
    competitive grants that would be funded by agencies like NSF
    and NIH. But the human capital is there both in terms of the
    investigators and in terms of the students that could be
    impacted.

                                EDUCATION CRISIS

        Finally, I would like to say the crisis in STEM education
    is but one facet of the larger crisis in education that we face
    as a nation. We know what quality education looks like. We can
    look at the curriculum of the best schools in any city.
        And in Richmond, we have a school, Maggie Walker Governor's
    School, which is one of the best in the nation. If you look at
    the kind of rich programs they provide, this is the kind of
    curriculum that all students should be exposed to. Yet, for too
    long, we as a nation have said it was okay for millions of our
    students in inner cities and poor rural communities to receive
    substandard education with watered-down curricula and poor
    instruction. This is human capital we cannot afford to
    squander. It could represent untold resources for our country.
    We need to take the position that quality education is a civil
    right for all children in this country and we need to develop
    the political will to make that a reality.
        So I will be happy to supply more details of any aspects of
    the interventions I mentioned during the period of questioning.
    And, again, thank you for this opportunity.
        [The information follows:]

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Dr. Hill.
        Dr. Miele. Good morning, and thank you for this opportunity
    to speak to you all today.
        I just want to start out by saying that I concur--am I not
    on?
        Mr. Mollohan. Is the light on?
        Dr. Miele. The light is on.
        Mr. Mollohan. Maybe you should pull it a little closer.
        Dr. Miele. Closer to me. Let us try that. Let us make sure.
        Mr. Mollohan. Maybe it is not going to come closer.
        Dr. Hill. I think your cord is stuck.
        Dr. Miele. May I? That one gives feedback. Now you can hear
    me?
        Mr. Mollohan. Yeah, I can. Is this one not working at all?
        Dr. Miele. This one is not apparently working.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
        Dr. Miele. But we can share.
        Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Hill, can you pull that cord over a
    little bit. Put you to work here this morning. Just pull it
    over toward her, I think.
        Dr. Miele. There we go.
        Mr. Mollohan. Our senior senator in West Virginia, Senator
    Byrd, has a common joke almost every time you speak out in
    public on the campaign trail, the sound system does not work
    and talks about our being able to do lots of things, but not a
    good sound system. I think we had a good sound system.
        Dr. Miele. Okay. Now we are on.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Dr. Miele. And it is in front of me. So I wanted to start
    out by saying thank you. I concur with everything that Dr. Hill
    said.

                             DOING SCIENCE--INQUIRY

        Science and math are intimately connected and the skills
    really can be developed in very much the same way. They need to
    be practiced. And we have known for over a hundred years that
    the best way to teach young people science is to allow them to
    do science. John Dewey pointed this out to us and it has been
    the right of every privileged student in private school to have
    constructivist education and to be doing science. It just has
    not happened in public schools.

                         DRIVERS OF CURRICULUM CHOICES

        One of the reasons, I believe, is because the culture in
    public schools is very divorced from the culture in higher
    education. Research is usually not what drives choices. And I
    actually did not say that in my original testimony, but it
    became very clear to me listening to Dr. Hill that that is
    something we need to think about.
        The choices that are made of curriculum are done at the
    local level and they are decided mostly by teachers and
    parents. The teachers that teach elementary school science are
    not scientists, and they tend to want to teach the way they
    were taught. And they were taught by direct instruction and
    memorization and that is what they fall back on.
        When elementary school teachers are taught to use inquiry
    it is what they want to do, but very often their principals
    will not allow it. The principals are concerned that wasting
    time figuring out how we know what we know will keep them from
    learning enough and will affect standardized test scores and
    make the school look like it is not performing well.

                    INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION AND EVALUATION

        It is ironic that some of the classroom where inquiry is
    allowed to happen are the special education classrooms. And I
    actually heard reports of schools where the special education
    students outperformed the general education students on the New
    York State Assessment of Science Education.
        New York State pioneered using an inquiry-based test. Part
    of the test is a practicum. Students have to read instructions
    and carry out an investigation, collect data, and analyze the
    data as part of their fourth grade and eighth grade
    assessments. And very often these children who have been given
    the opportunity to do science because no one thought they could
    learn it, actually scored higher in it. That was quite an eye-
    opener for me.
        I also spent some time when I joined the faculty at
    Brooklyn College looking at the scores of some schools that had
    been pointed out to me as having adopted NSF-funded curricula
    and having not just adopted them by buying them but having
    adopted them by training every teacher to use them and
    insisting that they were used. In those schools, even though
    they often had minority student populations of over 95 percent
    and significant numbers of Title 1 entitled students, those
    students were performing at the highest level in math, science,
    and English language arts.
        It is not surprising to me. When you get to do science, you
    have to write about it and you have to talk about it. Your
    language skills are developed. Your logic skills are developed
    and you have to use mathematics to do it well. So it is sort of
    a fundamental way to integrate all of the basic scholarly
    skills.
        I speak, of course, as a scientist, but I believe that
    scientists also need to write and communicate clearly and, in
    fact, some of us do not because when we are not trained in an
    inquiry way and we have to answer multiple choice tests, the
    way the average undergraduate college science student does, you
    can graduate without being able to communicate.
        So the FOSS and SCIS curricula which were developed
    actually in the 1970s following the initial push to improve
    science education in the U.S. during the space race are
    excellent curricula for getting results, having children learn
    how to do science.
        I have had a situation where two of my students taught the
    same SCIS lesson to two elementary school classes, one a sixth
    grade class, one a second grade class, the second grade class
    had used SCIS since kindergarten and they outperformed the
    sixth grade class far and away. So the take-home message again
    is, as Dr. Hill said, you have to do this early. You have to do
    it often.
        Jerome Bruner pointed out to us a long time ago that a
    spiral curriculum in which children return to key science ideas
    repeatedly over the years as developmentally appropriate is the
    best way to build a foundation for advanced science learning in
    high school and college.
        Okay. Unfortunately because these curricula have not been
    adopted city-wide, we still have a situation where the average
    middle school student is just not prepared to do inquiry. But,
    as Dr. Hill said, it is never too late.

                              STEM CAREER CHOICES

        In my own classes for early childhood and childhood
    education, these are young people that did not decide to be
    scientists, they decided to be educators, they are afraid of
    science, they are afraid of math. I can see a transformation in
    15 weeks from people who were afraid of science and basically
    have remembered nothing from their high school careers to
    people who embrace it as something that they can do and that is
    worth doing and that they can lead young people in doing.

                        BREAKING THE CYCLE OF NO INQUIRY

        I have seen this. I have been doing this for 16 years. It
    is not likely to change, but I do know that when these young
    people go out to the schools, if everyone else is teaching
    using direct instruction and a textbook, that is what they will
    do.
        So how can we break that cycle? We know what to do. We just
    do not know how to get it done. The National Science Standards
    have helped. They have established an understanding throughout
    the science education community of what best practice looks
    like. I would like to see that actually--I would like to see it
    happening in higher education as well. I will hopefully have it
    when we talk about that later on.

                             EFFECTS OF NSF FUNDING

        But let me say something about what some NSF money has done
    to Brooklyn College. Funding to my predecessors there for the
    Brooklyn plan paid for the development of a series of inquiry-
    based science classes. One of them is called Biology and
    Chemistry of Every-Day Life. We have one in geophysics. We have
    one in paleobiology. We have one in environmental science. It
    gives the students some choice. They take these classes learn
    to think like scientists.
        They also have to take the core classes in gen-ed which are
    direct instruction. Very often when they come into their
    inquiry classes, they do not remember much from their direct
    instruction classes.
        We have begun a systematic evaluation program over the last
    five years where students complete course evaluations on-line
    and the results for all departments are open to the entire
    community.
        What I found when I took a look at these results was that
    students who have taken an inquiry-based class answer the
    question, how much ability to analyze and solve problems have
    you gained, at a level of about 51 percent saying they have
    gained a lot. This compares rather unfavorably to the answers
    of students in geology, physics, chemistry, and biology where
    one would expect students to learn the ability to analyze and
    solve problems. In those departments, between 16 and 29 percent
    as opposed to 51 percent say they gained a lot of the skill. I
    think this is rather a good indication that the students
    themselves have realized that they are learning to analyze and
    solve problems in inquiry-based instruction.
        When asked how much ability to find and use information on
    your own have you gained, we see similar results. Let me see if
    I have my exact numbers here. Fifty-three percent in general
    science, and we are talking about 800 to 1,000 students
    answering this question each semester, compared to 21 and 26
    percent of students in traditional science classes. That
    includes incidentally undergraduate and graduate students in
    both cases.
        So what we see is that what we are trying to do is teach
    students to think independently and how to solve problems. And
    they say that that is what we are doing.
        In addition, students in these classes say that they have
    gained a lot of ability to effectively communicate which, of
    course, teachers need to do, but so do scientists. If
    scientists are going to be able to get their message across to
    the American public, they need to be able to communicate
    clearly.
        So we see that more than twice as many students are saying
    that they have gained a substantial amount of these skills.
    This happens because their learning is active, not passive. One
    student said this course is interactive. You do not fall asleep
    listening to a lecture for three hours. Also you learn better
    when you are doing science rather than what you call learning
    about science.

                             USING LOCAL RESOURCES

        I would like to move on to some of the work that we have
    been doing more recently with graduate students. About ten
    years ago, I reached out to the American Museum of Natural
    History. We had a crisis of materials for learning science in
    New York City. And the American Museum of Natural History has
    perhaps one of the most amazing collections of real things in
    the world. It was right there and none of our students were
    getting to use it to learn. And our teachers, many of whom come
    from other cities and other countries, were not even aware that
    it was there.
        So I said any teacher educated in New York City should know
    that this resource is here and know how to use it to teach the
    young people in our city. And Mertz McDonald, who was then the
    Director of Professional Development, agreed with me and opened
    her doors. She agreed to let our teachers come in after the
    museum was closed and use the halls. And it was quite an
    amazing experience.
        As a result, we developed a course, Science Beyond the
    Classroom. And as a result of that as well, the Wildlife
    Conservation Society, also known as the Bronx Zoo, called me
    and said we would also like to have your teachers come and
    learn with us.
        Similar to our other courses, our students respond that
    they have gained a lot or a fair amount of ability to solve
    problems and gain information. In the case of our most recent
    course with the zoo, the total numbers in those two categories
    were a hundred percent for both. I think that is sort of
    exciting.
        But what we found out when we evaluated the programs was
    that principals were not allowing teachers to take their
    students to the Museum of Natural History or to the zoo. They
    thought that was not instructional time. That was for June.
    That was for fun. That was a reward.
        Luckily we were able to show the City Council that there
    was value in this crazy idea of taking kids to the zoo and
    taking kids to the Museum of Natural History. And they funded a
    project called Urban Advantage.
        Urban Advantage invites teachers to come to seven major
    institutions in New York for training in how to teach using the
    resources of these institutions. They include the zoos, the
    botanical gardens, New York Hall of Science, New York Museum of
    Natural History, and Staten Island Zoo. We go out to the outer
    boroughs too.
        And what has happened now is the principals have learned
    that this is actually a good teaching tool. They are getting
    very good resources. Families have learned that their children
    are excited about learning at these places. And the culture is
    beginning slowly to change. So that is very exciting.
        I believe that the museum has actually reached out to a few
    other major cities and some places are talking about doing
    similar projects. That is moving along. So systemic change is
    slow.

                      EXIT PROJECTS AND STUDENT ASSESSMENT

        Another very important thing for us was the idea of exit
    projects. New York City adopted a requirement that every middle
    school student must complete an exit project either in social
    science or natural science. The exit project has to be an
    individual research project. It can use literature research,
    secondary research, or individual investigation.
        For the first year, I must say the results were somewhat
    disappointing. A panel of scientists did not find them to
    reflect the processes and procedures and communication methods
    of science. But with a little feedback, we developed what is
    called a rubric. I do not know if you are familiar with the
    idea of a rubric, but it defines what excellent practice looks
    like for every aspect of a project from the forming of a
    hypothesis to the collection of data to the literature research
    to analyzing your results and representing it using graphs and
    charts as appropriate.
        So what we have done is broken down the various skills and
    said what poor practice looks like, what poor performance looks
    like, what intermediate level performance and what exemplary
    performance looks like. It breaks the secret.
        There was a time when a good student was a student who knew
    the secret of what the teacher was looking for. By making the
    secret open, we make it possible for every student to achieve
    excellence and students will. Actually, one student commented
    that with a rubric, you have no excuse for not doing well in a
    course. So I am excited about that change as well.

                             NEW COURSE DEVELOPMENT

        Our new courses for graduate students have been funded by
    New York State Education Department and by New York City
    Department of Education. Over the last three years, we have
    been training our Earth science teachers, and I should say that
    this is also with NSF funding, through the geoscience education
    grant. We received funding to develop a new teacher education
    program of 30 credits that brings together geoscience and
    education linking content and pedagogy in every course. This
    requires, of course, that the Geology Department consider this
    a priority, and we have been very lucky to find that the
    Department was willing to be a partner with us.
        In one of our first courses, developed with NSF funding, we
    found that 45 percent of students responded that they had
    gained a lot of ability to analyze and solve problems as
    opposed to 16 percent overall for the Geology Department. For
    55 percent, they gained a lot of ability to find and use
    information on their own.
        So we have been able to change the culture of graduate
    study in the Geology Department and, in fact, the Department
    has received funding through NSF to revise their undergraduate
    curriculum as well.
        So one department at Brooklyn College has said inquiry-
    based instruction is not just right for K to 12, it is the
    right way to approach graduate and undergraduate education for
    teachers and for all of our students.

                        HIGH-STAKES STANDARDIZED TESTING

        Okay. I just want to say a few things about some other
    barriers to the use of inquiry in K to 12 and that is high-
    stakes standardized testing.
        New York City and New York State have begun to change how
    they evaluate students, New York City with the eighth grade
    exit project, New York State with a high-stakes exam that looks
    at both objective testing as well as a practicum. However, for
    the most part, these tests are expensive. They are difficult to
    grade. They require each student's test to be individually
    graded. And I think that it would be very helpful if we had
    very good, well-normed tests that actually looked at inquiry-
    based learning and science process skills as well as the tests
    that we currently have which are looking at which facts you
    have memorized. That is the lowest level of knowledge according
    to Ping's Taxonomy of Learning, the highest level being able to
    analyze and evaluate material as opposed to just recognizing
    that it is right.
        One method that might be very useful to develop would be an
    electronic concept mapping assessment. Concept mapping was
    developed by Novak at Cornell University to look at how
    students learn biological sciences. It is now used routinely in
    many classrooms to help students organize their understanding,
    and there are electronic concept map programs that allow us to
    see what students can do. It should not be that difficult for a
    good computer programmer to turn this into a high-quality
    assessment.

                      INCREASING UNDERGRADUATE STEM MAJORS

        Okay. And one more thing in response to the comments that
    were made earlier about undergraduate science education. One of
    the things that we have discovered at Brooklyn College, again
    with funding from the National Science Foundation through a
    STEP Grant, we discovered that students who did not think they
    wanted to be science majors but who were good at science and
    math as high school students could be redirected to a major in
    science, including a major in physics, if their freshman year
    course work was well supported, including social support as
    well as academic support.
        So what we have done is we have created learning
    communities where students learn about career opportunities in
    the sciences that they are not aware of as they come into
    college. And they also work with peers in peer-assisted
    learning to practice the skills that they need to be successful
    in their courses.
        What we found is that over half of the students who were
    participants in the freshman year choose a major in one of the
    STEM fields even though it was not their original intention. We
    also find that we are retaining virtually all the students who
    choose a science major. And that is unusual. Usually you lose
    more than half of students because of the rigors of the
    freshman year course work that they are not prepared for.
        [The information follows:]

        Mr. Mollohan. Well, thank you both.
        Dr. Hill, why don't you bring that back?
        Dr. Hill. Okay.
        Mr. Mollohan. Is this just absolutely not working? It
    sounds like it might be.
        Dr. Hill. It probably needs to be closer.
        Dr. Miele. Can you hear? No, it is not working.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well, we are not far apart, but we need
    it. Is it working? Okay. If you speak closely. And,
    unfortunately, this is so tight that it cannot--okay. I hate
    fighting with this.

                               COGNITIVE TRAINING

        But, Dr. Hill, you talked about a reference, cognitive
    training.
        Dr. Hill. Right.
        Mr. Mollohan. I would like for you just to talk about that
    a bit for the Committee, give us a better understanding of what
    cognitive training is----
        Dr. Hill. Okay.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. And how it----
        Dr. Hill. And I also would like to contrast that with
    tutoring which is the usual approach to, you know, remediating
    things like math skills.
        So cognitive training, first of all, is not instruction. It
    is actually trying to build the underlying cognitive
    architecture in the student, so you can take a task, there is a
    famous task in experimental psychology called the Stroop Task
    where you have letters, I mean, I am sorry, words that spell
    out color names, but the ink of the color could either match
    the color name or could be incongruous with the color name.
        You can use that kind of task to teach attention. They have
    to attend to either the color of the ink or what the word is
    saying. You can use that task to train processing speed because
    as they master a certain skill level, you can cause them to do
    it in a shorter amount of time.
        And so you can take any kind of task like that and use it
    to train processing speed, memory. You can give them distracter
    tasks. They have to now have divided attention, sustained
    attention, selective attention.
        But basically what we are talking about is building the
    underlying structures of cognition that then allow you to have
    kind of a framework to place abstract concepts like higher
    level mathematics, for example, or even processes like critical
    thinking skills. It is like you need some basic architecture
    underlying that in order for it to work.
        And this is kind of an innovative approach, but when I
    first encountered the data from this Learning RX organization,
    I was just stunned at the kind of changes they were getting in
    15 weeks. You mentioned 15 weeks too. That seems to be kind of
    an interesting number.
        But what we are looking at is the transfer that this kind
    of training has to things like learning math. And we are
    finding that even measured with imperfect measures like the
    standards of learning test in Virginia that we get tremendous
    increases after one semester of these kinds of interventions.
        Now, the problem is in the past, these kinds of
    interventions have been one-on-one, kind of in a clinical
    setting almost. And so we are trying to find ways to broaden
    that so that you can have group administration on a computer
    that is not going to be as efficacious, but we want to see if
    it is good enough, you know, if we can still get some
    significant results with that because that would be much more
    practical in an educational setting.
        Mr. Mollohan. Intervention sounds like a remedial process.
    Does cognitive training happen the way you think it should
    happen and when you think it should happen?
        Dr. Hill. Well, it is remedial in the sense that I guess if
    a person grew up in an enriched environment where they were in
    a home where there were many books around and they were having
    conversations with their parents, these kinds of cognitive
    skills would tend to develop naturally.
        You are talking about kids who come from homes where there
    might be one or no parents around, where their nutrition is
    inadequate, they get no stimulation, no supervision sometimes,
    and so they are not developing these kinds of skills.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes. What I heard you saying is that the
    examples that you were alluding to happened after a period of
    time when it would have been good to lay this cognitive
    foundation, this framework that you are talking about.
        And so what I am really asking is, how should it happen,
    unless I am misunderstanding what you said----
        Dr. Hill. Well----
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. How should it happen in the
    normal educational process and when?
        Dr. Hill. Well, normally these kinds of processes would not
    be directly dealt with in education other than in the kind of
    inquiry-based learning that we just heard about, which do tend
    to develop thinking skills.
        But what we are saying is that if these skills are not
    there, it is not that there is some critical period that they
    have to be developed. And even in adulthood, you can start to
    train these skills and get those kinds of results.
        So this has been very encouraging that even if a kid comes
    from an impoverished and stimulus-poor environment that at the
    middle school level or at the high school level, it is not too
    late to have these kind of interventions.
        Mr. Mollohan. And that is what I meant when I said that it
    sounded like you were describing a remedial process. And by
    that, I meant a process of intervening at a later time in the
    educational process and just forgetting for a second what
    socioeconomic background somebody comes from.
        Dr. Hill. Right.
        Mr. Mollohan. Are you suggesting that the educational
    system should be laying that framework down in the educational
    process at some point----
        Dr. Hill. Yes, from the beginning.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. In a child's development? Okay.
        Dr. Hill. These kind of inquiry-based methods of
    instruction.
        Mr. Mollohan. And, I mean, we are talking pre-K?
        Dr. Hill. Pre-K.
        Mr. Mollohan. We are talking kindergarten, we are talking--
    --
        Dr. Hill. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Is that happening----
        Dr. Hill. No.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Anywhere?
        Dr. Hill. Well, apparently it is happening some places. In
    Brooklyn, yes. But in general, and can I just piggyback on what
    was said about these high-stakes standardized tests, in
    Petersburg, for example, where you have a distressed district
    that has a hard time holding on to good teachers, these are
    just deadly. Their whole day is spent teaching to the test. I
    mean, it is deadly for the teachers. It is deadly for the
    students. And it does not have the outcomes that we----
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, I really think we are convinced that
    there is a problem seriously, I mean, based on this testimony
    and, you know, what we hear.
        Dr. Hill. Yes.

                  THE SUPERIORITY OF INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION

        Mr. Mollohan. But let me ask, Dr. Miele, is there any real
    debate about the advantages, the superiority, if you will, of
    inquiry-based STEM education as opposed to direct fact
    learning? Is there any real debate about that?
        Dr. Miele. There is no debate. The consensus of the science
    education community is this is the right way to teach young
    people.

                       WHO MAKES STEM EDUCATION CHOICES?

        Mr. Mollohan. Then why is it not being readily accepted and
    hearing you all testify here today, it is apparent it is not
    systemically embraced?
        Dr. Miele. Because the choices are not made by the people
    who are in the science education community. The choices are
    made by generalists in grades one through six. Principals are
    typically not science educators. They are typically more likely
    language arts. Actually, we get a lot of people from the
    humanities. I am not knocking the humanities. They are great.
    Those people are not aware of the special needs of education in
    the sciences and in mathematics, but they are making the
    choices of curriculum.
        Mr. Mollohan. So the obvious question is, how is this
    overcome? I mean, if it is consensus among the people who
    should know, but there is this impediment to mainstreaming this
    kind of education in math, science, how is that overcome in the
    real world?
        Dr. Miele. One step is to make sure that the standardized
    tests test those skills so that the principals know that their
    students have to learn them.
        Another way is to make sure that some funding for schools
    has to go not to textbooks but to consumable materials for
    learning science. If it was earmarked in the budget that the
    only thing you can spend this money on is either a kit or your
    own materials purchased and demonstrated to be appropriate for
    teaching hands-on science, and that might just be, you know,
    vinegar, baking soda, and plastic cups, frankly, it does not
    have to be a sophisticated kit, it just has to be the things
    that have been shown for the last 50 to 100 years to be
    effective. If you have to spend some of your money on
    consumables, you have to be doing science.

                     EFFECTIVE, ACCELERATED IMPLEMENTATION

        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well, we are in the business here of
    funding worthy programs in a very competitive way. We could
    fund these demonstration projects and the STEM education grant
    that you got from NSF which comes from this Subcommittee all
    day long, and if you did it on a grant-by-grant basis around
    the country, it would be our great, great, great, great
    grandchildren by the time it got down to them.
        How does this form of education become the accepted model
    and in that way be adapted by educational institutions from K
    through graduate school in a far more expeditious way? How does
    that happen? Do you need a definitive study from NSF or from
    the National Academy or what? And so we have those?
        Dr. Miele. You know, at this point, many of the studies
    show mixed results. And it is my belief that the reason they
    showed mixed results is that just because you bought an NSF-
    funded curriculum does not mean that your teacher used it or
    used it properly. So you do need truly systemic change, but you
    also need the high-stakes test to match. And we have never had
    that congruence where the high-stakes test was, in fact, one
    that looked at inquiry skills and at the same time, you had an
    entire discernible region that really implemented it.
        If we could have that, it would be helpful. I do think that
    we need more people to be trained as evaluators. There is a
    dearth of high-quality educational evaluators who also
    understand science. So that would probably be helpful.
        We also need to train the teachers that are veteran
    teachers because our young people coming out know how to do
    inquiry science. I have yet to meet a science educator who does
    not teach inquiry. It is the consensus, but they get out to the
    schools and all of a sudden, it is not what is happening.
        It is generally believed that you need a minimum of 60
    hours of high-quality professional development that is truly
    inquiry based with a facilitator who can help you make the
    transformation and a principal who will let you do it.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
        Dr. Hill. Can I add to that also?
        Mr. Mollohan. Certainly.
        Dr. Hill. I mean, if you look around the country at the
    schools that are succeeding, they are the ones that have some
    degree of independence, you know, usually a charter school or
    some other mechanism they have had to extricate themselves from
    the educational bureaucracy so that they can try innovative
    kinds of things.
        And just to put in a word for the humanities, I do think
    that, you know, in many of these inner city schools, we have
    kind of almost eliminated the humanities, you know, things like
    music, language. Those kinds of exposures at an early age can
    also have transfer to the kinds of critical thinking skills
    that we are talking about at the middle school and high school
    level.
        And so part of this is budgetary. You know, good education
    is expensive. And so we are cutting corners wherever we can. We
    are trying to stick to the basics, so to speak, which usually
    means teaching to the test. And it is just a complete mind set
    that has to change.
        Mr. Mollohan. And that is why I am suggesting you need some
    seminal study that----
        Dr. Hill. Right.
        Mr. Mollohan. [continuing]. No one can deny the validity of
    and that everybody has to respect and then adopt it. And that
    is really what I was kind of----
        Dr. Hill. I mean, if you could find a superintendent at a
    major city that would be willing to, you know, implement this
    evidence-based practice throughout the system and, you know, it
    could be your hard case like, you know, in places like New York
    City, Chicago, Los Angeles and demonstrate its efficacy in that
    environment, I think that would be very convincing in other
    parts of the country.
        Mr. Mollohan. You need a good model.
        Let me call on----
        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                  INDIVIDUAL SUCCESSES AND PERVASIVE PROBLEMS

        I have some questions. Maybe we will just submit them for
    the record and just ask you, I mean, have we not really done
    all of this, though? I mean, this country is 230 years old. We
    had the best educational system in the world. And now when you
    look at the scores, and I have not looked at them for the last
    couple months, the figures, but we were like 21st or 22nd in
    math.
        We have so many individual successes around the country,
    but overall there is the problem. And I think, and I do not
    know that it is just necessary funding, it is an attitude and
    there is something wrong. There is something going on that, you
    know, why are the young people here not as interested or
    scoring as high as they are in China or as in Singapore.
        The purpose of the amendment that we offered last year to
    the National Science Foundation is we should know what the best
    practices are now and have every school system in the country
    adopt whatever these best practices are because we have been
    operating. We have a broad foundation. We have all these
    different groups doing all these studies and research and
    putting a lot of money. And we have the Gates Foundation doing
    all of this.
        So I would think that we would know now what works and what
    does not work. The question is getting the localities to
    implement and also doing something to make the young people
    have an excitement about math and science and physics and
    chemistry and biology and different things like that.
        But why do you think we have fallen behind?

                                 TEACHER TALENT

        Dr. Hill. Can I address that? I think the teacher variable
    is one thing. I mean, for decades, if not centuries, in this
    country, we had a free ride because the best and brightest
    women would go into education because that was the only field
    available to them. And when opportunities opened up for women,
    we did not replace them in the classroom. We did not raise the
    salaries to attract the best and brightest. We did not raise
    the prestige level of teachers.
        And so now it is a hard sell to get the best and brightest
    to go into the classroom. And no matter how good the methods
    are, no matter how good the curriculum is, if the teacher is
    not excited about knowledge, if the teacher is not
    knowledgeable in their subject matter, it is going to be hard
    for them to convey that to their students.
        So we have to find a way to get the best and brightest
    again attracted into the field of education.

                             REWARD OF STEM CAREERS

        Dr. Miele. And I concur 100 percent, but I would like to
    add that we also have to get the message out that careers in
    science are exciting. As I said, when we showed freshman what
    you can do with a science major, they were shocked. They had no
    idea. They thought they had to wear a white coat and be in a
    lab.
        But there are many, many careers that are based on a sound
    technology or science major, including careers in law,
    environmental law, for instance, medicine. I mean, there is
    quite a long list. And when they go out and interview people
    who did majors in physics and chemistry and find out that some
    of them are entrepreneurs starting green businesses, they say,
    oh, I could see myself doing that and suddenly they want to
    major in science.
        But what the message has been to the generations for the
    past, I would say, 20 or 30 years of young people who are
    thinking about science is you are going to have to become a lab
    coat scientist or you might as well, you know, go to Wall
    Street or become a lawyer straight, you know, straight from a
    liberal arts background.
        And we do not actually reward our scientists very well.
        Dr. Hill. And if I can add to that, too. Making them aware
    of the possibilities in terms of salary. I mean, business
    schools are bulging in most universities because kids have the
    idea if you get a business degree, you are going to do pretty
    well salary-wise in your career.
        So I do think it is a matter of getting the information
    out, getting the word out.
        Dr. Miele. They want to go to medical school. They do not
    realize that they can do well by doing science.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well, you know, we can talk about this
    forever. I remember the movie I saw of the young boy from West
    Virginia, October Sky, and I just think there is something
    missing. There is something wrong.

                         DECLINE IN U.S. MANUFACTURING

        And, you know, I think the real danger is, and I think we
    could be approaching the point, is that the fewer manufacturing
    and fewer things we do in this country, even if you then create
    an interest in young people, there will be no place to go.
        If you get on the train in Washington and take it up to New
    York City, if you do not read your book, you just look out the
    windows, the factories are closed. You go through my old
    neighborhood. We had the largest General Electric factory I
    think in the world. It is gone. It is all gone.
        And if you no longer have the manufacturing base and
    opportunities, then it will almost become a self-fulfilling
    prophecy because I think some of the young people believe that
    there will not be the jobs even if they get in it.

                              GOOD STEM EDUCATION

        So I think, you know, the time is now. I think we should
    have enough information. My sense is you have to deal with it
    in K through six. If you lose somebody after sixth grade, maybe
    it is fifth grade, maybe it is seventh grade, you are not going
    to find them again.
        In my area, we have Thomas Jefferson High School, one of
    the best high schools in the country. These kids are creative.
    They are anxious. They are interested. I think we should be
    able to replicate that all over.
        But, anyway, I appreciate your testimony. There is
    something wrong. Anyway, thank you so much.
        Dr. Hill. Thank you.
        Mr. Wolf. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the
    questions, if I can, for the record, please.
        Mr. Mollohan. Certainly.
        Dr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, can I make one other comment about
    funding?
        Mr. Mollohan. Certainly.

                     CHALLENGES FOR YOUNG FACULTY AT HBCUS

        Dr. Hill. Since you mentioned it, you know, this Committee,
    that is one of their charges is to go through agencies like NSF
    and NIH to get the funds out there. If we could have some new
    models of funding like I was mentioning earlier for faculty at
    places like HBCUs that do not have the traditional steps for
    acquiring funding because even when NSF has an HBCU initiative,
    the issue is on the other end, on the faculty member having the
    time to write a competitive proposal. And that is why sometimes
    a lot of money stays on the shelf that, you know, could be
    accessible.
        So if we could think of things like research initiation
    grants where we are giving money directly to HBCUs to fund
    their faculty research, to give them the time, those are where
    the bodies are, the roles models.
        And, again, we have an engineering school that takes in
    three or four hundred kids every fall and we lose two or three
    hundred of them.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, maybe some of the other members want to
    talk about that, and then we can talk about it when it becomes
    my turn again.
        Dr. Hill. Okay.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Bonner.
        Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for once again leading
    the full Committee by coming out of the gate with the first, to
    my knowledge, the first hearing. The President's budget has not
    even dried yet and we already are like we did last year into
    asking some good questions of bright panelists.
        Thank you both for being here.

                            MATH SCIENCE HIGH SCHOOL

        There are so many things, and I, too, would like to submit
    my written questions for the record for your consideration, but
    there are just so many things going through my mind.
        Last week, I taught at Alabama School for Math and Science.
    I am from Mobile, Alabama. And our State School for Math and
    Science, which is a residential campus, is in my hometown of
    Mobile. I did not teach math or science. I taught a class on
    American civics.
        And the graduates from that school have an opportunity to
    go to MIT and Stanford and Harvard and some of the finest
    schools in America with full-ride scholarships. So it is
    something we are very proud of.

                        STEM EDUCATION IN RURAL AMERICA

        And, yet, I am from a town of 1,200 people in the most
    rural part of Alabama, and I know there are rural parts of West
    Virginia and there are even rural parts of New York, Chairman
    Serrano, but I worry about science education, math education in
    rural towns because the town I grew up in, I was blessed. I had
    a very good math and science teacher that loved it, knew it,
    and shared it.
        But in listening to the story of Brooklyn or what is going
    on in our larger cities, I do worry what can we do about making
    sure that our rural educators and our rural science and math
    curriculums are not being left out because everyone cannot
    travel to the zoo and have an up close and personal experience.
    Again, we have got a science explorium in Mobile. We have got a
    lot of things that a lot of other cities, communities do not
    have.
        What do we need to do to make sure we do not forget about
    the rural schools in America?
        Dr. Miele. I would say that the rural schools have things
    that New Yorkers do not have. Those young people actually know
    what a cow looks like. You know, every community has its
    strengths and the real thing, the world is there for all
    students if they have educators that know how to help them look
    at it objectively, systematically, and to think about how the
    world works.
        I really do not think that that is the issue. I would love
    to be able to bring our students, you know, to nature. And for
    us, all of our nature is highly degraded. I mean, we go and
    look at a forest and it is trampled by millions of feet. And
    the only kinds of animals you see are squirrels and maybe rats.
        I think the issue really is when we talk about good
    science, it is about process. And if you have learned to think
    like a scientist by the time you are 12, you will be able to
    learn in the formal way, what we call the direct instruction.
    It is not difficult to learn new material once you have learned
    to think like a scientist. But if you had not learned to think
    like a scientist and you have not valued that whole approach to
    knowing the world, then those doors are completely closed to
    you and you are basically thinking magically the way a three or
    four-year-old would even if you are 35 or 50 or 60.

                           EIGHTH GRADE EXIT PROJECTS

        Mr. Bonner. Well, Dr. Miele, let me mention or ask you to
    elaborate. You mentioned in your testimony here something about
    the eighth grade exit project.
        Dr. Miele. Yes.
        Mr. Bonner. My daughter is in the eighth grade. I hope she
    exits the eighth grade. Tell me a little bit about what you
    were talking about in greater detail.
        Dr. Miele. I believe it was five years ago, we had--New
    York City, as you know, is big. You know, we have got a million
    school children. Actually, I think it is 1.1 right now. And we
    had local control. So every community school district chose its
    own curriculum, chose its own assessments. The only commonality
    was the State Regents examinations and periodic tests,
    standardized tests just for promotion.
        But New York City decided that they wanted to do something
    to enforce learning in an inquiry way, so they said, okay, we
    want to make sure our children can think independently and
    logically and the place to look for it is eighth grade on the
    doorway to high school.
        So they instituted the requirement that every student had
    to complete an independent study and it could be in social
    science or it could be in natural science. It had to be one or
    the other, and it required that they formulate a question and
    figure out how to answer it. They could choose to answer it by
    using literature resources, but they needed to be valid
    literature resources. They could not just take the answers from
    Wikipedia, for instance, and they needed to document what their
    sources were and why they chose them. And they needed to
    complete usually a tri-fold panel for the equivalent of a
    science or social science fair and to defend their work in
    front of their peers, teachers, parents, and visitors.
        As I said, the first year we really did not know what to
    look for. There was no clear criterion for what excellence
    looked like. But the city decided to bring together a panel of
    scientists and social scientists to provide feedback about what
    exemplary exit projects would look like.
        And they developed a very extensive rubric to support the
    students and also a multi-step sort of guide to help them
    figure out what do I do first, what is a reasonable question to
    ask, how do I know it is a good question, what is my first step
    in finding information, where can I go for data if I want to do
    secondary research where I am using a data set that someone
    else has collected, but I want to ask my own question about it.
        For instance, the GLOBE Program provides databases that
    students can access. Maybe they will take some data from GLOBE
    and maybe they will collect some of their own data and do a
    comparison.
        So these are the kinds of projects that students are doing
    in New York, and they cannot get into high school without
    having thought for themselves deeply at least once.
        Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Bonner.
        Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Who probably knows something about New York
    education.

                                CHARTER SCHOOLS

        Mr. Serrano. A little bit. Thank you again, as Mr. Bonner
    said, for leading us out of the box with the first hearing,
    especially during what Washington would consider a blizzard. So
    it is quite an accomplishment.
        Mr. Mollohan. That is a testament to our witnesses.
        Mr. Serrano. That is right.
        Since you have mentioned it, let me just quickly, before I
    ask a couple of questions, including one that comes to mind
    that I did not have planned, talk a little bit about my
    background. Prior to my 20 years in Congress, I was Chairman of
    the Education Committee of the State Assembly. Prior to that, I
    was everything within the school system except a teacher. I was
    a paraprofessional teacher's aide. I was Director of the Title
    1 programs at the State Urban Education Program.
        So I have a little bit of a background in that area which
    leads me to this question. There is a lot of press, good press
    for charter schools. And I may be the only elected official in
    New York State that has not signed up making glowing statements
    about charter schools.
        And while I understand their success and support their
    success, my fear continues to be that it is just part of an
    excuse not to attack problems of the public school system and
    that charter schools may become what we, some people who
    support public education, have always attacked in the parochial
    school, in the private school system, which is you will be able
    to take the better students, show better results, and leave
    behind in public schools those that are weak, with parents who
    are not as mobilized as the ones in the charter schools.
        So you see, for instance, in New York City, whether what
    side you fall or not, you see the Mayor closing down 19 schools
    and then upping the amount of charter schools available in the
    city. And we have not figured out yet if that is really a way
    of just turning your back on the public schools.
        So my question is, have we reached the point, especially in
    the inner cities, where it is save yourself if you can and,
    therefore, charter schools serve that purpose and do we run the
    risk of turning our backs politically and otherwise to the
    public school system more than ever so before? What is the
    future of the public school system in this country if we
    continue to grow charter schools, to both of you?
        Dr. Hill. Well, if I can address that a minute, I think one
    of the roles of charter schools now is to be innovative and to
    test some things that might not have been able to be instituted
    in the public schools, the normal public schools.
        I think you raised a big issue and I think this goes back
    to what I was saying earlier about the need to think of
    education as a civil right. Somehow we have said it is okay for
    there to be Thomas and Maggie Walker Schools in Richmond that
    offer excellent education, but they are not for all kids and
    that it is okay for the kids in the inner city to just to get
    by with whatever the basics are.
        We need to change that mentality and recognize. I mean, we
    need to think of it in terms of our own self interest, that it
    is not the other kids, the other people's kids are the ones
    that are involved here. This is going to be something that
    impacts us as a nation and get our self interest involved in
    seeing schools transformed in general.
        And a lot of times to do that, I mean, Richmond, Virginia
    is a good example, I mean, go back to 1954 when the Brown
    Decision came, you had the school issues were along racial
    lines, you know, in terms of resources. They are separate but
    equal, so to speak.
        Over the years, that what started out as a racial issue,
    you know, merged with class and other issues and so now it is a
    much more complex problem, but it has its roots back in the
    days of segregation where it was okay for some kids to get a
    quality education and some kids not to get a quality education.
        We have to find a way to get beyond that and maybe it takes
    shame. You know, we should be ashamed as a country that we have
    allowed this to go on for 50 years. And we need to take the
    hard fixes and not necessarily the easy fixes.
        A lot of times when we find, for example, the minority kids
    are not passing a particular test, we attack the test rather
    than dealing with, well, why are they not passing that test.
    Why do we not put the resources in there. And the rural kids,
    the same issue in rural communities.
        But I think the distrust of charter schools among those of
    us who kind of grew up in the civil rights era was a remnant of
    the time when public money was going to provide education and
    private academies and the inner city kids were being left
    behind.
        But I think we have gotten to the point now where we have
    to think outside the box. We have to revolutionize our whole
    educational system. The whole model needs to change. I mean, it
    is kind of an industrial age model, and we need to have
    innovation. We need to have creativity. We need to free up
    principals and teachers to try innovations and then use
    evidence-based practices wherever we can.
        That was kind of a round-about answer.
        Dr. Miele. I have a few things to say about that as well.
        I think it is a very sad situation right now that the
    schools, many of the schools that are closing have parents that
    support them. And this to me is a disconnect. When the parents
    are involved enough to know what is going on in the school and
    care enough to come out and say do not close my school, then it
    is not an issue of the parents that do not care. So there is
    definitely something going on here.
        There are a number of things going on in New York City
    schools. For the past, I think it is probably about 15 years,
    the reading programs, for instance, have focused entirely on
    poetry and fiction. Students are not really learning to read
    content. This is one of the reasons they come to middle school
    unable to read a textbook.
        By middle school, as much as I support inquiry education,
    students should be able to read a textbook. By the time they
    are 13 years old, it should not be too hard for them, but that
    is the situation that we have because the skills they are
    developing are not giving them the ability to read content
    objectively, to read it critically, to read it deeply, to
    understand what are the facts, what are the opinions, what is
    the evidence that supports these assertions.
        There is no system that allows students and parents to
    really truthfully say what are the strengths and weaknesses of
    the school. They know. My own children went to New York City
    public schools and there were good years and there were bad
    years. And we were committed to public education and we rode
    out the bad years and did what we could to ameliorate what
    educational weaknesses there were.
        But my husband and I are college educated and we are
    educators and we could do that easily. It is, in fact, an
    equity issue. There is no way that an immigrant family working
    two jobs, even if they love their children and want the best
    for them and try to help them with their homework, can provide
    what college educated Americans can provide. It is impossible.
        So, yes, the issue, I think, is how can we make all public
    schools truly provide a quality education for all students and
    not go around--and, by the way, the charter schools are
    inequitable to teachers as well. They do not pay them as well.
        Dr. Hill. Right.
        Dr. Miele. They will hire people who are not certified and
    make use of the fact that they are bright and committed and
    caring and willing to share apartments.
        So what I would like to see is more money going, as I said
    earlier, to making sure that there are materials of instruction
    and money going directly to the schools for high-quality
    professional development to teach them to teach with the best
    practices if they are not yet prepared to do that and something
    that will hold principals accountable for best practice in
    every discipline, not just the one that they were trained in.
        Mr. Serrano. You know, one of my fears--do I have time, Mr.
    Chairman?
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Mr. Serrano. One of my fears is, and I do not know if it is
    the same in other districts, I am sure it is if we look
    closely. I get people coming to me, I need a letter of support,
    I want to open up a charter school. I do not give those letters
    of support out. But I say what do you know about schools. And
    they are usually very active community leaders who may be great
    on some issues, but what do they know about schools?
        But under the charter school system, I can open up a
    charter school tomorrow if I get okayed. And if I left
    Congress, I probably would be okayed to open up like ten
    charter schools. Well, I may have the best intentions at heart
    and I probably have a little more background than some other
    folks, but what qualifies me to open up a charter school?
        Then the argument we hear, which is a solid argument, but I
    think it does not speak to this point, is, well, when we had
    all the schools run by people college trained and
    professionally trained to be teachers, administrators, they did
    not do the job. So let us try it now.
        But I see it almost like it has become a business for some
    people, the charter school, either a business for the position
    they hold and so on. So I am still out there like a sore thumb,
    you know, standing out in the community being like the only--I
    am also the only guy saying New York should hold those terror
    trials, but that is me, you know, I do not always go with the
    flow, but--so that is a concern.
        Now, my last question, which was the one I did have written
    down, kind of ties into that when you spoke about the immigrant
    parents and so on.

                          ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE

        In your studies, Dr. Hill, and I want you to comment on
    this, too, the fact that some children have a language other
    than English at home and, therefore, may or may not be totally
    proficient in English in school, does that add to the mix once
    again as it supposedly did in the past?
        Now, I had people who spoke only Spanish at home and that
    was not an issue in the 1950s and in the 1960s. It became an
    issue in the 1970s and then it seems to be an issue again. Do
    you find that that is an impediment? What is that situation
    when a child in class dealing with the sciences now, math and
    science, with another language being spoken at home?
        Dr. Hill. I mean, math and science is hard enough when it
    is taught in your native language, you know, much less when it
    is a second language. But, yes, certainly that is an issue. I
    mean, there are so many kinds of noninstructional issues that
    come to bear here.

                        EFFECTS OF POVERTY ON EDUCATION

        I mean, when you look at a school district like Petersburg,
    again, how many of those kids come to school with no breakfast,
    with no parent, out all night, dealing with maybe a drug
    addiction in the household, dealing with parents who are
    incarcerated? There are so many issues that are beyond the
    scope of the teacher, you know, what the teacher can deal with
    there.

                            BUILDING STUDENT SUPPORT

        So one of the things that we are doing in Petersburg with
    this approach with the algebra project is building community
    support mechanisms for the schools because a lot of times, the
    kids need, they need good instruction, but they need other
    things as well. They need other kinds of social support in
    addition to instructional support.
        And so having those available to the kids in some kind of
    systematic way is an important thing. Mentoring is important.
    Having the kid connected with somebody that they can talk to,
    whether it is a college student, whether it is an older high
    school student for a middle school kid, but having somebody
    they can make that connection to that they might not have with
    family members, and then counteracting the effect of violence.
        I mean, we are looking at some neurological studies now
    about the impact on the brain of exposure to violence and it
    actually, if your brain is affected, it is going to impact how
    well you take in information. And so having some interventions
    for those kids who are the victims of violence both at home and
    the kind of violence that they might see in the street or even
    in the schools in many cases, so it is like an omnibus of needs
    that are there that need to be addressed with these kids.
        Mr. Serrano. Omnibus is a very tough word to use, you know,
    before the appropriations committee. It brings pain up our
    back.

                  INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION AND ENGLISH SKILLS

        Dr. Miele. The NSF funded SCIS and FOSS curricula had shown
    tremendous ability to improve English language learner scores
    when they were studied in the 1970s in the LA area. And from my
    own experience, many of my students are themselves, even though
    they are college students, are English language learners.
        When you are working with the real world and your job is to
    observe it objectively, it speaks to you in whatever is your
    language. So that is not a barrier; a textbook does not do
    that. So if your main source of information about science is a
    textbook and you are a fourth-grader from Bangladesh, then you
    are basically shut out entirely. But if you are looking at what
    objects sink and what objects float and you are measuring their
    mass and volume for yourself, then you have learned the
    material for the day. And you may not be able to write it down
    so that your teacher can understand it, but you have written it
    down so that you can.
        So hands-on science absolutely brings in everyone
    regardless of whether they are an English language learner or
    whether they are English proficient.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Jose.
        Mr. Ruppersberger.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, thank you. I am sorry I was in
    another hearing. Do I need this? Is it too loud?
        Mr. Mollohan. You need to use it.

             NATIONAL SECURITY AND PRODUCTION OF STEM PROFESSIONALS

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. First thing, let me tell you where
    I am coming from with my questioning. I serve on the
    Intelligence Committee and Chair the Technical Tactical
    Committee dealing with cyber security and a lot of the issues
    involving science.
        One of our concerns from a national security point of view
    is that China last year graduated over 660,000 mathematicians,
    scientists, and engineers. And I think we, the United States,
    graduated about 66,000.
        Now, the good news, our curriculum still seems to be
    superior, but China is gaining very quickly.
        Now, in preparing for this hearing and looking at where you
    are coming from, both Dr. Hill and Miele--is it Miele?
        Dr. Miele. Miele.

                         HOW CAN WE BRING ABOUT CHANGE

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Miele, okay. You are emphasizing that we
    need to change the way we teach science and I agree with you.
    You are advocating for moving away from memorizing facts and
    figures and moving towards more hands-on learning and more
    accurately learning that engages the student to be more
    inquisitive. I think inquisitive is what you were just really
    talking about.
        My issue is why have we not moved more towards the
    direction of your philosophy and the STEM schools? Is it lack
    of resources, equipment? Is it lack of knowledge on the part of
    our administrators or people who fund schools which would be
    elected officials? And, you know, we need to address that issue
    first.
        And how we do address it, I think we need to educate those
    decision makers why science is so important. I will say this. I
    know that some of our military academies from the year about
    2013 or whatever will try to have over 70 percent of their
    graduates having STEM education because this is where our
    country is going, not only just in national security, but just
    what we do every day.
        Dr. Miele. I mentioned earlier that the problem is the
    decision makers. Who are the decision makers? Who is in power
    to choose curriculum?
        In New York City recently when we sort of centralized the
    science curriculum and developed a new city-wide scope and
    sequence, principals were told that they could choose one of
    two approaches to elementary school science. They could either
    choose the Full Option Science System, the FOSS System, or they
    could choose a textbook system with additional hands-on
    activities suggested at the end of each chapter.
        Who actually made the choice in many cases? The principal
    delegated a teacher who was free that day to go down to a fair
    and go eeny, meeny, miney, mo with a little slip that said this
    is how much money you have to spend. That is not how you choose
    curriculum.
        If the city really felt that the inquiry-based approach was
    the most important one, they should have just funded it. They
    should have said this is what we are doing and if you want to
    do more, that is fine, but you must put Full Option Science
    System on your budget for this year or show how you are doing a
    full inquiry-based alternative science curriculum otherwise.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. You know, I think one of the
    issues there is it is just not only the school system. I think
    you have got to get academia, elected officials, the business
    community all involved. And that will really help move policy
    forward.
        Dr. Hill. Yes.

                             NSA AND STEM EDUCATION

        Mr. Ruppersberger. I represent NSA. It is in my district.
    And we are trying to develop a STEM program, there are STEM
    programs within the State of Maryland, but a STEM program
    literally on the campus of NSA and focusing on maybe even late
    elementary or early middle school, looking at a regional type
    project that could really identify these children who have the
    aptitude. I think you have to have certain children who have
    aptitude in the area of math or science or whatever. And one of
    the things, one of the focuses is to have it as if it was an
    internship.
        And the culture change of these kids who not only are in a
    classroom but then could also maybe, as long as you do not
    violate the classified issues, you have these children come to
    a campus and they grow. And they have also become really
    patriotic in the mission of what an NSA or what a NASA--I mean,
    we have Goddard right up the street on 295, but do this all
    over the country. And, you know, we can look at certain
    positive programs. I think there is a school in Virginia. I
    know there are a couple schools in Maryland, in Anne Arundel
    County, places like that that are successful, but it has got to
    grow nationally.
        How would you recommend that we do that?

                       THE NATIONAL SECURITY PERSPECTIVE

        Dr. Hill. Well, if I could say something from your original
    statement. I mean, I am glad that you are kind of coming from a
    national security perspective because we need to have that same
    kind of political will that we have around our national
    security in the field of education.
        In the 1950s, when we perceived Russia as a threat and the
    launch of Sputnik as a threat, we put the resources into
    science education and it really paid off. And we need to have
    that same kind of resolve again because it is a national
    security issue.
        When you have this large number of under and uneducated
    people, you know, particularly congregating in our inner
    cities, that is much more of a threat to our future security
    than foreign terrorists, for example. And if we had the same
    kind of political will to find the resources wherever--you
    know, when we went into Iraq, we found the resources. We need
    to do that same kind of thing, find the resources to transform
    these inner city school districts.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I am glad you raised the issue of
    Sputnik because that was very dangerous to our country and the
    United States of America responded by putting a man on the moon
    within 12 years.
        And, you know, if you look at where we were then and where
    we are now, it used to be that astronauts were just as popular
    as NFL quarterbacks and that is not the case. So it seems there
    needs to be, you know, a reinvigoration.
        I think part of the policy is that--I think the country is
    just tired of us going back and forth to the space station. We
    need a goal that the country can get behind and bring
    excitement to these children. This is extremely important.

                          LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ISSUES

        But, you know, one thing I, and I know I am probably over
    my time, I want to raise this issue, one of the issues that you
    are going to find, and I know just when I am trying to work on
    the STEM Program in my jurisdiction is still, it is the
    politics of the different counties, the different school
    systems.
        If you are going to have a positive STEM Program, you need
    a regional program, regional involving other counties, regional
    involving the cities, whatever, so you can identify it from a
    regional. And, yet, it seems that there is so much either
    litigation or policy that it is difficult to get children from
    one county to another county and that cooperation. So there has
    to be some really strong political will.
        Are you seeing that as an issue also, the bureaucracy or
    standards within school systems and not wanting to cooperate or
    have a regional type program?
        Dr. Miele. I actually wanted to say a couple of things
    about that.
        I actually was privileged in the 1960s to participate in an
    NSF-funded internship program at Columbia University. My junior
    high school science teacher said you are going to go do this
    and I do not care what you want to do on Saturday mornings
    because you have got talent in science.
        So I went to the Columbia Science Honors Program. I later
    was a faculty member there for 16 years teaching students from
    the region, a 50-mile radius, but, again, that is one of those
    things where NSF type funding works because to transcend the
    regional political power, you have to have something that is
    outside school hours and funded separately.

                     THE INNOVATIVE ROLE OF JUNIOR FACULTY

        There is another issue with the success of that kind of
    project and that is that junior faculty, the ones who are most
    likely to participate in innovative programs, such as bringing
    a high school student into their lab, are the ones who are the
    most at risk of not getting tenure. They need to focus on their
    research. Risking having a high school student in the lab means
    their research is going to go slower and perhaps maybe even
    suffer a little mishap because you do not have a graduate
    student. You have a kid taking attention away from your very
    important research.
        So there has to be some way to protect junior faculty who
    are willing to invest in our young people and willing to mentor
    them. And right now that is not the case. I see again and again
    junior faculty who are willing to work with young people and to
    pay attention to science education and to work hard on their
    undergraduate classes to be the best teachers they can, to use
    innovative instruction. Those people do not necessarily get
    tenure because they are distracted. They are distracted.
        I also want to point out that we need a scientifically
    literate general population in order to make the proper choices
    for our future. So we do need those people who are going to be
    scientists, but everybody has got to understand the value of
    science and evidence-based decisionmaking. Otherwise, we are
    going to be in big trouble.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I do not disagree, but we have to really
    focus on STEM too.
        I know I am over my time. Can I ask one more?
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.

                          TEACHING INSTEAD OF RETIRING

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Another issue I think, and you
    raised the issue with me, is the instructors, the teachers. We
    have a baby boomer generation now that is a lot healthier, they
    are working longer, whatever, a lot of retired scientists,
    rocket scientists, engineers, whatever. And, yet, in order--and
    who probably can come back and help teach and teach hands on
    the way it is in the real world, not just from an academic
    point of view.
        And, yet, because of the rules and regulations and because
    of teachers' unions and all the issues that we deal with, it
    sometimes is very difficult to get those individuals within a
    system or because the school system will say, well, you are not
    authorized, you know, you are not certified, you do not have
    your master's degree and this or whatever.
        And it seems to me that if this system is going to work and
    we have those resources out there, we have to find a way to
    develop a STEM Program that will be the best it can be and we
    have to have some flexibility as we relate to our contracts
    with our teachers and whatever.
        And I am not saying, you know, we do away with teachers'
    unions or anything of that nature. I am saying as it relates to
    STEM, you have to develop curriculum that is going to work. And
    it is just a shame that we have a lot of qualified people that
    can come back and help teach what we need to do in STEM and
    make it exciting because a lot of these individuals are former
    people who worked at NSA who worked on space programs and might
    have another ten years.
        So if you have any idea on that, that is something we have
    to work on also.
        Dr. Miele. I will tell you I myself am not a New York State
    certified teacher. I have a Ph.D. in molecular biology.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Did you hear that?
        Dr. Miele. I am not a certified teacher. If I wanted to
    teach----
        Mr. Serrano. Neither am I.
        Dr. Miele [continuing]. I would actually have to go back to
    school and get 18 credits in education even though I have
    taught those classes.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Uh-huh.
        Dr. Miele. So I agree. But I must also say that I know full
    well that I was not prepared with my Ph.D. to walk into a high
    school classroom and teach. I was not. I needed to learn quite
    a bit about how young people learn. And I was----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I agree.
        Dr. Miele [continuing]. Very, very fortunate to do that
    sort of in my own laboratory because as a faculty member in the
    Science Honors Program, I actually taught high school age
    students and I figured out for myself what worked and what did
    not. I was surprised to learn that it was completely congruent
    with the National Science Education Standards. When I read
    them, I went, oh, I could have written this. I figured it out
    by trial and error.
        But, again, I think that we need these alternative pathways
    for current Ph.D. and master's holders. They do need to spend
    some time learning about----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I agree with you. And you do need
    standards. You always need the education standards. And I am
    not saying it is a hundred percent. I am just saying there is a
    group out there, that we have to find a way. We find it in
    other areas. We have people who come back who are retired
    military and they are back working government, whatever. We
    need to focus on that, though.
        And with the partnership between the teachers and the
    school administrators and these individuals, we should be able
    to help them train them and work as a team together.
        Dr. Miele. It is a priority.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you for your comments.
        I am sorry. I have to go back to Intelligence and the no
    window--well, we do not have windows here either.
        Mr. Mollohan. And we are pretty intelligent here. We have
    got all these educators.
        Mr. Serrano. I agree with you. It is pretty intelligent.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Dr. Hill. And I hope you will continue that idea of
    regionalism because I think that has a big impact in most----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. And it gives you strength.
        Dr. Hill. Yes.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I mean, it is the only way to go, no
    question.
        Dr. Hill. And you get away from, you know, it is okay for
    those kids over there not to have, you know, as long as my kids
    are okay, you know, that is the mentality.

                         SKILLS TRAINING VERSUS INQUIRY

        Mr. Mollohan. Let me go back to this and let both of you
    talk a little more about skills training versus inquiry. And
    you used that word skills when you were talking about reading
    and saying that, you know, that inquiry is great and wonderful,
    but kids need to be able to read when they get to, and need to
    have skills to read.
        And, Dr. Hill, you also alluded to that and I am not sure
    where I wrote it down. But just talk to us about the--Dr.
    Miele, you begin and then Dr. Hill. You need skills and inquiry
    is in your judgment essential if we are really going to develop
    the potential and have the result that we--in terms of numbers
    and quality of youngsters coming into math and science and just
    the general population being literate in that. So if you would
    talk about the balance that exists there and how to achieve it.
        Dr. Miele. I think that in the 1970s, there was a tendency
    to throw the baby out with the bath water. And in the interest
    of developing inquiry skills, there was less focus on content.
    It is not a true dichotomy. The best way to learn science is to
    learn the content that the scientific community agrees is
    foundational to progress as a practitioner and the processes
    that those scientists use.

                                 INQUIRY SKILLS

        So what are the skills? What is inquiry? Inquiry means
    applying the basic science skills. The first skill is
    observation, looking at the world objectively, knowing the
    difference between what everyone would agree is happening and
    what you think about it. I may see a flower opening up and
    think, ah, how beautiful. But as a scientist, what I have to
    look at is, well, how did the petals separate and what is the
    position of the pistils and the stamens. Does the pollen mature
    at the same rate as the ovary? And I need to know these terms
    in order to discuss it with someone else who is a botanist.
        So there is language and vocabulary that is unique to every
    scientific discipline. As a biologist, I do not speak physics.
    I am not at all versed in geology. I am learning because I try
    to talk to my colleagues and develop that common vocabulary.
    But one of the first things you learn when you are a specialist
    in one area and you talked with specialists in another area is
    that you use the same words and you mean different things.
        So in order for a student to become truly proficient to
    enter a STEM profession, by the time they are finished with
    high school, they have to know how to look at things
    objectively. They have to know how to measure things and what
    kind of measurement is appropriate to the task. They have to
    know how to collect and organize data. They have to know how to
    analyze that data and what the appropriate tools are to analyze
    any given kind of data. Is it qualitative? Is it quantitative?
    Is it some combination of the two?
        They have to understand the language of their discipline
    and be able to speak it. Well, that takes a long time. And how
    are we going to do it? We are going to do it by starting with
    kindergartners, maybe even pre-K. In pre-K, we develop basic
    language. What do you call something? How do you describe it?
    What does it do? That is, you know, it is nouns, it is adverbs,
    it is adjectives, it is verbs.
        Mr. Mollohan. So that is skill training?
        Dr. Miele. This is skill training.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
        Dr. Miele. As a scientist, you are learning. As a scientist
    who is five and looking at a cloud, it is a very different
    person than a NASA or NOAA meteorologist looking at a cloud or
    an astronaut who might be looking from different perspectives.
        That five-year-old is thinking that fluffy white thing
    looks like milk or cotton candy. Well, do you think it might be
    cotton? Well, if I am thinking magically, yes. But if I am
    thinking about somebody who threw cotton up in the air and it
    always came down, then, no.
        So how do you decide which kind of thinking you are going
    to use when you look at something? How do you develop the basic
    skills of common sense looking at patterns of nature that a
    scientist uses as opposed to the skills that you would be using
    as a poet or an artist?
        You need to practice and sometimes you practice looking at
    things as an artist and sometimes as a poet, sometimes as an
    objective writer and sometimes as an analyst. When you are
    looking at nature as an analyst, you are applying science
    process skills.
        Mr. Mollohan. How do you teach it?
        Dr. Miele. One step at a time. You start with observation.
    You start with recording what you observe, learning to develop
    language. Just describe this rock, describe it well enough so
    that your rock can be separated from everybody else in the
    class's rock. Even a group of apples. Can you describe your
    apple so well that when we pile it back up on the table with
    all the apples we picked----
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Dr. Miele [continuing]. In our class, you get the right
    one? And maybe that means I have to not only be very detailed,
    but maybe I have to start doing things like measuring and I
    have to measure accurately. Accuracy becomes important.
        Mr. Mollohan. So your----
        Dr. Miele. So one step at a time.
        Mr. Mollohan. That is an integration of skills learning
    within inquiry learning?
        Dr. Miele. Absolutely. So you do these things and you are
    integrating mathematics at every step of the way.
        Mr. Mollohan. Let me ask you, Doctor. I now remember how I
    would like to introduce you to this question. Robert P. Moses
    has written Radical Equations: Civil Rights for Mississippi to
    the Algebra Project. And I understand that this is a project
    that is also in Petersburg.
        Dr. Hill. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. Is that correct?
        Dr. Hill. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, that would suggest that learning the
    skill of algebra is fundamental to creating this
    infrastructure, if you will, intellectual infrastructure for
    moving to inquiry-based learning.
        I am just curious. How do you teach----
        Dr. Hill. And both. I mean----
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. The fundamentals of algebra
    and----

                          BUILDING A COGNITIVE NETWORK

        Dr. Hill. But one thing that the inquiry-based learning
    does is building these cognitive skills. You know, it is like
    building this network of associations. And that is basically
    how you learn. You make new associations and you put them into
    your network of previously existing associations and your
    network expands. So every time you learn a new fact, your
    network has to accommodate that fact.
        And so if you have an impoverished network, it is difficult
    for new facts coming at you to stick. And just getting new
    facts does not do anything for your network. You have to engage
    with the material in some kind of way. You have to use this
    inquiry-based processing or you are using different modalities
    that make these associations that then lead you to be able to
    hold on to the facts.
        And so if you just have a fact-based approach, and we see
    this with kids all the time, they get these facts thrown at
    them, they are isolated, they do not see any connection between
    them. If they learn them at all, they are just memorizing them
    in separate kinds of ways. And they do not retain it. You know,
    they might take a class, have a hundred different facts, and
    one year later, they have forgotten all of them because they
    never were integrated into this underlying cognitive structure.
        So the approach that the algebra project takes and the
    things that we are doing with this cognitive training are
    trying to develop the structure and then connect the
    information to the structure and to the processing that is
    going on, too, because both of those things are important.
        And, yes, the algebra project in particular is very good at
    taking abstract concepts from mathematics and connecting them
    to the everyday experience of the kids so that they are making
    these associations, they are making these connections. And
    these are not just isolated facts or facts that are so abstract
    they have no connection with them at all.

                      STUDENT MATH ACHIEVEMENT EVALUATION

        Mr. Mollohan. Is student math achievement being evaluated
    and do you see any problems with the evaluation instruments in
    general use today? You spoke to that a little bit. If you
    would----
        Dr. Hill. Yes. I mean, we are basically, because in order
    to get cooperation from the school districts, we have to tell
    them this is going to impact your standardized test performance
    because that is all they are concerned about. And so we are
    using those actual standardized tests to see what kind of
    change we get in the performance of these kids after a year.
    But it is a flawed instrument and there are some instruments
    out there that would be better at capturing that process that
    is going on as you are using inquiry-based education and
    developing these cognitive skills.

                             TESTING INQUIRY SKILLS

        Mr. Mollohan. And that is what you, Dr. Miele, were
    speaking about when you said that the testing needs to be
    testing that captures the inquiry-based learning skills?
        Dr. Miele. Exactly. The testing needs to see if the
    students have the skills, not just the content knowledge, not
    just facts that they recognize, which is the lowest level.
        In the scientific community and science education
    community, we refer to getting knowledge like this as
    constructivism. You are basically building a house, building a
    structure of knowledge that includes facts, but the facts are
    the lowest level. It is the theories that you want to get to
    and it is the processes that allow you to build those theories.
        Mr. Mollohan. How do you test inquiry learning?
        Dr. Miele. Well, one of the things that you can do, I
    actually wanted to talk a little bit about one test that I
    rather like, the New York State Earth Science Regents
    examination that many people feel is sort of a flawed
    instrument because it does not test enough memorization. I
    think that is ironic because we are so used to memorization
    being the paradigm that when it is not the paradigm, we reject
    it.
        This New York State exam requires students to read a
    question, recognize what the question is asking, which means
    that they have to have the vocabulary to know what the question
    is about. Then they have to go to the back of the exam where
    there are reference tables, find the appropriate reference
    table, find the appropriate data from the reference table,
    perhaps do a minor algebraic manipulation of it to find the
    right answer, and then answer a multiple choice test.
        You have the efficacy, the very quick and easy method of
    evaluation of scanning a multiple choice test, but it is a
    multi-step process. So it is actually looking at what the
    student can do, not just what the student can recognize.
        So it is actually possible to make a standardized test, a
    simple kind of familiar standardized test that can break out
    these things. You can also have a test that asks the student to
    look at something and say, well, what does that measure, what
    is the appropriate measurement there. So it is a proxy for a
    hands-on measurement assessment.
        There are a number of ways that you can create situations
    in a test which will look at process. Can you group things
    appropriately? Can you look at a chart or a table and collect
    the right data from it to get the correct answer?
        Dr. Hill. Yes. And even with a standardized test, depending
    on how the questions are framed, you can even get higher level
    thought process involved in a multiple choice test if it is not
    just simply recognition memory. You know, you are just
    recognizing the right answer. But if you have to do some kind
    of processing to distinguish between the alternatives----
        Dr. Miele. So I think what we need is developmental and
    cognitive scientists helping us in test design. Traditionally,
    these tests are designed by practitioners of K to 12 education
    coming together as a group and deciding by consensus what a
    good question is, but we need this higher level of awareness so
    that we can make sure that we are looking at a higher order of
    thinking in these exams.

                        TEST SCORES AND SCIENCE INTEREST

        Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Hill, are you finding a correlation
    between student scores on State standardized tests and their
    students' interest in achievement in science?
        Dr. Hill. No, not at the moment, and mainly because those
    State tests are just minimum standards. They are not really
    geared toward assessing the person's creativity or their
    inquiry skills or any of that. So it is almost like minimum
    literacy in these various areas. So, they are not good
    predictors of who would go on to a career in STEM or in any
    other area that I know of.
        Dr. Miele. We have found similar findings with our Brooklyn
    outreach for science and careers. We basically do not have
    enough science majors at Brooklyn College. They all want to be
    economics majors, education majors, or pre-med because they
    want to make money.
        Our students are by and large first generation students to
    go to college and their going to college is their ticket to
    American success. But they do not know that you can be
    successful as a scientist, so that is a major problem. We have
    a disconnect between what students think you need to do to be
    financially successful and the various paths to success.
        We have been able to break that by exposing students to
    career opportunities, but again, that is a band-aid approach
    for our particular little pocket of students. We really need
    some kind of broader systemic way of making clear to students
    that science is something that is fun to do that you can be
    somewhat autonomous, independent. You can do something
    different every day. You can make a contribution and you can
    feed your family and buy a house.

                ARE IMPROVEMENTS READY FOR BROAD IMPLEMENTATION?

        Mr. Mollohan. Are the improvements that you described ready
    to be spread to more schools and school systems, and we spoke
    of this a little bit, but let me give you an opportunity to
    answer specifically, and what do we need to do so? Dr. Hill?
        Dr. Hill. Yes. There are certainly a lot of evidence-based
    practices out there that are ready to go. It would take
    political will. It would take an independent principal or some
    other administrator who is willing to implement these things
    and not worry about the immediate consequences to their SOL
    test performance or whatever the standards they are using.
        So, yes, they are ready to go. We just need to create a
    climate in which that could be implemented on a widespread
    basis.
        Mr. Mollohan. Can you cite specific examples of models
    where this turnaround has occurred based upon inquiry-based
    learning?
        Dr. Hill. Well, Petersburg is a good example. As I
    mentioned, over the last three years, we have seen their test
    scores go up. We have seen the engagement of the students go
    up. You know, we are in the middle of a three-year project. We
    will have a lot more data in a year-and-a-half from now. But
    all the trends are in the right direction, and we are excited
    about the possibilities. And a place like Petersburg is small
    enough to be kind of like a little laboratory.
        Mr. Mollohan. Are you working in the middle schools?
        Dr. Hill. Primarily the middle schools and the high
    schools, yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. And what has been the story with regard to
    scores----
        Dr. Hill. Well----
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. In middle schools?
        Dr. Hill [continuing]. I think I shared with you----
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, share it with me again.
        Dr. Hill [continuing]. Some of that data. The middle school
    that we are working with in 2007 had an average SOL score of
    39.7 and the passing score is 70. And this year, their average
    SOL score in math was 88.86. So there has been more than a
    twofold increase in three years in their math scores in that
    middle school and similarly in the high school.
        And, again, we have had kind of a three-pronged approach.
    We have had the approach of cognitive education. We have had an
    approach of the algebra project, pedagogy, and community
    organization and involvement. And I think it takes that kind of
    multifaceted approach to really make a difference.
        Mr. Mollohan. Are other schools in Virginia coming down and
    seeing what you are doing and saying we would like to replicate
    this?
        Dr. Hill. Not yet. We are trying to get the word out and
    hopefully we will. I mean, my appearance here was the result of
    an appearance on NPR, so maybe the word is starting to spread.
        Mr. Mollohan. Are you working with any kind of innovative
    programs or organizations like the Darden School at University
    of Virginia or any of those?
        Dr. Hill. No. Right now we are only working with two
    outside organizations other than Virginia State University and
    that is the Algebra Project, Incorporated and Learning RX which
    is the cognitive training organization.

                            TEACHER-STUDENT RAPPORT

        Dr. Miele. You know, I want to just mention something else.
    One of the problems that we have with middle school and high
    school is it is the opposite of the problem we have with the
    elementary school system. There you had specialists. The people
    who identified themselves as scientists or mathematicians
    fairly early on chose higher education in that area and as a
    result are not always aware of the struggles of the average
    student when confronting these subjects.
        So we very often have a disconnect between the math teacher
    or the science teacher and their students because the math
    teacher says, well, you know, math is cool, it is great, and
    they have not figured out how to convince their students that
    that is true.
        We have the same problem with our science teachers. And,
    again, because our science teachers traditionally go through a
    more formal kind of education in higher ed, they have not had
    any inquiry instruction in their college experiences, they are
    not really prepared to teach inquiry and they are not committed
    to it as an approach to instruction.
        So we really need that change at the middle school and high
    school level as well. Middle school gives us some opportunity
    because we have, many teachers who are moving up from
    elementary school who are elementary school science specialists
    who really got so excited by it that they wanted to teach it at
    a higher level. And they have been able to bring a great sort
    of elementary school approach to middle school, but with more
    content understanding.
        Dr. Hill. Yes

                              IMPROVING HIGHER ED

        Dr. Miele. I think that we need to get our college teachers
    also encouraging our undergraduates to think about how the
    discipline evolved and how we know what we know and what you
    need to do to get to the next step because myself as a graduate
    student, it was only my last year at college that I was
    introduced to how we know what we know. And that was just a
    short step. Then I had to start figuring out new knowledge
    myself the next year as a graduate student.
        So we need some changes in higher ed as well and that, I
    think, will allow more people to stay in STEM who think that
    they might. We are losing way too many potential science and
    math majors in their freshman year.
        Dr. Hill. We are working with our math ed people at
    Virginia State in particular to try to put some of this
    innovative pedagogy into their content for teaching math
    teachers. So that is an issue.
        And I have also found even at the middle and high school
    level that often the math and science teachers, let me think of
    the charitable way to say this, they are not able to do much
    more than process facts either. I mean, they are not very
    inquiry based in their background.
        Mr. Mollohan. Did not learn the approach?
        Dr. Hill. They did not learn it that way.
        Dr. Miele. They did not learn it that way.
        Dr. Hill. Yes.
        Dr. Miele. They are good memorizers.
        Dr. Hill. Yes. Particularly in math, I mean, they can plug
    in a formula, but they are not able to conceptualize the
    connections and what this formula is actually saying in terms
    of the real world.
        Mr. Mollohan. Can teachers be retaught? Can they be
    reoriented? Can they be retrained?
        Dr. Hill. Yes. And that is what we are doing with this
    algebra project approach. We are mainly focusing on the
    teachers and their pedagogical skills.
        Dr. Miele. Sixty hours of professional development that
    actually is inquiry based, actually is active learning.
        Mr. Mollohan. I am sorry. Say that again.
        Dr. Miele. Sixty hours seems to be the minimum for
    transformation.
        Mr. Mollohan. You said that before. To re-educate and to
    educate?
        Dr. Miele. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. We are coming to a close. I would like to
    give you all an opportunity for any final thoughts that you
    would like to put on the record for the Committee.
        Dr. Miele, why don't you go first?
        Dr. Miele. I think I would like to take this opportunity to
    speak again about the issue of the support for college faculty
    to make sure that these transformations can happen.
        In order for us to have the most robust STEM practitioners
    at the highest level, we need the best instruction at the
    college level and we need to make sure that junior faculty who
    embrace inquiry do not get pushed out by senior faculty who are
    threatened by it or do not see its value.
        I do not know what you can do to protect them, but it is an
    important issue.

                    EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS IN SCIENCE GRANTS

        Mr. Mollohan. Well, why don't you help us? We fund NOAA and
    NASA, NSF. We do not fund the Department of Education. But in
    those accounts, how do you think that we could help----
        Dr. Miele. Traditionally----
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Within that area?
        Dr. Miele [continuing]. As I understand the--I have been
    out of the pure science grants area for 20 years myself having
    recreated myself as a science educator, but pure science grants
    have a small requirement that there be an educational
    component.
        If that could somehow be made a little bit more robust, a
    higher amount of the score for the grant actually count for
    meaningful inclusion of inquiry learning or the quality of
    their instruction in their undergraduate class work, how will
    this research transform their undergraduate class work, that
    way, it would be a science grant, so it would count for
    promotion and tenure, but it would actually have some
    meaningful impact on undergraduate instruction.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, we will ask our NSF friends when they
    come to testify about that.
        Doctor.
        Dr. Hill. I would piggyback on what Dr. Miele just said.
    The grants process, as I mentioned earlier, is kind of stacked
    against young faculty members, particularly at teaching
    institutions. If there are some ways that NSF could come up
    with some more creative-- I mean, they do a lot. I do not want
    to complain about NSF because they have a tremendous amount of
    science education funded programs.
        But if we could just add another more innovative funding
    mechanism of, say, a research initiation grant that could be
    given to a new faculty member. I mean, the way it is now the
    grants are, the proposals are evaluated by, you know, peers in
    the field and so they are looking at credentials, they are
    looking at publication record, they are looking at what else
    they have done.
        And so if we want to get to where particularly the minority
    kids are, which are HBCUs, we need to have some more open kinds
    of innovative funding mechanisms that allow these faculty
    members to develop their program of research. And by necessity,
    the people they would be working with would be minority STEM
    majors.
        So I guess this would be under the term of research
    initiation grants. If there could be more research initiation
    grant funding at places like NSF, it would be very helpful in
    this area.
        Mr. Mollohan. Could be more research initiation grants?
        Dr. Hill. Yes, to allow the researchers where----
        Dr. Miele. Research one institutions.
        Dr. Hill. Exactly. Since I guess--and not just HBCUs but
    Brooklyn College and--
        Dr. Miele. Yes. Places that are research one are going to
    have a higher opportunity to get funding for their junior
    faculty to do pure research. Those of us who are at
    institutions where research is not the high priority, but
    education is, our junior faculty are at something of a
    disadvantage.
        Mr. Mollohan. In the NSF grant process?
        Dr. Miele. The NSF grant process, yes.
        Dr. Hill. NIH, you know, all the funding mechanisms.
        Mr. Mollohan. And so what good do we achieve if we address
    that problem at the----
        Dr. Hill. Well, for one thing, you are kind of bringing
    together research and education because these are the places
    where the education is going on, where the teacher education is
    going on.
        Mr. Mollohan. But they are not the places that generally
    have favorable responses from NSF for grant----
        Dr. Hill. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. In response to grant----
        Dr. Hill. Exactly.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Solicitation?
        Dr. Hill. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. And so to fix that, it should be fashioned to
    bias----
        Dr. Hill. And, again, NSF does a good job.
        Mr. Mollohan. No, no, no. We are not bashing NSF.
        Dr. Hill. Yes. Another track would be good.
        Dr. Miele. Integrates research and instruction----
        Dr. Hill. Yes.
        Dr. Miele [continuing]. That would be targeted for
    nonresearch institutions. So the goal is to bring young people
    into the research paradigm.
        Dr. Hill. Because NSF has some programmatic kinds of grants
    for things, places like HBCUs. They do not have the research
    dollars targeted for kind of start-up type research careers.
    And that is the kind of thing that we need.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. I am going to ask you all for the
    record, this is my 28th year and I think 20 probably--anyway,
    long enough on this Committee and I believe every hearing that
    I have sat with NSF, this question of youngsters in America
    falling behind by all kinds of measurements, youngsters around
    the world with regard to math and science education has always
    been a part of the presentation.
        And, okay, well, what are we going to do about that or are
    we just being scared so we will fund more for NSF? What is
    going on here? After 25 years, there ought to be some really
    concrete approaches to dealing with the issue, number one. And
    then there ought to be some desired results coming out of it,
    number two.
        And during that period, not being an expert in the area,
    but the concrete proposals and the desired results have eluded
    us, I think. And so I think it is fair to take the kind of
    testimony you are giving us and ask NSF, look, let us get down
    to brass tacks here. How do we actually achieve those desired
    results?
        And so I would like to ask you to in writing, if you would,
    and you have been so forthcoming here to begin with in your
    testimony and your attendance, but to address that question.
        We fund NSF. We do not fund the Department of Education.
    But NSF obviously plays an important role here, particularly at
    the research level. So how do we work with NSF through the
    appropriations process to help facilitate the desired results
    that everybody wants as an outcome?
        [Clerk's note.--The written material follows:]

        Dr. Miele. One of the things that I discovered in working
    with the Museum of Natural History and the zoo is that there is
    no NSF funding for formal partnerships with informal science
    institutions.
        In other words, for a school district to say during school
    hours we want these informal institutions to help us with our
    State mandated core curriculum instruction, it is only for
    after school and enrichment. Well, here is this wonderful
    resource that can expose young people to career opportunities
    in the sciences and, you know, all of our major cities have
    them and many of our college campuses have institutions
    associated with them that can fill this role. Even the Boy
    Scouts, the Girl Scouts, Explorer Scouts, institutions like
    that that have a strong natural knowledge mandate----
        Mr. Mollohan. Well----
        Dr. Miele [continuing]. Can help with this.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Maybe the people who----
        Dr. Miele. That is a new area that is not funded right now.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Maybe the peers that review, and I am
    not interrupting, I want you to hold your thought and I have
    trouble holding mine, so let me say it, maybe the peers who
    review these applications do not appreciate that the importance
    of those partnerships and----
        Dr. Miele. It is actually in the guidelines that you cannot
    do it for a formal partnership. It is only for enrichment and
    outside school hours. So----
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. I do not know exactly what that means,
    but I am going to ask you to put that in your written----
        Dr. Miele. Okay. And one thing I wanted to mention is that
    when we judge ourselves against the international standards,
    remember that places like China and Russia do not give their
    young children who have talent in math and science the choice
    of what to do with their lives. They are funneled into math,
    science intensive instruction from the time they are 12 years
    old. They are begun on college level course work much earlier
    than our students and part of that is because they are not
    given the chance to, you know, to be Shakespeare.
        So they get what they are putting in. They are creating
    scientists and mathematicians for its political and social
    construction. And it makes sense for a building economy to
    force their students perhaps into----
        Mr. Mollohan. They are pushing and we are trying to pull.
        Dr. Miele. Exactly. Exactly. We are trying to, you know,
    cajole, coax, and we are not doing it very effectively.
        As I say, I myself left a career in science because it was
    not supported, frankly. It was a difficult, very difficult life
    writing grants, hoping you will get them, exposing yourself to
    all kinds of dangers for the benefit of mankind and not--
    frankly, I did not make enough money as a young scientist to
    pay for my kids' childcare and my extra travel.
        Mr. Mollohan. It is a dangerous world out there no matter
    what profession you are in.
        Dr. Hill, final thoughts? You do not have to.
        Dr. Hill. Yes. I mean, I think most of the things have been
    said already. Anything you all can do that will bring more
    funding in this area, I think, is great.
        And I think again if you look at our political will as a
    nation, we have not had science as a priority and our funding
    has reflected that. And so anything you can do that would kind
    of get the word out that we need to make this a priority, I
    think it is important.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, funding is going to be scarce which
    makes your thoughts about this more important so we can focus
    scarce resources. And we so very much appreciate your
    appearance here today. I thought it was an outstanding hearing,
    and we look forward to your written statements and any other
    thoughts that you have.
        I know you are working closely with our excellent staff
    which we appreciate your having done in preparation for this
    hearing. I notice with your eyebrows, you recognized I am right
    about----
        Dr. Hill. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you for your testimony here this
    morning.
        Dr. Hill. Thank you.
        Dr. Miele. Thank you.
                                            Thursday, February 4, 2010.

              SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATH EDUCATION

                                   WITNESSES

    DR. JULIE LUFT, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
    DR. CRAIG STRANG, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
        Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order. Thank you all
    for being here today. And we are starting a few minutes late.
        We ordinarily would not start without the Minority
    representative, but Mr. Wolf is running a little late, and it
    is fine with him if we start. So we are going to start.
        Welcome. Good morning to the second hearing of the
    Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee on Science, Technology,
    Engineering, and Mathematics, STEM, Education.
        In testimony yesterday, we heard about two examples of STEM
    education activities and today we will hear two more. We also
    learned that development precursors do not always resemble the
    skill to which they are leading and how the environment around
    schools can be effectively used in inquiry-based education.
        Did you not catch that? Yesterday we learned that
    development precursors do not always resemble the skill to
    which they are leading and how the--to which they are leading
    and then we also learned how the environment around schools can
    be effectively used in inquiry-based education. I will let you
    think about that.
        Testimony helped us become aware of the challenges to
    transforming science education and including student activities
    such as devising original experiments, observing the natural
    world, using math and reasoning with data.
        Today we will hear from witnesses recommended to us by NSF
    and NOAA as outstanding recipients of federal education funding
    provided through our appropriations. These witnesses are Mr.
    Craig Strang from the Lawrence Hall of Science at the
    University of California, Berkeley, and Dr. Julie Luft of
    Arizona State University.
        Mr. Strang has pioneered the development of materials that
    help enable inquiry in STEM education. Dr. Luft has been both a
    middle and high school teacher and an educator of secondary
    school science teachers. Dr. Luft is currently the Director of
    Research for the National Science Teachers Association.
        And thank you both for coming, being here today. Your
    written statements will be made a part of the record and then
    we would invite you to present your oral testimony and then we
    will follow with questions.
        Dr. Luft, why don't you begin?
        Dr. Luft. Chairman Mollohan, thank you today for inviting
    me here. I am honored to be here to talk about inquiry-based
    science teacher education.
        As you know and as you stated, I have been involved in
    science education for a long time. I was a former middle school
    and high school teacher and currently I am an academic in an
    institution of higher ed. Specifically I am a professor at
    Arizona State University.
        In addition to my duties at NSTA, I am also an associate
    editor for the Journal of Research and Science Teaching and I
    am also an incoming fellow for the American Association for the
    Advancement of Science.
        As you know, the National Science Education Standards have
    led the way in our thinking about science as inquiry. This
    document has made it explicit that science as inquiry is a
    content standard. That is something that all students should
    know about, have the abilities to do, and that they should
    understand.
        And in the standard, it describes specifically what science
    as inquiry is. It includes among several things being able to
    ask questions, collecting data, analyzing that data, and
    sharing those findings.
        In science teacher education, we think a lot about this
    standard and we think of it in two ways. We think of it as a
    way to teach and a way to learn. And our work in this area
    focuses on helping teachers to learn how to teach using this
    method as well as understanding how students learn in an
    inquiry setting.
        Now, I know this sounds very simple, but it is really quite
    complex. And this is where most of my work has been. I have
    pondered how we can better assist teachers in implementing
    science as inquiry. My current work, which is funded by the
    National Science Foundation, is targeting a unique group of
    science teachers and that is teachers in their very first
    years.
        So this is what we know. We prepare teachers to teach
    inquiry and we provide wonderful professional development for
    them to support their learning of inquiry. But when they first
    graduate, when they first come out of their teacher preparation
    program, they have no rich support to do inquiry.
        So my premise was what if we intervened in that period and
    actually gave them very rich support what would happen. And NSF
    funded me to find out.
        I followed 120 teachers over three years, the first three
    years, and we found out that with rich support to teach
    science, these teachers actually enacted more inquiry. And what
    we are finding out now as we go into the fifth year of this
    study, it is being sustained.
        So this research is really important in that it gives new
    insight into how teachers can develop their practices and how
    we can strengthen them and how we can sustain them.
        From this research, we found in addition to that conclusion
    that science induction, and that is what we call it, support is
    critical.
        We have also found that teachers have great advances in how
    they understand how students learn in these first few years. In
    teacher preparation, we focus on that. But when they actually
    hit this classroom, their understanding of how students process
    science takes incredible leaps and bounds.
        So this work has been critical. It has allowed me to work
    with several federal agencies. And I am hoping to continue this
    work. And in thinking about that, I was thinking about some key
    suggestions I might have for federal agencies.
        First off, I think it is really important that this work,
    as work of a lot of my colleagues, that we think about how do
    we translate this or support this work so it can go into
    practice. We know this now. We found this understanding, but
    how do we actually put it in the hands of people who can use
    it.
        I think there is also the potential for funding agencies to
    think about long-term support. We are beginning to understand
    more about how teachers develop their practice and how students
    learn, and these are going to be projects that require a lot of
    financial support to really get at some very important
    understandings.
        And, finally, I think it is really important that we just
    continue our support for research in science education.
        So I want to thank you very much for having me here today.
    I hope we can continue to talk about some of these issues, and
    I am looking forward to answering any questions you may have.
        [The information follows:]

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Dr. Luft.
        Dr. Strang.
        Mr. Strang. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to
    testify about the importance of inquiry-based science education
    and thank you for supporting the role that NOAA, NSF, and NASA
    play in improving science education. You can be proud of their
    work that improves the lives of young people, provides
    assistance to teachers, and strengthens our workforce.
        If I leave you with one message, it is science agencies
    must play a leadership role in the improvement of science
    education. Achieving science literacy for all Americans and
    preparing future scientists requires direct involvement from
    today's scientists. Science agencies must have the mandate and
    funding to devote significant resources to science education.
        I am Associate Director of Lawrence Hall of Science,
    University of California, Berkeley. LHS is a national leader in
    the development of K-12 inquiry-based science and math
    instructional materials. One in five children in the U.S. uses
    curriculum materials developed at Lawrence Hall of Science.
        I am also Director of a NOAA Office of Education sponsored
    project, the Ocean Sciences Curriculum Sequence for grades
    three through five. This grant created a partnership between
    the LHS Center for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence and
    Rutgers University to provide students with inquiry-based
    experiences in ocean sciences. These materials will become the
    most widely used elementary ocean sciences curriculum
    nationwide. They were developed by science educators,
    scientists, and educational researchers, tested by the
    developers in local classrooms in Berkeley, then field tested
    by 70 teachers nationwide to ensure their effectiveness and
    broad applicability. We are now analyzing the very positive
    field test data to revise the final version of the materials.
        My written testimony provides more information about those
    materials, including our evidence of their effectiveness. But
    this project would not have been possible, however, without
    previous strategic investments by NSF and NOAA to build on and
    change the landscape of science education that has made a
    project like mine possible.
        For most of my career, marine education has resided at the
    distant margins of K-12 science education. Understanding the
    ocean is critical to the health of our planet. Climate change,
    ocean acidification, extinction, hurricanes, tsunamis dominate
    the news. California alone has a $43 billion ocean economy.
    Yet, ocean topics are idiosyncratically missing from national
    and state science standards.
        The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy reported that the
    absence of ocean sciences in schools has resulted in a
    generation of Americans ignorant of the importance of the
    ocean, placing our economy, environment, and national security
    at risk.
        So in 2002, the NSF Division of Ocean Sciences invested
    $3.5 million to establish a national network of Centers for
    Ocean Sciences Education Excellence or COSEE. I am the Director
    of one of those centers.
        COSEE has coalesced and elevated ocean sciences education
    by engaging scientists and science educators in mutually
    beneficial partnerships. Ocean scientists themselves believe
    that education is so critical they now devote their research
    dollars to the endeavor.
        In the early days of COSEE, we first began to discuss
    creating an ocean literate society by infusing more ocean
    topics into the K-12 science education standards.
        Then in 2004, the NOAA Office of Education made a strategic
    investment, just tens of thousands of dollars, to convene
    meetings between leaders of COSEE, NOAA, National Geographic
    Society, the National Marine Educators Association, and College
    of Exploration to define ocean literacy and the few ocean
    concepts that should be in K-12 science standards.
        The result was the publication of this brochure that
    describes seven big ideas that all twelfth graders should
    understand about the ocean. This ocean literacy brochure is a
    transformative consensus document. There have been nine
    conferences in three countries devoted to it. It has resulted
    in the publication of a high school textbook, another high
    school course, several museum and aquarium exhibits, including
    here at Sant Ocean Hall at the Smithsonian, several lecture
    series and web sites. Several states have incorporated some
    ocean concepts into their standards as a result and this is the
    new context that has been created for the development of our
    ocean sciences curriculum sequence.
        NOAA and NSF funding brought coherence and prominence to a
    once marginalized domain of science education. Their
    involvement ensures that science education keeps up with the
    fast-moving world of scientific discovery.
        Public understanding of science leads our young people to
    be creative, thoughtful decision makers and is a key to the
    improvement of our environment, economy, and quality of life.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and all the members of the
    Committee, and please continue to support science education
    within NOAA, NASA, and NSF.
        [The information follows:]

                     SUPPORT FOR INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Thank both witnesses.
        Today we are really focusing on and learning more about
    STEM education, the status of STEM education. Yesterday I asked
    one of the witnesses, ``Is there any credible debate out there
    as to the benefit of inquiry-based education to teach STEM
    courses?'' And the answer was no.
        And then it became clear as the hearing went on, when you
    talked to the witnesses, that while there may not be a debate
    at some level about the superiority of inquiry-based education
    for these disciplines, there certainly was a lot of difficulty
    in migrating that technique out through the real educational
    systems across the country, which seems to be a bit of an irony
    or at least a tragic problem.
        If there is really no debate that inquiry-based education
    is by far the superior way of teaching young Americans about
    science, then why is it not being embraced universally across
    the school districts of the country?
        Dr. Luft.
        Dr. Luft. You know, that is a really good question. We do
    see that there are more and more good inquiry curricula that
    are being put in schools, but I think you have to realize that
    this curriculum costs money. And schools, especially right now,
    are making choices about what they are going to fund. Over the
    years, they have made these choices, too. So it is acquiring
    the curriculum; it is also supporting the curriculum.
        So for the teachers that I work with in the Phoenix area,
    many of them have the FOSS kits, but some of them are in
    districts that may not have a science coordinator who can help
    provide professional development for the teachers to support
    them in using these kits appropriately. If they get the kits,
    learning how to use them in ways that are really conducive to
    developing understanding is critically important.
        I think another concern on the teacher education end, which
    I am comfortable to speak about, is that we really need to work
    in the science education community on who knows this. We need
    to work to help our teachers understand how to use the kits
    when they go into the schools. But sometimes there is a
    disconnect between the materials and supplies we have at the
    University versus what is in the local schools.
        So while there is great curriculum, that curriculum varies
    by district, and it also is supported in ways that are not
    equivalent. Some districts may be able to or have a science
    coordinator and other districts may not. So supporting that
    enactment is very difficult.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, I would like to get down to the detail
    of that a little later.
        But, Dr. Strang.
        Mr. Strang. Mr. Strang.
        Mr. Mollohan. I am sorry.
        Mr. Strang. It is okay.
        Mr. Mollohan. It is Dr. on your card there.
        Mr. Strang. Oh. Well, I appreciate the honorary degree.
        Mr. Serrano. We give everybody titles.
        Mr. Honda. No money, but----
        Mr. Serrano. Dr. Mollohan.
        Mr. Strang. I agree with everything that Dr. Luft said and
    I think resources and money are certainly an issue.
        But aside from the current budget crisis that, for
    instance, California schools are in, I think there is another
    issue that is just as profound with the implementation of
    inquiry in our science programs and that is the issue of
    instructional time, not so much money.
        We are finding in school districts across the country, but
    especially in California, that even after the adoption of the
    FOSS Program or other inquiry-based materials that because of
    the emphasis on accountability and English language arts and
    mathematics at the elementary level, that elementary science
    programs have been virtually dismantled.
        In the San Francisco Bay area, the Lawrence Hall of Science
    did a study in 2008; we found that the average elementary
    school teacher in the eleven Bay area counties spends about an
    hour and 15 minutes a week teaching science. And we know that
    most of that time is spent in grades four through six or four
    through five. So we figure that at the K through two or K
    through three levels, teachers are spending maybe 30 minutes a
    week teaching science, and you cannot do inquiry in that amount
    of time.
        So while we know, and I think most teachers today
    understand the importance of inquiry and the difference in
    student understanding when they present concepts using inquiry
    versus when they present them through other direct instruction
    methods, even though teachers understand that, they are in this
    constant conflict over managing the time of their instructional
    day.

                    SUPERIORITY OF INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION

        Mr. Mollohan. If I might. The witnesses yesterday made that
    point that inquiry-based, while most people, and you just said
    while most people acknowledge inquiry-based, is superior, in
    effect, you said that. In spite of that testimony yesterday and
    just for purposes of discussion here, I really wonder about
    that and that seems to be a real threshold question to me.
        As much as people are ringing their hands about America
    being behind in teaching math and science, if everybody
    believed, that there was this consensus out there that inquiry-
    based education is the way to go, then I do not know that we
    would be having difficulty developing materials here at NOAA
    and all the other places materials are being developed and
    trying to get it out on a onesie and twosies basis from bright
    people who are working hard and really trying to pull the kind
    of organizations together to get the curriculum and get the
    teachers taught and then actually support them in the field. I
    do not think we would be having so much of a problem about
    that.
        So my question really goes to the premise that everybody
    believes that inquiry-based education is a superior way to
    educate these young people in science.
        Mr. Strang. I think that there is a growing consensus about
    inquiry and the effectiveness of inquiry, but alternatively,
    science education is not a priority. So there are many school
    districts in California that are telling us, well, we would
    have adopted FOSS in the last science adoption year, but we
    knew we could not do it justice and it is expensive and if we
    are not going to use it, why would we pay for all those kits?
    So we just bought the textbooks.

                IMPLEMENTATION OF INQUIRY-BASED STEM INSRUCTION

        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well, if everybody agrees that inquiry-
    based education is the way to teach science, then we ought to
    be about how does the Department of Education migrate inquiry-
    based education like that throughout the country if that is how
    we ought to be teaching science to youngsters.
        Dr. Luft. So I think this is again a complex problem. We
    can agree. And I think if you talk to teachers, we agree that
    science as inquiry is incredibly important, but there are
    factors that really bear down and constrain the teaching of
    inquiry, no matter how much we know or how important it is.
        And you are right. The testimony yesterday really hit on
    this hard that the testing and the accountability has
    constrained the teaching of science as inquiry.
        At the secondary level, I have walked into science classes
    to watch teachers teach, but I have been told the science class
    is canceled at the secondary level to prepare for testing. The
    kids were getting skills to take the test, so we are losing a
    period of time. This is huge.
        But the other piece is communities. I think when we have
    lost a lot of funding for the professional development of
    teachers, when that funding went away, teachers did not have
    the support or the communities to constantly be thinking about
    their practice and enriching that practice.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. We will follow-up.
        Mr. Honda.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just pursue this
    a little bit more.
        How is it that we define inquiry and why is it only
    confined to STEM and why do we focus only on children when it
    is the teachers that teach?
        Are we focusing enough time on the teachers to be able to
    do that across the curriculum instead of just focusing on STEM,
    because you have instruction and content, process and concepts?
    You have deductive, inductive approaches, too, but process
    seems to be where inquiry is.
        So I was wondering, combining all these questions in one,
    do you have some sort of idea what it is that people see that
    is going on because I really do not see a constraint.
        Dr. Luft. So I think you are asking me two questions--that
    is what I am hearing. I think you are asking me what is it that
    makes science as inquiry unique. First off, that----
        Mr. Honda. I am asking you what is inquiry?
        Dr. Luft. What is inquiry?
        Mr. Honda. What is teaching inquiry?
        Dr. Luft. Yes.
        Mr. Honda. I mean, if a teacher cannot teach it, how can
    they expect it? Are we sure that the teachers are being
    instructed on how to do that?
        And if it is only done in four and five, it seems to me
    that K through 8 seems to be a strand of instruction when you
    do inquiry because we ask our youngsters to check for
    understanding. We inquire, and that is something that
    youngsters can mimic from teachers when we do that. Am I off
    base or what?
        Dr. Luft. Do you want to--this is----
        Mr. Strang. Yeah. Well, there is a variety of----
        Dr. Luft. There is a variety----
        Mr. Strang [continuing]. Directions here. Yeah.
        Dr. Luft. So I think that we are really trying to, if I
    understand this, I think we are really preparing our teachers
    to do science as inquiry. And in the research that I do, what
    we really see is that it is constrained when they first go into
    the school.
        When they graduate from preparation programs, I think they
    know and they understand what science as inquiry is and they
    want to practice this. But when they first hit the schools,
    they can be constrained in the environment if there is not
    adequate support or if their other colleagues are not engaging
    in this. So it is not-- it may not happen for teachers.
        Mr. Honda. It seems to me that through any subject matter,
    one can use the inquiry method and teach youngsters by modeling
    that. And it is not only-- unless you are asking-- trying to
    teach the scientific method in going through those steps and
    then you do the observation, note taking, and then you----
        Mr. Strang. Right.
        Mr. Honda. You still can do that, I think, in other
    instructional areas where--in an integrated approach to a
    curriculum and teachers get together trying to figure out how
    we are going to get this as an outcome.
        And I understand time on task, but I wonder whether we
    really use enough time to teach and to rest assured that we
    are, in fact, agile enough to understand how to use this in
    other curricular areas.
        Mr. Strang. Right. So I will respond with an example. I
    think there are many things that are unique about inquiry in
    science, about science inquiry. And at the same time, we are
    doing quite a bit of work at the Lawrence Hall of Science right
    now trying to understand the relationship between science
    inquiry and literacy skills. And we think about good thinkers
    in language arts classrooms as being inquirers into text and
    inquirers into ideas. So there is some overlap there.
        We are in the process of developing a new set of materials
    that I think by the time of the next round of science adoptions
    will be available on a large scale. The new program is called
    Seeds of Science, Roots of Reading and it explores the synergy
    of the integration between science and literacy and how
    students very consciously and directly thinking about the
    similarities and differences in how they investigate phenomenon
    versus how they investigate text and ideas.
        Mr. Honda. So you are saying that there are these skills
    that build upon each other?
        Dr. Luft. Yes.
        Mr. Honda. There is a hierarchy of skills in inquiry?
        Dr. Luft. That is right. And that there is a curricular
    economy in integration that could help to overcome some of
    these instructional time issues that are such a challenge at
    the elementary level.
        So we have students that are doing investigations in their
    science class and reading text, reading student reading books
    that are written in such a way that they elaborate the concepts
    that the students are investigating and teach reading skills at
    the same time.
        Mr. Honda. But you are assuming that they are using a
    textbook as a guide rather than a teacher's insights in
    understanding the hierarchy of these skills and incorporating
    that as she or he teaches and leads youngsters through a
    process?
        Dr. Luft. Yes, absolutely. So teacher preparation and
    professional development and the skilled nuanced teacher are
    essential, but also good materials that allow a teacher to
    follow along through a teacher's guide that embodies inquiry is
    also very important.
        Mr. Honda. Well, that is my point, Mr. Chairman, that if
    the teachers only depend upon the textbook and they are not
    taught to have the insights and integrate within themselves
    that skill and understanding of where youngsters are and how to
    move and weave this thing, we may not be paying enough
    attention to where the problem really lies. And it is us adults
    assuming that we can teach to those things because a scientist
    is skilled in what they do. And we just all of a sudden
    understood the contact between physical and biologic kinds
    because we are able to get down to the nano scale. We have
    other inquiries that we start to develop, but the basics are
    still there.
        I challenge what you guys are saying about instruction and
    only gearing inquiry to the area of STEM.
        Dr. Luft. Maybe I can take another--so science as inquiry
    is very unique to science and it is different. Mathematics is
    problem solving. And in mathematics, a student in math would
    never be able to look at a phenomena as an advanced
    mathematician does and create the formulas or the proofs that
    are needed to explain the mathematics. But in science, we are
    really interested in understanding the natural world. And it is
    about making explanations about that natural world using
    argument, using evidence, collecting data, and these are unique
    pieces to science as inquiry and they are not necessarily
    transferable to some of the other areas by the nature of the
    content with which they are associated.
        Mr. Honda. But is not math a language of science?
        Dr. Luft. Math is.
        Mr. Honda. It is a tool of science. And, I mean, if you
    want to get that way, you can send a youngster through a
    neighborhood and over time, they can figure out the facts and
    say every time I go down the street, I am going to get hit, so
    I have to figure out another way of getting around it.
        Intuitively they have ways of looking at a problem and
    solving it and we just have not figured out how to transfer
    some of that----
        Dr. Luft. Right.
        Mr. Honda. [continuing]. Just trying to have us reshift our
    thinking. And then, Mr. Chairman, if I could just close with
    this one comment.
        We have something like a little over $2 billion invested in
    I think 120 STEM education programs by 12 agencies, none of
    which are coordinated. Do you think that--you know, I have a
    bill called ESTEM where we asked ourselves to gather all this
    information. We have a repository where we can take advantage
    of the information that is gathered by all these grants and
    research.
        Is that a need as far as having a place where we can go and
    get the information that has already been figured out but never
    been shared or coordinated or have some cohesion about what we
    have already?
        Mr. Strang. Well, coherence is good. So the more
    coordination that can be achieved through the science agencies,
    the better. And different science agencies are engaged in
    different fields of scientific discovery and so have different
    new material that gradually should become part of the science
    education curriculum nationwide.
        So there is a role for the separate agencies to be
    exploring and discovering in their respective domains. And
    then, of course, education efforts should be coordinated with
    the goal of coherence. And we are hoping that the common
    standards, the common core will help to achieve some of that
    coherence in the near future.
        But a lot has changed in the world of science discovery
    since the National Science Education Standards were published
    in 1996. So clearly we need some updating of what we think
    students should know and understand by the end of twelfth
    grade.
        Mr. Honda. So we do not have anything that does that right
    now?
        Mr. Strang. Correct.
        Mr. Honda. Do we need one?
        Mr. Strang. One what?
        Mr. Honda. To do that function that you just described.
        Mr. Strang. One agency or one what?
        Mr. Honda. Way. I mean, should we spend some time to do
    that? Is it worth the time?
        Mr. Strang. Sure. I mean, I think that coordination is
    important and that the discoveries that are coming out of NOAA
    and NASA and NSF have to be looked at in the context of what
    are the salient ideas that kids need to know in order to have
    access to these new discoveries as adult learners.
        Mr. Honda. I would ask if you would not mind just reviewing
    that bill and see if there is a--just getting your reaction,
    professional reaction.
        Mr. Strang. Of course.
        Mr. Honda. Appreciate it. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
        A recess we have. I apologize to the panel. It is part of
    the process here. We have about five votes and a recommit which
    means we are probably recessing for about a half hour.
        Mr. Strang. Okay.
        Mr. Mollohan. And we will be voting down there and so thank
    you for your patience.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you.
        [Recess.]

                           ASSESSING STUDENT INQUIRY

        Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order. We will
    continue the hearing by calling up Mr. Schiff.
        Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want
    to say, Berkeley, we have a witness from Cal, I mean, where are
    the standards, Mr. Chairman? What, what--sorry, it is the
    Stanford in me coming out. But I was reading your written
    testimony, and plainly if you look at the map here you can see
    that the land is far more than 30 percent. I mean, look at
    that. Just look how big Antarctica is. It could not possibly be
    less than 50 percent land.
        Thank you both for coming today. I concur completely with
    the thrust of your testimony in terms of inquiry-based
    teaching. And when I think back about my high school years in
    particular the lessons that stand out to me were very inquiry-
    based, were very kind of innovative and not rote memorization.
    I had a wonderful teacher, for example, who gave us a test, a
    pop quiz that was impossibly difficult. And we were all in a
    panic because it was horribly impossible. And we were failing
    it. And then he revealed afterwards that this was the same exam
    they gave African Americans in order to qualify to vote. It was
    the polling exam. And it was a very clever way of teaching us
    that the exam was meant for them to fail. And it was a lesson I
    remember to this day because of the innovative way it was
    taught. I mean, had they just said memorize the fact that they
    used to require African Americans to take this test because
    they wanted them to fail and not be able to vote, I would
    probably never have remembered that. But at one point he would
    assign more and more homework and more and more homework. It
    got impossible to do and we got together as students and
    protested. And he was teaching us about collective bargaining.
    It was really quite wonderful.
        And the question I have is, you know and I think this is
    pertinent in light of the fact that we are looking at reforming
    No Child Left Behind. There are some laudatory goals in No
    Child Left Behind. We want ways to measure student achievement.
    We want to be able to compare school to school. We want parents
    to be armed with information so they can say to schools
    similarly situated socioeconomically, et cetera, why is one
    doing so much better than the other? The parents at the school
    not doing so well can say why are our kids not doing as well?
    How do you measure achievement in an inquiry-based learning
    environment? If you are not teaching to the test, how do we
    measure, how do we hold accountable? What are your thoughts on
    that?
        Mr. Strang. Well, there are assessment tools available that
    look at the requisite inquiry skills and I think those tools
    are available. And again, the question is are the results of
    those assessments, when we look at them and find out how
    students are doing, are those results valued compared to
    results of content knowledge, understanding, and even more
    importantly reading and math skills? So I think the tools
    exist. They are a little bit more complicated to administer.
    They are more like performance tasks, and open ended
    constructive response items on assessments. They tend not to be
    multiple choice, scannable tests. But they certainly exist and
    are available for school districts that want to use them. The
    question is, what is the value of using them if nobody cares
    what the results are?

                           CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION

        Mr. Schiff. It has always been considered a strength of
    education in the United States, and maybe part of our culture
    also, this propensity we have to kind of question things, not
    do things by rote, think outside the box. It has been a
    competitive economic advantage for us vis a vis other countries
    that have turned out much greater numbers of college graduates.
    How have we been able to do that? Are we doing less of it now
    because we are, you know, sort of teaching to the test, and
    going to a more rote system? What are other countries doing? Is
    China teaching with an inquiry-based system, or Japan, or
    Germany, or India? How do we compare? Are we losing our
    advantage?
        Dr. Luft. I think the U.S. education system is the best in
    the world. And it gives a lot of graduates, we can say this at
    the university level, people come from all over the world to
    study in our system. So this system is amazing in its
    commitment to every student in this country. And we have to
    realize when we think broadly not all countries are committed
    to every student. So that is something to always keep in mind.
        But I think one thing that is really promising that we are
    doing in terms of even coming more to a consensus about what we
    should be teaching in science is we are working to really
    identify some core standards. And I know the common core is
    coming up, it is up in English and mathematics, they are
    working on that, this is promising. And what it brings forward
    to science are the key ideas and the central ideas that are
    really important that we need to come around. So we are not
    trying to teach a lot of things; we are teaching the very few
    important things really well. And when we look at other
    countries, that is what we see. We see some very clear
    expectations of what students are to know and opportunities for
    those students to learn. But when we do look at other countries
    too, I want to stress this, in some of the countries we do not
    see as much inquiry as we are really promoting here. And I
    think the value behind inquiry is the innovation that it gives
    this country to be on the front edge of the ability to solve
    problems and to really think outside the box. This is something
    that this country has always been dedicated to. And I think our
    curriculum really supports that. And I am encouraged greatly by
    thinking about the common standards. I think that will really
    help move us along greatly.
        Mr. Strang. I will just add that at the Lawrence Hall of
    Science at U.C. Berkeley we have a fairly constant flow of
    visitors from Japan, China, Singapore, et cetera. Countries
    that all score higher than the United States in the
    international assessments of math and science. And they are
    coming to the United States, and to California, and to Berkeley
    in particular, to learn about inquiry. And they are scoring
    high, their students are scoring higher on their tests. But
    their students are not engaged in science, and not continuing
    in science at the secondary level. So they are coming to us to
    learn about this sort of magic of teaching kids how to think,
    and how to get excited about the natural world, and how to
    investigate and puzzle through problem solving and answering
    their own questions. And I think many of those countries are
    superb at implementing science education programs, but not very
    good at designing science education programs. And I think the
    United States is exactly the opposite. We have this sort of
    cutting edge, brilliant thinking about the design of programs
    but we are very challenged at implementing, as we are hearing
    about today, and providing this inquiry-based opportunity for a
    large population of students in school districts and states all
    over the country that have different standards and different
    assessment tools, etcetera.
        Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                          IMPORTANCE OF STEM EDUCATION

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. Mr. Culberson.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The work that you
    are doing that we are talking about today I think is among the
    most important things we can possibly do to help strengthen the
    country in the future. I completely agree with the Chairman
    about inquiry-based education. And am delighted to see the
    support that the Committee and the administration have for
    strengthening the existing programs at NOAA, and the National
    Science Foundation, and NASA to help teach teachers to do a
    better job of teaching science and to strengthen these programs
    at the district and the state level. My only concern is to be
    sure that if states or districts accept the money that we are
    not imposing national standards on them. I am a big believer in
    education is not under the Constitution under the tenth
    amendment, it is reserved to the states. And that would be my
    only concern, Mr. Chairman. I am just delighted that you have
    called this hearing and very, very supportive of this work and
    this effort. Thank you, sir.

                             STANDARDS OF LEARNING

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Culberson. Mr. Fattah.
        Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank the
    witnesses. I have introduced legislation in support of common
    core. And I think that the fact that the states and the
    governors have gotten together and have agreed that there
    really is not any difference, you know I represent
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, but there is really no difference
    in algebra in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and algebra in
    Philadelphia, Mississippi. I mean, there are really, you know,
    through a number of analyses we know with a certainty that most
    of our children do not get the higher order math in the order
    that they need to receive it to, by direction of the College
    Board twenty years ago, about where the sequencing of these
    courses should come. But that is really not happening. It is
    not happening in Pennsylvania, or in West Virginia. It is not
    happening in Texas.
        I mean, so the fact that children do not, the fact that
    children do not achieve as well as we would like them to is not
    really new. In fact, when the Nation at Risk study came out in
    the 1980's it talked about the dearth of our young people being
    able to pursue rather science or math. Most of our children in
    this country are not taught math and science by a teacher who
    majored or minored in the subject matter. And it is impossible
    for one to transmit information that they themselves do not
    have. And I have spent a lot of time looking at some of the
    challenges, and you know, states have been wrestling with this.
    The common core, I think, gets at this in a way in which even
    me and my colleague from Texas can agree since this is a state-
    driven initiative by individual states who have gotten together
    to say that we really need to, I think it was President Nixon
    who said it was a national imperative, that we really do need
    to make sure that our young people gain an ability to
    critically think and analyze.
        So I want to thank the Chairman. He has done a great deal
    without notice over the years to promote science and math
    through the work of this Subcommittee. And there is more that
    we need to do. And we have problems all the way throughout our
    system. We have almost, I mean I do not want to be overly
    dramatic, which is the way it is done here in Washington, but
    there is a significant absence of native born Americans
    pursuing terminal degrees in math and science. So that when we
    talk about, if we looked at the National Nuclear Security
    Agency, who are handling our nuclear stockpile, as these people
    are checking out, that is retiring out, and some 80 percent, 85
    percent of the workforce is leaving in the next decade, in
    terms of young people pursuing nuclear physics, and some of
    these other, you know, needed disciplines, there is going to be
    no one to even hire that meet the security requirement of being
    an American citizen to be able to do this work.
        So we have to do something. The idea that education is a
    local prerogative, and that people can decide how dumb they
    want their children to be, and it is no concern to us if they
    do not want to provide an education, no that is not true. And
    that is why in this international competition economically we
    are getting our clock cleaned by nations that have really
    devoted themselves to driving math and science through to their
    young people. And many of these countries, you know India has
    got a billion people. So, you know, if we have got a much
    smaller population, and there is some who would like us to have
    even less of a population, you know, in terms of immigration
    issues, then we are going to have to be a lot smarter if we are
    going to compete. You know, and then China has got even more
    people. And they are ramping up their education system.
        So, you know, when Japan was out-competing, out-producing
    us in engineers, you know, a couple of decades ago, people
    said, well, it is a much smaller country. You know, it does not
    really matter, and so on. Now China is out-producing us in the
    production of engineers and it really does matter. You know?
    And it really will have an impact.
        So I just want to thank you for the work that you are
    doing. And I want to thank the Chairman for putting a focus on
    this at the very front end of the work of the Subcommittee as
    we go forward. Because when we talk, when we are out on the
    floor talking about jobs it really starts with the work that
    you are doing. That if we do not do something about this it is
    impossible for us to be competitive economically and to have
    the job base that we want to have in this country. So thank
    you.

                      SPREADING INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION

        Mr. Mollohan. Okay, thank you, Mr. Fattah. We talked a
    little bit earlier about if there is a consensus among those
    who really think about these things that inquiry-based STEM
    education is the best way to proceed. How do you get a broad
    based consensus, and then how do you get broad based
    implementation? And is that the crux of the challenge we face?
    Dr. Luft.
        Dr. Luft. I think it is two-fold. You know, we have to get
    the information out there. And I think teachers really do
    agree, again I want to stress it, they do agree that science as
    inquiry is a great way to teach but they feel incredibly
    constrained.
        Mr. Mollohan. Now you are talking about teachers out in the
    field?
        Dr. Luft. I am talking about teachers out, and teachers
    that I prepare. So I work very closely and monitor a lot of
    what happens in teacher preparation. So across the continuum:
    pre-service teachers, new teachers as well as experienced
    teachers. And I think they are excited about inquiry and what
    it offers. But I think, again, they are very constrained by
    sometimes the, as we have talked about extensively about here,
    is the testing that is imposed on them to meet those standards.
        Mr. Mollohan. So what are the impediments? Testing?
        Dr. Luft. Testing is a big one. I think also having the
    fiscal support for getting the materials into the classroom.
        Mr. Mollohan. Materials?

                              TEACHER'S CHALLENGES

        Dr. Luft. Having some personnel that can actually support
    them, which would be important. Professional development
    programs that are extensive, so we know, actually the research
    is pretty compelling that we are looking at threshold hours,
    they said sixty yesterday, the data I have seen has said
    eighty. There is some effect, but then when you push up to 160
    you start to really get an effect of using inquiry. So----
        Mr. Mollohan. And that is retraining the teachers?
    Reteaching the teachers, 180 hours you are really----
        Dr. Luft. Professional, extended professional development.
    Yes, yes, I think you are right. Training the teachers. And it
    is really giving them deep opportunities to learn the content
    but to also work with their peers. So some of the more
    compelling work that is coming out is talking about teachers in
    communities. So as teachers work together to examine students'
    work they can really see what they are doing, and they can make
    decisions about what they need to do in the curriculum to
    enhance the work that they are doing in the classroom. And
    schools are set up, though, not to give teachers this kind of
    time. Schools, by the very nature of their construction, do not
    give teachers enough time to sit and reflect and really
    understand what their students know. I mean, to do that these
    teachers would have to pore over the work. They would make
    judgments about the work, and they would say, well what am I
    going to do next? And schools do not allow that, because they
    start at 7:30 in the morning, and these teachers are with these
    students the entire time until they go home.
        Mr. Mollohan. So you really have to do that outside the
    classroom, and probably outside the school year in some sort of
    retraining program, and materials and----
        Dr. Luft. But, but yes----
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. The money to do that, and
    incentivize teachers to actually come into those programs.
        Dr. Luft. So you are----
        Mr. Mollohan. You probably have to work with stipends.
        Dr. Luft. So you are giving them another, I just want to be
    very clear about this, you are giving them a second job on top
    of their current job. And I think all of us in our profession,
    we have, I have opportunities, my university says, Julie, we
    want you to get some training. We are going to give you two
    weeks off to go get that. You know? Because it is that
    important that you bring it back to us. And I think we have to
    think----
        Mr. Mollohan. Is that two weeks off paid?
        Dr. Luft. If it is affiliated with my work----
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Sure. I mean----
        Dr. Luft [continuing]. They will work with me on it. Yes.
    Yes. I can work my schedule.
        Mr. Mollohan. I think you have to be unapologetic about
    that, to tell you the truth.
        Dr. Luft. Yes. Yes. No, no. But I am paid by a taxpayer.
        Mr. Mollohan. Because there are a lot of teachers out there
    that they only time they have to relearn is during the summer,
    and they have got a lot of things to do in the summer.
        Dr. Luft. And it gets worse.
        Mr. Mollohan. If this is important.
        Dr. Luft. Absolutely. And it is worse than that. So these
    guys not only want to improve their practice, they are working
    with kids and they cannot get the time off during the day to
    think about it. But say they want to go to a conference to meet
    with other people who are excited about what they are doing.
    They cannot get the time off from their district to go to these
    conferences because the district cannot give them time because
    they do not have enough subs. So the very barriers, the very
    barriers that are in place are keeping these teachers from
    doing the work that they want to do and need to do.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Assuming we have got all the right
    things----
        Dr. Luft. These pieces, yes.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. You should be doing. Mr. Strang.
        Mr. Strang. Yes, so I think our schools are set up in a way
    that we assume that once a teacher is ready to teach that all
    they need to do is just teach. And none of our jobs are like
    that, and we are expected to grow, and continue learning, and
    to interact with our colleagues and our peers on a regular
    basis. And it takes up a lot of our day each day. And I think
    we need to rethink the learning and the teaching environment.
    If we are expecting kids to engage in inquiry, then teachers
    need to be engaged in their own inquiry, and adult learning,
    and extending their own practice in the same way that they are
    expecting their kids to.
        And I think there is a tremendous amount of evidence that
    even with extended teacher professional development, teachers'
    beliefs and understandings, their knowledge and beliefs, change
    long before their practice changes. And this is true of all of
    us, but we observe it very clearly in teacher professional
    development. That teachers take the pre- and the post-survey.
    They tell us that, oh my God, this is changing my life. I am
    going to, you know, I get it, I understand, I am never going to
    teach the same way again. And we go back into their classrooms
    a month or two months later, and we observe their lessons, and
    they are teaching the same way they did last year.
        So this is the sort of ongoing professional development
    that Dr. Luft is talking about, where teachers need to be
    trying something out in a scaffolded, structured environment,
    gathering student work, bringing it back, sharing it with
    colleagues, watching video tapes of themselves teaching,
    observing their colleagues teaching, and really thinking, how
    do I know what my kids are learning? How do I know what is in
    their heads? And when I find out what is in their heads, what
    is it that I can do to make them turn this way rather than that
    way? And at what point in my lesson could I have asked a
    different question, or provided additional experiences, gone
    back to observing the phenomenon, etcetera, that could have
    overcome that potential misconception that is building in my
    kids' heads? And I think, you know, that is challenging,
    thoughtful work, not to be taken lightly. And it is not just
    going to a workshop and coming back and, oh I get it, I am
    different now. It is just as hard in a teaching setting as it
    is in any of our professional lives, to actually change our
    practice.
        Mr. Mollohan. Sounds like some really good elements for a
    demonstration project you all are coming forth with, here.

                         TEACHER PREPARATION IN SCIENCE

        Mr. Strang. Yes. And I want to also just comment on
    something that Mr. Fattah said about the importance of having
    people in schools teaching science that have some background in
    science. And that is a challenge at the secondary level. It is
    almost an impossibility at the elementary level.
        Mr. Fattah. At the elementary level it does not exist.
        Mr. Strang. Yes. And I think this notion of attracting our
    best and brightest science students into the teaching
    profession is very important. And there are many high quality
    programs, like Dr. Luft's at Berkeley. There is the Cal Teach
    program that is a teacher preparation program that attracts
    science students in particular into the teaching professions.
    There are examples of those things. But broadly across the
    country there is still a phenomenon in science departments in
    universities that scientists, faculty, consider it a failure if
    their graduate students go into teaching. That is considered
    second, or third, or fourth class. And I think that this
    reflects the view of the American public of the teaching
    profession. And that part of our job also is to elevate the
    teaching profession and make this a desirable, noble job for
    teachers to pursue, for students to pursue from all different
    disciplines.

                 STEM EDUCATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

        Mr. Mollohan. You all, I bet, interact with the Department
    of Education?
        Dr. Luft. I have. I have had projects that have been
    affiliated with the Department of Ed.
        Mr. Mollohan. What is the Department of Education doing in
    this area?
        Dr. Luft. I mean I think this, you know----
        Mr. Mollohan. But I mean to facilitate the national
    adaptation of inquiry-based learning, and the teaching the
    teachers that needs to happen in order to accomplish that? And
    getting the materials out that need to accomplish that?
        Dr. Luft. I think one of the----
        Mr. Mollohan. Which I want to get into a little bit.
        Dr. Luft. Yes. I think one of the big initiatives that
    just, I mean you did form, their Math and Science Partnerships
    were moved to the Department of Ed.
        Mr. Mollohan. I am sorry, what?
        Dr. Luft. The MSPs, the Math and Science Partnerships were
    moved there. So that has been their responsibility, to try to
    cultivate and support these partnerships. But I think the work,
    and it is very good work, it is very important work, but I
    think the coordination that is coming from the science
    community, or the efforts that are coming from the science
    community, NSF, those are the pieces of work that are really at
    the heart of the matter of the materials and of the
    professional development opportunities.
        Mr. Mollohan. Why is Education not doing this? I mean, they
    are the ones who would know this before we would know it,
    supposedly.
        Dr. Luft. Are you talking about the Department of
    Education? Or are you talking about educators? Or----
        Mr. Mollohan. I am talking about the federal government. We
    are an Appropriations Committee, and at the end of this I am
    going to ask you for some suggestions, guidance on funding. And
    maybe doing a demonstration.
        How you would like to see that happen. We are going to
    invite you to help us with that. But right now I am asking you,
    why is the Department of Education not, if there is that
    consensus out there among the thinkers, and it is not being
    readily, or quickly, integrated into the educational system in
    these areas, STEM areas, across the country, what is the
    Department of Education doing about that? And why, are they
    doing it well? Or are they not doing it well? And if they are
    not doing it well, why not?
        Dr. Luft. Their work is different. I mean, I think----
        Mr. Mollohan. The Department of Education?
        Dr. Luft. Well, they have the MSPs and they have the IES
    grants, the institute grants which develop research, and they
    are looking for degrees of scale-out in terms of
    implementation. But when you go into in a separate, so somebody
    who has worked, you know, remotely with some of those projects
    and been involved on them, it is not the level, it is, there
    are different types of projects. I think when you go to NSF you
    have an investment in curriculum materials, and the development
    of curriculum materials.
        Mr. Mollohan. But I am actually talking about changing the
    culture. You would think that it is ubiquitous, it sounds like.
    They would have to go in and really change the----
        Dr. Luft. But they are not. It is not there.
        Mr. Mollohan. I mean, some national symposium, or some
    national study that would redefine how science and math should
    be taught in education. It seems you would have to deal with it
    at this level. Because we are down here doing model projects to
    prove out what has already been proven. Because you have told
    me, and the last panel told the Committee that inquiry-based
    education is the way to go. So if that is an established fact
    among the thinkers then it seems to me the next problem, the
    real thing that has to happen, is to get it down to it.
        Mr. Culberson. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, let them answer that, John.
        Mr. Culberson. Maybe a little help on this?
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, let me ask them to help first.
        Mr. Culberson. Sure.
        Mr. Mollohan. And then I will get right to you.
        Mr. Strang. Well, I think this gets back to some of my
    earlier comments about first of all, sort of a disconnect in
    priorities. That despite the fact that we know what works in
    science, science in general is not a priority in our education
    system.
        Mr. Mollohan. Oh my gosh. That shocks me because, and I
    said this yesterday, that every year the National Science
    Foundation comes up here and reports on the status of education
    in America. Science, our students are always behind, as Mr.
    Schiff and Mr. Fattah pointed out, always behind the world in
    that. I just have to----
        Mr. Strang. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. At least as it is presented to
    us through NSF----
        Mr. Strang. Right. So----
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. It sounds like it is a problem.
        Mr. Strang. Yes. And so, and my earlier comments were that
    I think that the science agencies, NOAA and NASA and NSF in
    particular, need to play a lead role in----
        Mr. Culberson. Bingo.
        Mr. Strang [continuing]. In getting----
        Dr. Luft. Yes.
        Mr. Strang [continuing]. Science education out there in
    schools. That we cannot expect educators with no background in
    science to be promoting and implementing and disseminating----
        Mr. Mollohan. Ah.
        Mr. Culberson. That is the key.
        Mr. Strang [continuing]. High quality science education
    strategies.
        Mr. Mollohan. Department of Education?
        Mr. Culberson. That is what I was going to----
        Mr. Strang. And I think that, you know, I go into
    elementary schools in California where the school principals
    are telling their teachers, do not open that science kit until
    your reading scores are raised.
        Dr. Luft. That is right.
        Mr. Strang. And all the research points to the fact that if
    they open the science kits, the reading scores would go up. But
    they are telling their teachers, ubiquitously, across the
    board, science is not a priority. It is not a priority until
    your math and your reading scores are up above this line.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay, that is interesting.
        Mr. Strang. Because we get hit over the head if the reading
    scores are not up. It gets published in the newspaper. 100
    percentile, 100 percent science scores do not help us a bit
    when the scores get published in the newspaper.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, No Child Left Behind ought to hear
    this. John.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That is
    the point I wanted to drive home. You are exactly right. That
    the key is that the National Science Foundation, NOAA, NASA,
    but particularly NSF need to be the lead on this. And when you
    get professional educators----
        Dr. Luft. That is right.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Educrats, as I like to call
    them, in charge of this they screw it up because they do not
    understand how important it is. And the root of the problem,
    Mr. Chairman, I think is, one of many bills that President Bush
    pursued that I voted against and opposed, in his last, second
    to last bill, remember Bush pushed a bill that transferred
    responsibility for science education from the National Science
    Foundation to the Department of Education.
        Dr. Luft. The MSPs, that was the MSPs.
        Mr. Strang. That was the MSPs.
        Mr. Culberson. It passed the House. I opposed it. I do not
    know what happened, I guess it passed in the Senate. Sometimes
    you lose track of these things. That is the root of the
    problem. And that is what they are testifying about, is at the
    Department of Education they are just typical bureaucrats. They
    do----
        Mr. Mollohan. John----
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Not have their priority right.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. You do not have to be
    disparaging.
        Mr. Culberson. I will be nice. But, I mean, NSF, we need to
    seriously----
        Mr. Mollohan. It is President, President Bush.
        Mr. Culberson. By President Bush, unfortunately, this is
    one of many things he did that I voted against. And we need to
    get it back and NSF needs to be the lead agency. That is the
    root of the problem.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, that is very interesting.
        Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, this could be a major
    breakthrough. I think I heard my colleague say that these
    federal agencies should put together a national science
    curriculum?
        Mr. Culberson. No, no, no, be the lead to----
        Dr. Luft. Lead----
        Mr. Fattah. Oh, I am sorry, I did not hear that----
        Mr. Culberson. With incentives, as I heard the Chairman
    say. We need to do it through incentives. But NSF clearly needs
    to be the lead, Mr. Chairman. And whatever we can do to undo
    making the Department of Education the lead and put NSF back in
    charge, they would work wonders.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Thank you.
        Dr. Luft. It competes with everything.
        Mr. Culberson. Is that correct?
        Dr. Luft. That is absolutely----
        Mr. Strang. I think there are some studies, some actual
    cross site analysis of the Math and Science Partnership
    programs that were run by NSF compared to the Math and Science
    Partnership programs that were run by the Department of Ed. And
    across the board, the NSF run programs had stronger outcomes.
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, that is the root of the problem, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Did you get that study down? What study is
    that?
        Mr. Strang. I can send you a citation?
        Mr. Mollohan. Please do.
        Mr. Strang. Let me make myself a note.
        Mr. Fattah. Yes, let me just, I am sorry?
        Mr. Mollohan. No, Mr. Fattah.

                         SCIENCE TEACHER CERTIFICATION

        Mr. Fattah. You know, all joking aside, I just want to make
    sure that the record is clear. I mean, as long as we understand
    that at this point in time, at the pre-high school in our
    country, none of the teachers are even subject certified for
    the most part.
        Dr. Luft. That is right.
        Mr. Fattah. So that in terms of science and all that, in
    terms of our international competitors they are so far ahead of
    us by the time our kids show up at high school. And then in
    many of our both urban and rural areas, and you can go to
    great, you know, states like my own, you can go to Texas, you
    can go to West Virginia, there are schools that do not have,
    they do not have science labs. You know, the Washington Post
    had a front page story a few years ago, it said that, you know,
    they focused on one school inside a city, and one school right
    outside the city, in walking distance literally across the
    county line. And they described one, and they said one of them
    had a science lab, and it had, you know, microscopes, and it
    had, the whole science faculty had advanced degrees in math.
    And the school had, you know, just, it was a wonderful story.
        And then they talked about this other school. And it did
    not have any working equipment. It had no lab of sorts for kids
    to do experiment and so on. And nobody had to guess which
    school was inside the city and which school was in the suburbs.
    And you did not even have to think about which city, because we
    know that exists all over our country. And so, you know, we
    should not be, it is intellectually dishonest for anybody to be
    surprised when our kids do less well when we test them under
    these various testing schemes. Because we know that we are
    giving them less of everything we know they need in terms of
    learning. So that at the end of the day, you know, that is the
    challenge that we have. That if we want to do differently we
    are going to have to act in a much different way. And it will
    have to be a scale.
        And the Chairman is right. We know what works. You know? It
    is just a question about whether we are going to decide that we
    are prepared to do to make sure that children are exposed to
    quality teaching, and, you know, and a rigorous curriculum.
    Because that will require an investment. And sometimes the
    tradeoffs between, you know, tax cuts and investing in
    education politically are more instantaneously rewarding than,
    you know, it takes a kid, you know, seven years at Penn to get
    a Ph.D. in math. So if you are starting to worry about this kid
    in preschool, all the way up to there, you know, it is a
    thirty-year pipeline.
        Mr. Culberson. Well, if the gentleman would yield?
        Mr. Fattah. And, you know, we do not have the patience for
    that in Washington. You know, we do not, it is hard for us to
    see that far.
        Mr. Culberson. I really do share, if I could, Mr. Chairman,
    very briefly, I really want to help you with this. This is, I
    think, as important to our national security as any investment
    we make in intercontinental ballistic missiles, or nuclear
    submarines. Investing in science education, and getting NSF
    back in the drivers seat I think. I want to help any way I can,
    Mr. Chairman. I am with you. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. No, I welcome that offer for help,
    particularly from the gentleman. I just want to point out it is
    going to cost money.
        Mr. Culberson. No, I am there. Science education, I am
    there.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay, that is great.
        Dr. Luft. It is the most important thing we can do.
        Mr. Culberson. As long as there are not national standards.
        Mr. Fattah. Bipartisan----
        Dr. Luft. There are national standards----
        Mr. Culberson. As long as there is no national curriculum,
    I should say.

                             EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS

        Mr. Mollohan. Let me, I would like to explore, thank you,
    thank the gentleman. We will count on it. I would like to
    explore just a couple of topics here quickly. Materials, we
    have a lot of materials that are produced by, or do we? Do we
    have a lot of national textbook material production folks? Or
    is that pretty well concentrated? And are they embracing
    inquiry-based education in the curriculum materials that they
    are producing for school systems?
        Mr. Strang. Well there are many textbook publishers that
    develop and publish and distribute textbooks. There are really
    only a handful of instructional materials developers that
    embody inquiry-based science methods. So that is a smaller
    subset.
        There is the Lawrence Hall of Science and Education
    Development Center, TERC in Boston, BSCS, there is--you can
    count them on one or two hands.
        Mr. Mollohan. That do inquiry-based materials production.
    Is it a comprehensive across all the topics you would teach in
    these areas and for the various grades?
        Mr. Strang. They are--go ahead.
        Dr. Luft. Oh, no, go ahead.
        Mr. Strang. Well they are developers of comprehensive
    curriculum materials, they are also sometimes the same
    developers also produce supplemental or enrichment materials or
    modular materials that can be inserted into other programs. So
    the range is available, and there are comprehensive materials K
    through 12, life science, Earth science, physical science that
    are available for large scale adoptions.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes, doctor.
        Dr. Luft. I concur. I mean, I think that is--there are the
    materials there, it just becomes--as you get into the secondary
    level the materials issue becomes a little bit more complex
    because sometimes you need more advanced materials in order to
    run the investigations.
        So the limiting factor, I mean, you are talking about--you
    could be talking about microscopes or using advanced equipment.
    So sometimes just doing some really important investigations
    are more--require more materials.
        Mr. Mollohan. Uh-huh. Well the same, if these--Prentice
    Hall, that sticks in my mind. Is that a----
        Dr. Luft. That is a publisher.
        Mr. Strang. Textbook publisher, yeah.
        Dr. Luft. Textbook publisher.
        Mr. Mollohan. Of academic, yeah. Produce materials and
    brought them down to a middle school and said we have a whole
    new set of this inquiry-based and then we have the traditional
    things you have been buying for years, and gee, you know, we
    are selling books so we will sell you either group. But that
    isn't available is it? I mean----
        Dr. Luft. The problem isn't--I mean, I don't want to--the
    materials are an important piece of this, but the problem is
    the support that goes on with it. You know if I buy the
    materials that is fine----
        Mr. Mollohan. How do I teach?
        Dr. Luft [continuing]. But how do I really teach using
    those materials is a key piece, and districts don't have money
    or they don't have the person who is knowledgeable to support
    the use of those materials or the teachers.
        And we know this too, that teachers can have access to
    great materials, but they can be used in ways that aren't
    productive.
        Mr. Mollohan. So this has to start back in the education--
    teacher education.
        Dr. Luft. It has to--you have to hit it all the way
    through. I mean, you have to always make sure that if you want
    good science instruction you have really got to make sure that
    you support it when teachers are in schools, and this is having
    teachers have access to how to use the materials.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Dr. Luft. Just buying the materials, anybody is happy to
    sell the materials, but supporting the materials so the
    teachers really take that, and studying--it is working with the
    materials to uncover student's understanding so that we know
    what to do next.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Dr. Luft. That is a very powerful piece.
        Mr. Mollohan. So it really is a cultural issue. It is all
    these threads have to be changed in order to----
        Dr. Luft. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. And it has to be coordinated in
    order to shift.
        Dr. Luft. You are right; in pre-service it is very
    important that we support these teachers and help them
    understand how to use the materials. I mean, that is a big
    piece of it also.
        Mr. Strang. Right. And providing teachers with a consistent
    message all through their educational career.
        Dr. Luft. Yes.
        Mr. Strang. Including their professional development.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Mr. Strang. And as a practicing teacher, you know, there
    should be, I would hope, some unity in the message that they
    are receiving about these different methods.
        The other thing that I just wanted to mention is that when
    you talked about Prentice Hall saying well we have two sets of
    materials, the traditional and the inquiry, it is a little bit
    more complicated than that, because the nature of the
    development of those materials is very different. And while a
    textbook publisher can take the most recent set of standards
    from any particular state and develop a textbook very quickly
    that addresses everyone of those standards, the development
    time line for inquiry-based materials might be three years and
    require a significant investment in the design and development
    because they are research-based, they are applying educational
    research and pedagogy, they are extensively pilot tested, field
    tested, revised and field tested again before they hit the
    market, and textbook publishers are not typically set up to do
    that kind of development. That is why we depend on NSF and NOAA
    and NASA to support the design and development of those
    materials and then we establish relationships with publishers
    for the distribution. But without the initial investment from
    the science agencies the materials would never be developed.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you for getting that on the record,
    that is very important to this Committee, because we are
    interested in supporting that. But it does make the point that
    materials is development and integration and support for its
    integration is a real inhibitor to moving in this direction.
        Dr. Luft. But also providing----
        Mr. Mollohan. Correct?
        Dr. Luft. Yes.
        Mr. Strang. And the support.
        Dr. Luft. And the support. But I think what would be really
    great is if NSF did some of this originally was when they
    developed these materials--and I know that you work with
    curriculum agencies or with the textbook companies to do the
    dissemination--but it would be really fantastic if NSF would
    help develop these materials and also help put them in schools.
    So if we bypass some of the people who are selling them, but
    having the people who are developing them really working with
    teachers to help them put them in schools that would be
    fantastic. And originally that was done a long, long time ago
    that was part of the initiative
        Mr. Mollohan. Where was that done?
        Dr. Luft. In the--at Sputnik. It was an outgrowth of
    Sputnik. They actually had the people who were developing the
    materials were also supporting to put them in schools.
        Mr. Mollohan. I guess there is an example out there that we
    could go look at.
        Dr. Luft. It is a historical example. But now we move
    through textbook publishers. You may or some do or some don't,
    but the idea there is this long-term investment even beyond the
    development of the materials so that it can get into schools
    and with teachers from the people who had envisioned how they
    were to be used.
        Mr. Mollohan. So who would do the support? I know who would
    develop the materials, that is the textbook people. If there
    were a demand out there they would spend the three years
    developing the materials, but who does the support and where do
    the resources come? And obviously that would take a lot of re-
    teaching and re-training. How do you teach this material? So
    whose responsibility is that?
        Mr. Strang. Well when--I will speak for my institution at
    the Lawrence Hall of Science. When we develop materials we
    assume that the development and publication of the materials is
    the first half of our job.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Mr. Strang. And we are very deeply involved in the support
    of the implementation of those materials. So we establish
    professional networks around the county, centers around the
    country that are supporting the local implementation of our
    materials. And the leaders of those centers come to Lawrence
    Hall of Science and go through days or sometimes weeks worth of
    professional development with us.
        Mr. Mollohan. Is that supported by the marketplace or the
    educational systems in each state or county, or do you have a
    grant that is supporting that all the way through?
        Mr. Strang. Our involvement is typically supported by
    grants, typically NSF.
        Mr. Mollohan. Ah.
        Mr. Strang. And----
        Mr. Mollohan. So you are--I am sorry to interrupt you. Let
    me just understand each piece and you remember what you were
    going to say, if you will.
        So you have the grant that helps develop the materials, and
    also as an academic institution supports the integration of
    those materials into the classroom----
        Mr. Strang. That is right.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Which really involves teaching
    the teachers and bringing the teacher back for more education,
    and then an ongoing--they could pick up the telephone and say
    gee, I got this problem, you can say----
        Mr. Strang. Right.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. This is the solution. That is
    the kind of system you are talking about.
        Mr. Strang. Absolutely, absolutely. And it happens in a
    couple of different ways. Probably many more than that, but two
    that I will mention.
        One is that we receive grants to do the development, and
    then we receive grants to conduct professional development
    related to the materials that we have developed.
        When we are developing the materials, I mentioned a couple
    of times, we go through this extensive field testing process
    and we have partnerships with school districts around the
    country that are very eager to field test our materials because
    they know that typically they are pretty good, and at the end
    after the field test they are going to be interested in
    implementing. And by going through the field test they are
    building support within their district at the earliest stages
    for these particular materials.
        So teachers that have field tested the materials are very
    invested in continuing to use them and they get their name in
    the book as field test teachers and there is some status that
    goes along with that they work. And we listen to the teachers
    that are field testing and they can see their comments and
    feedback reflected in the final drafts.
        The other way that that support happens other than the
    field test and the subsequent grants for professional
    development, are that in--we chose very carefully the
    publishers that we establish partnerships with, and the
    publishers make commitments to school districts that when they
    purchase the materials there is a certain amount of
    professional development that will be--that will accompany the
    purchase of the materials, and then the publishers contract
    back with us to go deliver the professional development.
        Mr. Mollohan. You pay them to do it.
        Mr. Strang. The publishers pay us to do it.
        Mr. Mollohan. Oh, oh, okay, I see. I see.
        Mr. Strang. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. I see. So the grant to develop it and then
    you have the--they make the commitment and you are
    subcontracted.
        Mr. Strang. Right.
        Mr. Mollohan. Do you have anything to add to that?
        Dr. Luft. I think Lawrence Hall of Science is an exemplary
    model in how it should work, but in a lot of instances there
    are districts that don't get that kind of support.
        So when I look in the Phoenix metropolitan area there are
    some schools that I know participate in this, but there are
    many schools and science teachers that I work with that just
    don't have access to this. So I don't know.
        Mr. Mollohan. Oh, I guarantee you.
        Dr. Luft. Yes. Because this is fiscally intensive, it just
    doesn't happen. I mean, it is just not that common.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well and that is the question, which is what
    I am saying. How do you scale these proven materials,
    techniques, how do you scale that up on a national level? So
    how do you?
        Mr. Strang. Well we went through----
        Mr. Mollohan. You have to incentivize somebody.

                              SYSTEMIC INITIATIVES

        Mr. Strang. Yes. We went through sort of a generation of
    NSF supported systemic initiatives, statewide systemic
    initiatives, world systemic initiatives, urban systemic
    initiatives, et cetera.
        Mr. Mollohan. That was about 15 years ago wasn't it?
        Mr. Strang. Yes. And they were across the board;
    generalizing, pretty successful. And when the funding stopped
    the fidelity to the implementation started to decrease.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes, but as you point out, the science
    agencies, you know, simply proving out. They are the ones that
    understand the science and so you could only expect them to
    prove it out, they are not going to be sustaining. At some
    point the state educational systems have to pick this up.
        Mr. Strang. Right.
        Mr. Mollohan. They are spending money on science, so
    obviously it didn't work, because it didn't take.
        Mr. Strang. That is right.
        Mr. Mollohan. And why didn't it take to make systemic
    initiatives? It wasn't mature enough? Your program wasn't
    mature enough for it to be recognized as the way to go, or it
    wasn't----
        Mr. Strang. Oh, I think many of those programs used FOSS in
    the early generations of FOSS, and I think--you know, it is a
    good question. I don't have a simple answer, but I think that
    there are a lot of policy issues that impact schools.
        So I get back to, you know, we invested all this time and
    money in purchasing the materials, even in doing professional
    development, being part of the systemic initiative, and now we
    are told that the only thing that matters is our reading and
    math scores.
        Mr. Mollohan. So are you suggesting that No Child Left
    Behind is kind of overtaken with this?
        Mr. Strang. I think there were unintended outcomes to No
    Child Left Behind----
        Mr. Mollohan. Excuse me for interrupting. Are you all
    telling the authorizing Committee who is reconsidering re-
    authorization of No Child Left Behind, are you telling them
    this--these problems?
        Dr. Luft. We are working very hard on doing that on all
    fronts. I mean we are in academics, we are at the National
    Science Teacher's Association meeting.
        Mr. Mollohan. What about the chairman of the Committee that
    is dealing with this?
        Dr. Luft. We would be----
        Mr. Mollohan. Here.
        Dr. Luft [continuing]. Happy to meet with them and tell
    them----
        Mr. Mollohan. Oh, no, I know you would, I am just wondering
    if you are.
        Dr. Luft. And you have a lot of teachers in this room who
    would probably be happy to meet with him and tell him, too.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well and the members of Congress that are on
    that Committee, that is where it all starts. You really have to
    get in.

                              PERSONNEL TURN OVER

        Dr. Luft. You are getting at another fundamental issue here
    that is really problematic too. I mean, we can have the USIs
    and the rural and urban systemic initiatives were important,
    but teachers don't stay in the same place the whole time, and
    neither do administrators, and neither do science specialists.
    So if you put a lot of resources into help a community develop
    inquiry, and I was in a district that did, but when the
    superintendent left, when the science coordinators were done
    away with, when teachers moved to new schools you have lost the
    momentum to teach in those settings. So this isn't just
    something where it is one shot in the arm. You know, you have
    to kind of keep having boosters in this.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, I mean it would be a bad strategy to
    embed the ideas in people. You need to embed the ideas in the
    system.
        Mr. Luft. But the problem is that the system is always
    fluctuating in education, and that is--we have superintendents
    who leave if they don't work with the board, we have principals
    that are moving, you have science coordinators who are--so it
    is how do we get right the curriculum that is in there and get
    the sustained professional development for the teachers that
    they always enact this?

                      NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION STANDARDS

        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        Mr. Strang. And I think also when the National Science
    Education Standards were published in 1996 subsequent to the
    AAAS benchmarks for science literacy there was a huge emphasis
    in both of those documents on inquiry-based science education.
    When the National Science Education Standards were published in
    1996, it called inquiry the central strategy of science
    teaching, and that supported the benchmarks for science
    literacy that was previously published by AAAS.
        So there was wide recognition, and as I think Dr. Luft
    said, the inquiry was considered content, that this is, you
    know, this is important for kids to learn, this is as important
    as any of the concepts.

                               STUDENT ASSESSMENT

        When assessments of student learning were developed most of
    the assessments focused on assessing student's knowledge of
    science concepts, because it is easier to assess. So one of the
    problems is if you are assessing--are we assessing--it is
    always asking the question, are we assessing the things that we
    care about, or are we assessing the things that are easy to
    assess?
        Dr. Luft. Right.
        Mr. Strang. And there is a huge difference and disconnect
    there that we measure the things that are measurable or cheaply
    measurable, and that is fine, but we then have to have some way
    of paying attention to the things we care about that may be
    more challenging or more expensive to measure. And it is not
    that it is not possible to measure them, it certainly is
    possible, but----
        Dr. Luft. It is expensive.
        Mr. Strang [continuing]. It is more complicated and more
    expensive.
        Dr. Luft. I was actually fortunate to build on this. I was
    actually fortunate to be in graduate school when they were
    developing performance assessments that they were going to
    scale for national assessments, and that is if you really want
    to get at student understanding, performance assessments are
    fantastic, but they are difficult because you have to figure
    out what it is you want to test, but you also have to think
    about what is the test that you are going to issue. And in
    science it becomes confounded by the content.
        So there was some original work actually done out of
    California to create some performance assessments that they
    were looking at that they were doing to disseminate broadly so
    teachers could do these assessments in class. The beauty behind
    this assessment is it provided information that was formative
    so that teachers could know what to do next, but it would also
    let you know where students were. So it provided more
    information than just the score on the test, it gave
    information to a lot of people about how students learned and
    what teachers could be doing. Those are the rich assessments we
    need to go after. Those assessments are incredible.
        And the reason I think our project kind of came to a halt,
    they are expensive to enact, they are expensive to calibrate,
    you have to keep updating them to get people to give them, that
    is a whole other problem. So it is an expensive business if you
    want to have a really good assessment that does the right kind
    of things.
        Mr. Mollohan. So is that an ongoing assessment process that
    it is so expensive and so hard to do, or is that just proving
    out the system?
        Dr. Luft. That is a great question. It is not that it is--
    the ongoing process is, say if I am going to give a performance
    assessment, I am going to have to have somebody give that
    assessment in multiple classrooms, but then not only that, I
    have to score these assessments. And these assessments,
    performance assessments, can be scaled by a rubric, which just
    states the criteria in where the student is, or it can be, you
    know, some kind of checklist that you are looking for. But
    there has to be some accounting of what the student is actually
    performing or doing, and those--just watching that and
    gathering that data is very expensive, because it costs people;
    it is people time.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well then that is very sad. Because when you
    get down into Webster County, West Virginia, which isn't in my
    district, you get down to Webster County, West Virginia, they
    are not going to have a lot of money to do that. So if that is
    true, you can't work around that, and that is--and I am not
    quite understanding what you are saying, but if that is
    crucial--I am not quite sure what you are saying with regard to
    this point. If that is crucial for implementing inquiry-based
    education then that is very sad, because that will be a real
    stopper when it gets down to the local level if the school
    superintendent who has scarce resources has to come up with
    2 times how much it costs to test.
        Mr. Strang. Right.
        Dr. Luft. Well, I think the issue is this. If you want
    science's inquiry the question, and what we are trying to hit
    on really hard is, that it is how you chose to assess it. And
    how you chose to assess it is ultimately going to drive how it
    is enacted.
        And you are right, to have the kind of assessments if you
    want to look to see how a kid is observing, how they are
    handling this kind of information, the assessments that they
    develop to do these kinds of things cost a lot of money.
        Mr. Mollohan. Is that part and parcel of inquiry--based
    education for science? A significant increase in the cost of
    teaching and testing and everything that is involved with it?
        Mr. Strang. So when we develop materials now we build into
    the instructional materials an assessment system, curriculum
    embedded assessments that provide teachers with information
    about student learning for the purpose of informing their own
    instruction and practice, not for the purpose of grading kids.
        Dr. Luft. Right.
        Mr. Strang. Which is a very different purpose. So when we
    talk about assessment we need to talk about what is the purpose
    that this assessment is being used for?
        So we build in these curriculum embedded assessments that
    help teachers to get at student thinking. Where are they in the
    conceptual development? And we call--there are certain embedded
    assessment, and then at certain points in the units we have
    what we call juncture assessments. They are assessments that we
    want teachers to administer to assess the culmination of
    students' understanding of a particular concept. And they are
    junctures because we think if kids haven't generally acquired a
    certain understanding of the concept the teacher shouldn't go
    on. They should go back and find opportunities for re-teaching
    and providing additional experiences. So these juncture
    assessments are important in the continuity of a unit of
    instruction.
        Part of the problem is that our curriculum embedded
    assessments do not necessarily provide teachers or school
    administrators with predictions about how kids will do on their
    standardized tests at the end of the year. They are completely
    misaligned.
        Mr. Mollohan. We had some testimony here yesterday that
    there were dramatic improvements. Some people were trying to
    make the point--and I more understand what they were trying to
    do--they were trying to make the point gee, inquiry-based, it
    will result in better test scores on the standardized tests,
    and that is questioned I guess, but there was some testimony
    that----
        Dr. Luft. No, it----
        Mr. Mollohan. I mean it was just hopeful testimony.
        Dr. Luft. They said yesterday that you could develop
    instruments that would measure--that would be measurable. That
    you could develop strong multiple choice.
        And I think what you are getting at is where the community
    is in this. I think there are psychometricians or people who
    develop tests that say that they can do it, and I think there
    are people who look at student learning and teacher learning
    and they say this is a little tougher than that.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, I will tell you, if you are going to
    move this--just thinking about it as a public policy matter--if
    you are going to move in this direction then you are going to
    have to have some sort of work around these two hard of things.
    Because they can't be too hard to do this or it won't happen.
        Mr. Strang. Agreed.
        Mr. Mollohan. So you got to have some work around.
        Dr. Luft. Right, right.
        Mr. Mollohan. And it sounds like testing is one of the work
    arounds.
        Dr. Luft. I think that would be a great place for a lot of
    work to occur.
        Mr. Strang. Right. And for starters, good assessment, bad
    assessments aside, or assessments of what we care about and
    assessments of what we don't care about aside, again, at the
    elementary level those standardized tests that kids take in
    fifth grade in science don't really move the needle on the
    school's academic performance index.
        So even if the kids are scoring incredibly high on their
    science test doesn't really help the school administration.
        Dr. Luft. Right.
        Mr. Mollohan. But then it would be understood in this re-
    authorization I would think.
        Mr. Strang. Yes.
        Dr. Luft. There is one more kind of consequence about this
    that I just saw for the first time this year that deals with
    testing, and it is again working in schools which have been
    very fortunate to do, is that the most important thing we can
    do is build the capacity of our new teaching workforce. Right?
        So this year I was charged with placing teachers in
    schools. And in one of the schools we wanted to put I know very
    good inquiry teachers who were doing great things in a science
    area that is being tested. I said, I would like to put some
    student teachers in there. And the teacher was very clear with
    me saying, I can't take the next generation of teachers because
    I need to make sure that I--these kids, my students hit and do
    well on that test.
        I have never seen this happen before, but we are being
    locked out now in teacher preparation because of the pressure
    to achieve on these tests.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, you know, you are telling that to us
    and we really value that and appreciate your doing that, and as
    soon as I hear that I think about gee, this person over here
    better hear that, and that is the person that is fashioning
    this legislation, and I guess the education--Department of
    Education who is advising them of what they ought to put into
    this.
        Dr. Luft. Good teachers don't want to take the risk to
    build the next generation of teachers.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well that is another really difficult
    problem, I know.
        Well, we are drawing to the close of the hearing, and I
    would like to invite you all here in a summary fashion, and you
    can talk as long as you want, but in a summary fashion we are
    an Appropriation Committee, and we are trying to seriously look
    at this issue. You both have expertise, so as we look at this
    issue we would like for you to give us advise about how we
    should be thinking about applying the scarce dollars that we
    have to have the maximum benefit to achieve the results that we
    are all--that are implicit here. So, Mr. Strang.
        Mr. Strang. Thank you. Well let me just start by again
    thanking you and the Committee for inviting both of us here,
    and it is a pleasure and honor to have the opportunity to share
    some of this information and hear about your work and some of
    the challenges that we are all facing together in this endeavor
    to improve student's abilities to think critically and make
    their lives better by understanding how the natural world
    works.
        And I guess, you know, one of the things that-this issue of
    policy constraints is huge, out there in the day-to-day lives
    of teachers and school principals and school superintendents,
    and so I think we have talked about that a lot, and I just want
    to emphasize that no amount of curriculum development or
    teacher professional development or teacher preparation can
    really overcome those policy constraints that teachers and
    schools are under.
        The other thing that I want to go back to and reemphasize
    from my comments is again the importance of the science
    agencies in leading the effort to improve science education,
    and there are many reasons for that that we have talked about,
    and I want to say again that agencies like NOAA and NASA and
    NSF in addition to having great expertise and understanding of
    the endeavor of science and how to teach science and how to
    expose kids to the process of science and scientific habits of
    mind and scientific ways of thinking, in addition to that they
    are out there making discoveries every day, and those
    discoveries need to have a pathway into the curriculum at the
    earliest levels of a child's educational career. And without
    the involvement of NOAA and NASA and NSF things like ocean
    science, like climate change, like atmospheric science, like
    earth system science will never really get out there to kids.
    We are still teaching in many school districts early twentieth
    century science that is divided neatly into biology, chemistry,
    and physics, and the world of science doesn't work that way
    anymore.
        So NOAA in particular has recently been allowed to play a
    larger role in science education. Because of their location in
    the Commerce Department I understand that they had been
    prohibited from supporting education for many years, and there
    is some shift in that direction. And with a very small amount
    of money in a very short time NOAA, combining efforts with NSF
    has changed my professional world in a way that is hard to
    explain to you sitting in a Committee room, but ocean sciences
    education as a community and as a field has advanced a
    generation's worth in the last five years, and I think there is
    no underestimating the value that NOAA and NASA and NSF have
    added to the endeavor of science education.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well that is a good endorsement, for we have
    education accounts in all these, and we want to support them,
    and that statement is very helpful in justifying our support
    for it.
        Dr. Luft.
        Dr. Luft. I just want to thank you first off for inviting
    me here today, and it has been great. I work with teachers, I
    work with teacher educators, I work with principals, I work
    with superintendents, and I know that at each level everybody
    would like inquiry implemented.
        I also want to say we are, and everybody I have talked to,
    we are encouraged by this Administration's dedication to
    science education, and we cannot say thank you enough. It is
    cool. Science is cool again.
        So what I would to say though is NSF has been invaluable in
    my work, and they have been invaluable to work of a lot of my
    colleagues. NSF has focused in on transformative work, and that
    is where they have put the emphasis for a long time, and I
    think that is very important, but I also think in addition to
    doing transformative work it is important that you think about
    what happens to that transformative work.
        So it is important that NSF not only be supported for more
    research and science education, we are just on the cusp of
    understanding how students learn really complex ideas. We are
    at the point where we really are starting to understand what is
    working with, we know what works a lot in PD, but we are
    getting at some really good novel ideas and we need to kind of
    keep pushing for that. We need more resources for this kind of
    work.
        NSF needs to be encouraged to continue a research to
    practice trajectory. They do a lot of great work, and how is it
    going to make a difference in the lives of teachers? And that
    is not only science work, but that is work in science
    education. The new understandings that we have in science
    education are critical, and we have to have--teachers have to
    have access to this information.
        I think as you heard, it was a great example of the
    potential of a long-term support program. NSF typically is a
    PI. We reapply for grants every three to five years. And it
    would be great, our colleagues, my colleagues in science have
    long-term funding. They know that their resources are coming
    year after year for 15 to 20 years, that they can really invest
    in solving a problem and trying to meet the needs.
        I don't know what the answer is for education, but I know
    it would be nice to know that I can walk in for a lengthy
    period of time knowing that I can do some development work and
    get it all out within the same long-term funding cycle. So it
    would be a little bit novel, but it would be a nice approach.
        And I think finally the last piece that I think is
    important is there has to be just ongoing consistent funding to
    the science agencies for work in science education. It is
    difficult to come back with budgets that are reduced or when
    programs are moved out. The M's piece was a great example. It
    would be great to make sure that we have a consistent line of
    funding that is dedicated to this issue.
        Again, thank you, and it has been an honor to be here.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well it has been an honor to have both of
    you. When you talk about long-term studies, talk to that a
    little bit more.
        Dr. Luft. Long-term support is really critical. So I can
    think of it in a lot of different venues. We are just starting
    to understand how students learn complex ideas and how these
    ideas should be sequenced in order to really optimize student
    learning.
        So is there some place where something should be learned
    before something else, and how do these things build so that
    students have coherent knowledge? We are just getting into
    that.
        And for those of us who do research around these issues, I
    need to re-apply every few years. You know, I have to say this
    is what I am doing. I can't say I am doing more of the same for
    long. I have to say what is it I am doing that is different
    sometimes, and that degree of difference has to be really well
    discussed.
        So wouldn't it be great if somebody knew that for ten years
    I could work to really crack this problem? Or wouldn't it be
    great if a curriculum developer, as we have heard, knew that he
    could not only--they could not only develop the curriculum, but
    they would be responsible for targeting, you know, over 10,000
    schools? I mean to have that consistent push would be really
    powerful. And that puts--that to me is what we are talking
    about when we are talking about long-term funding.
        Mr. Mollohan. So you are suggesting that the original
    solicitation should provide and make a commitment for resources
    for a ten-year effort.
        Dr. Luft. For some projects, yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
        Dr. Luft. I think not all projects merit that, but I think
    the potential of some of these projects having that kind of--
    you could be powerful things with that kind of support.
        Mr. Strang. And the support obviously can and should be
    contingent on demonstrating performance.
        Dr. Luft. Performance.
        Mr. Strang. Yes.
        Dr. Luft. Yes.
        Mr. Strang. So it is not just a contract for ten years
    regardless, but I think that when warranted----
        Dr. Luft. Yes.
        Mr. Strang [continuing]. That that sort of ongoing funding
    would make a huge difference.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well finally I would like to invite
    each of you to submit those and any other recommendations, you
    know, flesh them out that you would have for the Committee as
    we consider--as we mark up our bill. So just submit in writing
    what you have said just now here at the summary----
        Dr. Luft. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. And what would you like to see.
        Dr. Luft. It is a big decision.
        Mr. Mollohan. I am not saying that we can do it----
        Dr. Luft. Okay.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. I am just saying we would like
    to see if. There is no commitment.
        Thank you all very much for your appearance here today.
        Dr. Luft. No, thank you.
        Mr. Strang. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Mollohan. We very much appreciate it. Thank you.
        Mr. Strang. Thanks.
        Dr. Luft. Thanks.
                                          Wednesday, February 24, 2010.

               FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                                    WITNESS

    DR. JOHN P. HOLDREN, PRESIDENT'S SCIENCE ADVISOR

                          Opening Statement--Chairman

        Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order. Good
    afternoon. Welcome, doctor. Welcome everybody to the hearing of
    the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science for fiscal
    year 2011. Today we will cover the budget status and future
    prospects of U.S. research and development. Our witness is the
    President's Science Advisor and Director of the Office of
    Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John P. Holdren. Dr.
    Holdren, this is your first appearance before this
    Subcommittee, and we have much to discuss. And we would like to
    especially welcome you to the job and to the hearing.
        Based on considerable evidence, real growth in the United
    States economy, in excess of population growth, is primarily
    the result of the innovations and new technologies that result
    from public and private investments in research and
    development. Accordingly, we are in the midst of a ten-year
    doubling in funding for NSF, NIST, and the Department of Energy
    Office of Science as contemplated by the America Competes Act.
    This doubling was accelerated by $18.5 billion added to the
    fiscal year 2009 appropriation for R and D in many agencies as
    part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Those funds
    have gone to increase grant funding across all areas of science
    and to various science infrastructure investments.
        Within the Subcommittee's purview the budget request for
    fiscal year 2011 continues the planned doubling for NSF and
    NIST with roughly 7 percent increases over the 2010 enacted
    levels. While this doubling was authorized in the America
    Competes Act, that authorization was only through fiscal year
    2010. The budget strengthens climate observing and research
    through significant increases for NOAA R and D, including
    equipment and development for polar orbiting satellites, and
    NASA Earth science missions and research. While funding for
    planetary research has increased, funding for other areas of
    NASA science is essentially frozen. While our climate related
    activities are a higher priority, all of NASA's science
    contributes to the nation's science enterprise just as much as
    does funding for NSF, NIST, and the DOE Office of Science.
        In fiscal year 2010 this Subcommittee supported an increase
    to NSF education programs focused on hands-on, inquiry-based
    instruction in grades K-12 and in K-12 teacher preparation.
    Earlier this year, in hearings which we held, we heard
    testimony from those who work in this area. They provided
    examples of successful efforts in improving science,
    technology, engineering, and math education, STEM education,
    evidence of the benefits that result from federal investments
    made through NSF, NOAA, and NASA. For decades the science and
    education communities have stated that inquiry is essential to
    effective STEM education. And yet, it remains rare in K-12 and
    college teaching. It is high time to change this.
        Given the critical role of science and technology in the
    future prosperity and international leadership of the United
    States, we look forward to hearing from Dr. Holdren on the
    state of U.S. science and technology, its position relative to
    other countries, and its future needs and prospects.
        Dr. Holdren, before I ask you to summarize your remarks,
    and your written statement will be made a part of the record, I
    would like to call on Mr. Culberson for any comment he should
    like to make.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. On behalf
    of Ranking Member Wolf, Frank would like to present his
    statement in person. So I want to reserve the right to allow
    Mr. Wolf to make his opening statement in person. He will be
    here very shortly. He is at a funeral at Arlington.
        Mr. Mollohan. Certainly.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. You are welcome. Dr. Holdren.

                           Opening Statement--Witness

        Dr. Holdren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Committee. It is really a privilege to be here today to talk
    about the research and development and the STEM education
    components of the President's fiscal year 2011 budget. As you
    noted, Mr. Chairman, I submitted a written statement as well.
        The administration is working hard to keep the nation on
    the path out of recession through recovery and into a new era
    of revitalized growth. That of course means sparking job
    creation to get millions of Americans back to work. It means
    building a new foundation for a long term prosperity that will
    reach every American family. And a crucial element of that
    effort is the targeted investments that we are making in
    science, technology, and innovation that will lead to new
    products and services, new businesses and industries, increased
    American competitiveness, and high quality sustainable jobs.
    Our strategy includes investments in fundamental and applied
    research and development that will lead to better technologies
    and the jobs that will go with them for advanced manufacturing,
    for clean energy, for healthcare, for environmental protection
    and remediation, and for national and homeland security. And it
    includes increased use of public-private partnerships to speed
    up innovation and get the results more rapidly into the
    marketplace. It calls for exploration and discovery from the
    depths of the oceans to the frontiers of space, expanding our
    knowledge of our world and our universe while igniting the
    curiosity and ambitions of our young people. And it includes a
    focus on STEM education that will support and sustain, rather
    than stifle, that curiosity so that we can cultivate the next
    generation of innovators along with the technology savvy
    workforce that competitiveness in the 21st century requires.
        Obviously we need the continuing support of the Congress,
    and importantly the continuing support of this Committee, to
    get it done. But if there is one message I most want to convey
    in my comments today it is that the investments in the
    President's R and D budget are at the very core of America's
    future strength. So I am certainly looking forward to working
    with all of you to make sure at this very important time in our
    history, when competition abroad is growing and the stakes are
    ever increasing, that we put America on a path that keeps this
    nation great for our children and grandchildren. A path that is
    built on scientific evidence, on technical progress and
    prowess, and on a nation of people who are inventors,
    innovators, and makers, not just consumers.
        Let me give you a very brief bird's eye view of the fiscal
    year 2011 R and D budget, and then elaborate on a few
    highlights. The President's 2011 budget proposes a record $61.6
    billion of investment in civilian research and development, not
    including facilities and equipment. That is an increase of $3.7
    billion or 6.4 percent over the 2010 funding level. Those
    increases are counterbalanced by some reductions in defense
    development funding, such that the combined defense and non-
    defense R and D budget would be $147.7 billion. That is just
    two-tenths of a percent above the enacted 2010 level. If you
    adjusted for projected inflation it would be a cut of about
    nine-tenths of a percent. I think this is a smart R and D
    budget, one that is fiscally responsible overall with some
    important targeted increases where investments today can do the
    most good for us tomorrow.
        Among the highlights let me first note, as you did Mr.
    Chairman, that the 2011 budget reflects the President's
    commitment to double the budgets of the National Science
    Foundation, the DOE's Office of Science, and the NIST
    laboratories. The President's plan for science and innovation,
    and the America Competes Act, as you noted, identified those
    three agencies as key to the fundamental research that
    underpins our future prosperity. And fundamental research which
    the private sector will never do enough of because the risks
    seem too high and the returns seem too far in the future. Last
    year this Congress and this administration worked together to
    put those agencies back on a doubling trajectory that had
    faltered in the previous administration, and the fiscal year
    2011 maintains that trajectory with a 6.6 percent increase for
    their combined budgets.
        I want to highlight as well some of our goals within the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, which
    plays a vital role in supporting research on the earth's
    oceans, atmosphere, and marine habitats. The NOAA budget of
    $5.6 billion is an increase of $806 million over the 2010
    enacted level. That is going to allow NOAA to improve weather
    and climate services that protect life and property, invest
    more heavily in restoring our oceans and coasts, and to ensure
    continuity of satellite observations of weather and climate
    that are crucial.
        I want to emphasize some recent progress in that latter
    area. The large increase in the NOAA budget reflects in part a
    new architecture for the National Polar Orbiting Operational
    Environmental Satellite System, NPOESS, which is a tri-agency
    program, NOAA, DOD and NASA, that has had a troubled history.
    Since last August OSTP has led an Executive Office of the
    President task force that, in close cooperation with those
    three partner agencies, has been investigating various options
    for how to place the NPOESS program on a pathway to succeed.
    Earlier this month the three agencies announced a plan to
    restructure the program--a plan reflected in the 2011 budget.
    And under this plan there will be a division of satellite
    acquisition but the three agencies will continue to partner in
    areas that they have successfully shared in the past, including
    the ground systems and the data management. I want to assure
    the Committee that OSTP will continue to be engaged in
    overseeing the transition to the new structure of this critical
    program.
        A number of other items in the R and D budget, I think, are
    worth highlighting, including support for activities in the
    next generation air transportation system, NextGen; the added
    billion dollars in the National Institutes of Health to speed
    discovery of new treatments and cures for cancer and other
    diseases; the added support for the Defense Advanced Research
    Projects Agency, DARPA, for research in high priority areas
    such as night vision, cybersecurity, enhanced GPS, and force
    protection; the more than 25 percent increase in funding for
    environmental health and safety studies under the National
    Nanotechnology Initiative; and the significant increase in
    support for the multiagency U.S. Global Change Research Program
    mandated by Congress to improve understanding of climate
    science, expand global observing systems, and develop science-
    based resources to support policy making and resource
    management.
        I want to focus on two other areas before my time is up.
    The first of those is NASA. Our space program in the United
    States represents not just a grand and inspiring adventure of
    exploration and discovery reaching outward into our universe,
    but it is also an indispensable platform for observing what is
    happening on the Earth below. It is a crucial element of our
    communications infrastructure and our geopositioning
    capability. It is a source of new products, services,
    businesses, and jobs whose potential is barely beginning to be
    tapped. The fiscal year 2011 NASA budget proposes a science and
    technology centered restructuring of this country's space
    exploration program. It will invest in American ingenuity to
    enable us to do things in space that are more useful, more
    exciting, and more affordable then returning astronauts to the
    moon surface fifty years after we did it the first time using
    essentially the last century's technology.
        The new approach, which adds $6 billion over the next five
    years for NASA, includes a vigorous technology development and
    test program that will begin to reverse decades of
    underinvestment in NASA in new ideas. It will extend the life
    of the International Space Station, likely to 2020 or beyond,
    thereby increasing the number of U.S. astronauts who will be
    working in space over the next decade. It will support the
    development of private sector capabilities to lift astronauts
    into low Earth orbit and it will shorten the duration of our
    reliance solely on Russian launchers for that purpose. And by
    investing in new game changing technologies it gives promise of
    getting our astronauts to deep space destinations sooner,
    faster, safer, and cheaper than what could realistically have
    been achieved under the old approach.
        Finally just a few words about STEM education, which you
    also, Mr. Chairman, mentioned in your opening remarks. The
    President has been emphatic about his commitment, which I
    share, to increase the participation and the performance of
    American students in science, engineering, mathematics, and
    technology, aiming to improve our performance in comparison
    with other nations from the middle of the pack to the top of
    the pack over the next decade. The 2011 budget would invest
    $3.7 billion in STEM education programs across the federal
    government, including a $1 billion investment in improving math
    and science education among K-12 students. That is an increase
    of over 40 percent in that category. The impact of those
    investments is going to be magnified by the Educate to Innovate
    Campaign launched by the President late last year to motivate
    and inspire young people to excel in STEM fields. This campaign
    has already mobilized over $500 million in financial and in-
    kind support from companies, foundations, universities, and
    nonprofits. In addition to those investments the 2011 budget
    provides an additional $1.35 billion in funding for Race to the
    Top, a Department of Education program which provides a
    competitive advantage to states that commit to a comprehensive
    strategy to improve STEM education.
        The investments in R and D and in STEM education proposed
    in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget reflect his clear
    understanding of the importance, the critical importance, of
    science, technology, and innovation in addressing the most
    compelling challenges our nation faces while respecting, at the
    same time, the need for overall budgetary restraint under
    difficult economic conditions. It is a budget intended to keep
    this country on a path to revitalized economic growth, real
    energy security, intelligent environmental stewardship, better
    health outcomes for more Americans at lower costs, strengthened
    national and homeland security, and continuing leadership in
    science and in space. I look forward to working with this
    Committee to make the vision of the President's fiscal year
    2011 budget proposal into a reality, and of course I will be
    pleased to try to answer any questions the members may have.

        Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Holdren, Mr. Wolf has arrived and I am
    going to let him make his opening statement. Then I will pick
    up with my questioning, and then I will yield to Mr. Wolf to
    follow with his questioning. And then we will proceed in the
    order of members' arrival here today. After which I will be
    turning the chair over to one of the ranking members because
    the EPA administrator is before the Interior Committee and I
    need to appear there.
        Mr. Wolf, I yield to you for your opening statement.

                       Opening Statement--Ranking Member

        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for not
    being here. I was at a funeral at Arlington Cemetery and I just
    got back, so I do apologize.
        I just want to make this clear because of your important
    position. Last October the Augustine Commission issued a report
    entitled, ``Seeking a Human Space Flight Program Worthy of a
    Great Nation.'' The proposal this administration has submitted
    for NASA to abandon the Constellation vision and strategy
    leaves the program worthy of a lesser nation than the United
    States. You are proposing the most radical change to NASA's
    mission and program since its inception, and yet the President
    has been silent, and the White House has been silent since the
    release of the budget.
        You may recall that in August 2008, then candidate Obama
    told an audience of 1,300 people in Florida, ``Here is what I
    am committing to: to continue Constellation.'' This is a
    notable reversal from the President that will have a
    devastating, I believe, impact, the consequences for decades
    for the future, for the future of young people, for the future
    of this country.
        Based on the little information that was provided to the
    Congress, it appears that this plan was hastily developed
    without proper vetting from NASA's scientific and human space
    flight experts. Over the last week I have heard from a number
    of Apollo astronauts and NASA leaders. I would like to share
    with the Committee, and with you, just a few of the initial
    reactions and submit their full statements for the record.
        Former NASA Administrator Dr. Mike Griffin wrote, ``I
    believe this budget request advocates a strategy that is
    frankly disastrous for the U.S. human space flight program.''
    He added that this proposal clears the way for the Chinese
    dominance in space. China, which has thirty-four Catholic
    bishops in jail, hundreds of Protestant pastors, spies against
    us every day, will literally take the lead with regard to this
    program.
        Dr. Chris Kraft, the legendary Apollo flight director and
    former Johnson Space Center Director said, ``The U.S. space
    program is in great peril if the President's budget proposals
    are enacted.''
        Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham wrote, ``This budget
    proposal,'' he said, ``accelerates America's downward spiral
    toward mediocrity in space exploration.''
        Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. Senator Harrison
    Schmitt wrote that this proposal would ``cede the moon to
    China, the American space station to Russia, and consign
    liberty to the ages. Other nations would accrue the benefits--
    psychological, political, economical, and scientific--that the
    United States harvested as a consequence of Apollo's success
    forty years ago. This lesson had not been lost on our
    ideological and economic competitors.''
        Apollo 16 astronaut Charlie Duke said, ``We cannot afford
    to lose our leadership in space. The Constellation program must
    be continued.''
        And perhaps most notably, I received a letter from Burt
    Rutan, the X prize winner who flew the first private commercial
    craft into space in 2004, who ardently opposes this budget
    proposal. He said, ``An observer might think that I would
    applaud a decision to turn this important responsibility over
    to commercial developers. However,'' he said, ``he would be
    wrong. Two years after Neil and Buzz landed on the moon,
    America led the world in awarded PhDs in science and
    engineering and math. Today we are not even on the first or
    second page. The motivation,'' as you were just speaking
    earlier, ``the motivation of our youth is the most important
    thing we do for our nation's long-term security and prosperity.
    NASA's role in that can be as critical as it was in the sixties
    if the taxpayers fund true research and exploration.''
        Manned space flight and exploration is one of the last
    remaining fields in which the U.S. maintains an undeniable
    competitive advantage over other nations. To walk away is
    shortsighted and irresponsible. By killing the exploration
    program in favor of a vaguely defined ``research and
    development program,'' you are guaranteeing that the Chinese,
    the Russians, and others will be closing the exploration gap.
    We will be dependent on the Russians in the short term for
    rides to the International Space Station, and worse, we will be
    forced to play catch up to the Chinese and the Russians in the
    future. The Chinese, who are aiding and abetting the genocide
    in Darfur, and the Russians, who have more of bad things that
    we all know through history. When that time comes I fear that
    the U.S. will no longer have the resources or the political
    support to relaunch our human space flight program.
        James Lewis with the Center for Strategic and International
    Studies said he sees this decision ``as a confirmation of
    America's decline.'' In the interim our space flight and
    manufacturing base will wither. We will be forced to spend far
    more to recreate our current capacities at a later date.
        The editors of ``Space News'' argued similarly that this
    could have a devastating effect on the U.S. propulsion
    industrial base, endangering DOD launch operations. This also
    has very serious national security implications. Alternative
    commercial vehicles will not be available much if at all sooner
    than the Ares I rocket. Worse, these alternative contractors
    have no experience in manned space flight and the safety
    measures necessary.
        As Norm Augustine said, ``Space operations are among the
    most demanding and unforgiving pursuits ever undertaken by
    humans.'' NASA's workforce has forty years of experience,
    having learned by tragedy and success. The Constellation
    program contractors have been working on these issues for seven
    years. As a result of your plan, at the end of this decade we
    will only have a few years of flights to the International
    Space Station followed by a fleet of low Earth orbit vehicles
    with nowhere to go. Worse, you will have no exploration vehicle
    system to go beyond the Station. Above all, the budget proposal
    leaves NASA with no clear exploration mission goal. An agency
    with no vision or leadership will slowly decay. It will no
    longer be a place for our nation's best and brightest to work.
    What we need is a NASA with vision, expertise, and support to
    maintain and grow our competitive advantage in space
    exploration.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I just yield back and I thank
    you.

                              NASA--CONSTELLATION

        Mr. Mollohan. Okay, thank you Mr. Wolf. Dr. Holdren,
    because I am going to have to leave. I am going to give you an
    opportunity to, in a relatively uninterrupted way, speak to the
    question of NASA's decision to revamp its exploration program,
    to essentially cancel Constellation and to move forward as
    proposed in your budget. I note that prior to your commenting,
    we were all excited, I think, those of us who are interested in
    space exploration, when President Bush announced what he
    described as his Vision for Space Exploration. The problem with
    that was not the expression of the vision. The problem was in
    the funding of the programs that were necessary to fulfill it.
    So really what started as an expectation ended up being a
    considerable disappointment as the program fell behind in many
    different ways and was, as a result of incredible underfunding
    and at the recommendation that we probably would have to be
    spending $3 billion, $4 billion more a year on it. Not to catch
    up, but just to keep the Constellation program going.
        I say this not making judgment about the administration's
    proposal, frankly. But in fairness, noting where this
    administration found itself after its election. It proceeded, I
    thought, extremely responsibly by calling on Norm Augustine to
    head a review commission. We all have confidence in Norm
    Augustine because of his service to the country and his
    considerable industrial experience. The Augustine Report, which
    was the beginning of NASA's and the administration's review of
    the exploration program, came essentially to the conclusion,
    certainly implied the conclusion, that is reflected in the
    President's budget request.
        The failure of President Bush's vision because of his
    lacking in the application of adequate resources is measured in
    a number of different ways. The gap that increasingly grew
    between the termination of the space shuttle and the coming
    online of another transportation system for U.S. human access
    to Station, I think, is probably one of the most glaring
    measurements of the failure of President Bush's space
    exploration program.
        So it is, I certainly recognize, and I think most members
    of this Committee who work so closely with the science
    accounts, understand how inspirational a grand vision of space
    exploration can be, and how it can drive the decision making of
    youngsters to go into science and to go into research. We saw
    that certainly with Apollo. But it has to be real, and it has
    to be not only articulated but it has to be supported with
    resources. And if not, then it is in fact a hollow vision.
        Again, that is all not by way of passing judgment on the
    administration's request, or its proposal, for exploration in
    and of itself, or in regard to Constellation. But simply to put
    in perspective this issue as I invite you to comment on it, as
    I say, in a fairly uninterrupted way which might be your only
    opportunity to comment on it in a fairly interrupted way. Not
    only on this Committee, but you can expect when you come up to
    have to flesh out the rather skinny presentation that we have
    with regard to the President's proposal at this time. There is,
    as you know, an awful lot of interest in this, and concern as
    expressed by the Ranking Member. Dr. Holdren.
        Dr. Holdren. Thank you. Well, certainly there will be more
    opportunities and there will be more detail forthcoming. And I
    know the Administrator is going to be up on the Hill tomorrow
    testifying. But as NASA has more time to pull all of the
    details together there will certainly be a lot more detail
    forthcoming.
        But let me start by saying that as the Ranking Member's
    comments indicate, there is certainly a difference of opinion
    in the space community about whether this is a good idea or
    not. The Ranking Member mentioned, as you did Mr. Chairman, the
    Augustine Commission. Well Norm Augustine has strongly endorsed
    the new proposal. He says ``By making a significant investment
    in creating commercial capabilities to take humans and cargo to
    low Earth orbit, overseen from a safety standpoint by NASA,
    this will drive competition, lower costs, open new markets, and
    make space more accessible. Similarly, by allocating the
    technology resources highlighted in our report as being
    necessary it will be possible to lay the foundation for travel
    beyond low Earth orbit, including destinations such as the
    asteroids, the Lagrangian points, Mars' moons, and Mars itself,
    as well as revisits to our own moon.''
        The key point is that what the administration's plan is
    aiming to achieve is not a retreat from the exploration of
    space, not an abandonment of human space flight, but an
    approach to doing it that invests in advanced technologies to
    do it better, to do it cheaper, to do it faster, to do it
    safer, and to do it in a way where we can match the mission to
    the resources. I think a goal of being able to operate
    successfully in deep space is more important as the guiding
    light for the program than any one destination. And our goal is
    to be able to operate in deep space, to be able to reach a
    variety of destinations to deploy the technologies that can do
    that in an effective way.
        Buzz Aldrin, the first person to set foot, second person to
    set foot on the moon, after Neil Armstrong, also endorsed it.
    He says, ``the truth is, we have already been to the moon some
    forty years ago. A near term focus on lowering the cost of
    access to space and on developing key cutting edge technologies
    to take us further faster is just what our nation needs to
    maintain its position as the leader in space exploration for
    the rest of this century.''
        So obviously, there are differing views. We could get in
    warring quotations probably for a long time. But there are a
    lot of prominent folks, including the folks on the Augustine
    Commission, Sally Ride, the first U.S. woman in space, who
    strongly endorse the program. Obviously there are differing
    views. I think some of those differences are going to shrink as
    the details come out and people have the chance to discuss them
    in a variety of forums.
        I would point out that we were already going to be
    dependent on the Russians no matter what we did the moment the
    decision was made. And it was made in the Bush administration.
    I think it was made correctly, that we needed to retire the
    shuttle in 2010. Now under the new plan we have provided a
    budget to fly out the manifest into 2011 if that is necessary,
    to do it prudently and safely. But whatever else we did, we
    were going to have a period of dependence on the Russians to
    lift U.S. astronauts into low Earth orbit.
        We think under the new proposal that we will be able to
    shorten that period below what it would likely have been in
    Constellation. The Augustine Commission conclusion was that
    Constellation would not be able to take astronauts to low Earth
    orbit until 2017 or 2018. That would have been after, under the
    program of record, the International Space Station would have
    been crashed into the ocean in pursuit of savings to pay for
    Constellation. The Augustine Commission characterized the
    Constellation program as unexecutable. And they concluded that
    if Constellation were funded in a manner that could return U.S.
    astronauts to the moon before 2025 it would cost between $45
    billion and $60 billion more between 2010 and 2020 than what
    was programmed under the 2010 guidance.
        So we had a big challenge already with the Constellation
    program, in terms of being able to go where the original vision
    called for it to go, when it called for it to go there, as
    again you pointed out Mr. Chairman in your remarks. And the
    administration's task was to find a way forward for the space
    program that would maintain U.S. leadership in space, that
    would maintain the capacity to explore above Earth orbit, that
    would make it better and cheaper, and that would do it within
    the bounds of something that we could afford in difficult
    financial times.
        I could say more but I think it probably would be better to
    have some back and forth.

                         NASA--HUMAN SPACE EXPLORATION

        Mr. Mollohan. There is this woe that this is a real threat
    to our human exploration of space. That is going to be a
    concern. That the United States has just relegated itself to
    second place in that area. Speak to that. How does President
    Obama's way forward with regard to human exploration, access,
    when we get back with our own transportation system, one
    approach versus the other. Speak to this whole concern of
    human, USA human access to space.
        Dr. Holdren. By extending the International Space Station
    we are ensuring that there are going to be more U.S. astronauts
    in orbit over the next decade than there would have been if we
    had crashed the Space Station into the ocean in 2016. That is
    point one. Point two, in terms of deep space exploration, in
    terms of getting humans beyond low Earth orbit, we think the
    way to do that is with better technologies. We think NASA has
    been underinvesting in advanced technologies for decades. And
    the result is that we were talking about going back to the
    moon, and imagining we could go beyond someday to Mars, with
    chemical rockets very much like those that we had in the
    sixties and seventies. We need to do better if we are to take
    astronauts as far as Mars and the only way we are going to do
    it is with better technology. The only way you are going to get
    that better technology is making investments in developing it.
        We have a whole range of technologies that we are able to
    pursue if we wind down Constellation, and take better advantage
    of the very large sums of money that were going into that
    program, which were considerably more than foreseen at its
    inception. That makes available money to do research on
    advanced heavy lift propulsion, advanced deep space propulsion,
    on orbit refueling and fuel storage, a variety of technologies
    that can make it practical and affordable for U.S. astronauts
    to go into deep space. If the Chinese and the Russians keep on
    with a trajectory that is based on the old technology we are
    going to leapfrog right past them with an approach that invests
    in American ingenuity to do better.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Again, I am sorry to have to leave
    the hearing. I have asked Mr. Ruppersberger if he would
    dedicate the rest of the afternoon, and he was kind enough a
    while ago to say that he would do that. I would ask that he
    come and take the chair and call on Mr. Wolf.

                             NASA--CHINA AND RUSSIA

        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many have characterized
    this proposal as ceding leadership in manned space flight to
    other nations. Charles Krauthammer wrote that, ``Decades from
    now there may be a robust private space industry,'' but to
    quote he said, ``in the interim space will be owned by Russia
    and then China.'' What are the implications of abandoning
    Constellation at the same moment that other countries,
    particularly China, are setting specific space exploration
    goals?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, Administrator Bolden and I wrote a
    letter to the editor of the Washington Post indicating that we
    disagreed with Mr. Krauthammer on virtually all of his
    conclusions. I do not think we are, as I have indicated, I do
    not think we are ceding leadership in space to the Russians and
    the Chinese at all. As I said, I think we are going to develop
    technologies that are going to maintain American leadership in
    space. Advanced technology has always been our strength in this
    country and it will continue to be our strength. And I think
    that will apply to deep space as much as it has applied to
    other domains.
        If the Chinese are able to get back to the moon fifty years
    after we did it, I do not think that demonstrates anything
    about Chinese leadership. We were there in 1969. We went back
    five more times into the 1970's. Anybody who thinks that the
    Chinese lead because they get there fifty years later should
    talk to Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. We are going to stay
    ahead of them because we are going to have better technology
    than they do.

                              NASA--CONSTELLATION

        Mr. Wolf. Was the decision to scrap Constellation fully
    considered from a national security perspective? And was the
    National Security Council part of the decision making process?
        Dr. Holdren. Yes, the process that we ran in the White
    House after we received the report of the Augustine Commission
    included the National Security Council as well as the Office of
    Management and Budget, OSTP, and of course it continually
    included NASA with the folks at NASA continually in touch with
    the national defense community as well because they have many
    overlapping interests and responsibilities. So the short answer
    to that question is yes.

                                NASA--JOB LOSSES

        Mr. Wolf. What do you anticipate as the impacts of this
    decision on the workforce, civil service and contractors? And
    how many jobs will be lost and when? And what measures do you
    plan to take to minimize the impact to job losses and the
    negative impact on the industrial base?
        Dr. Holdren. First of all, the job losses are obviously a
    very important concern. They are important to everybody. They
    are important to the Congress. They are important to the
    President. This is not a time in which we would lightly
    entertain job losses of any sort. We knew we were going to be
    in for job losses in connection with the shuttle program as
    soon as the shuttle was retired. There was no option that would
    have avoided significant losses in the shuttle program as soon
    as the shuttle had retired.
        We think this plan does more to mitigate those losses by
    creating opportunities. It is going to create opportunities, as
    I have indicated, in heavy lift propulsion, in advanced space
    propulsion. We have a plan to invest considerable additional
    resources in the Kennedy Space Flight Center to upgrade its
    capabilities to make it a launch center for the 21st century,
    to increase its capacity to support the increased number of
    missions we are going to have. We are going to have more
    robotic missions. We are going to have an increasing number of
    commercial missions launching from the Kennedy Space Center.
        With respect to the jobs in Alabama, the Marshall Center,
    which has tremendous expertise in rocketry, obviously, is going
    to lose some jobs when Constellation is wound down. But it is
    going to gain some jobs in heavy lift propulsion research and
    in other advanced technology research in which the capabilities
    there are unmatched anywhere. This is a consequence. Anytime
    there is any change in direction you are going to have some
    jobs lost in some domains, other jobs gained. We are making
    every effort to maximize the number of jobs that will be gained
    by the changes in this program.
        Mr. Wolf. So what is the number of jobs? The question was,
    what is the number of jobs?
        Dr. Holdren. I do not think anybody knows exactly,
    Congressman, what the number of jobs will be. All of those
    analyses have a little bit of slop in them.
        Mr. Wolf. But you must have looked at----
        Dr. Holdren. Yeah, we have----
        Mr. Wolf. So tell us what you----
        Dr. Holdren. We have looked at job losses. I think we are
    looking at something like 5,000 job losses in Florida. And we
    think we will be able to restore at least something in the
    range of 1,700 to 2,000 of those with programs that we have
    already identified. And those are the jobs we were going to
    lose in the shuttle program anyway. The number of jobs at risk
    in Alabama, there are 2,500 civil servants employed at
    Marshall. Some of those jobs will presumably be lost but many
    of them will be retained because of the additional research and
    development efforts that will go on there.
        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. [Presiding] Okay, I think on the list I
    am next. And then John, I think you are. I want to get into
    three areas continuing some of the questioning on the
    Constellation, get into NOAA, and then the final is the
    restrictions on imagery resolutions for commercial satellites.
    There is a big concern there and I think that if we do not look
    at that more thoroughly that France, Germany, Spain, Italy are
    all talking about doing what we do right now and it looks like
    it is another ITAR. So I would like to get into that.

                              NASA--CONSTELLATION

        But let us get back to the Constellation. What you are, and
    we want to do what is right for America. And, you know, the
    administration is there, we want to work with the
    administration. But, you know, right now this came out of
    nowhere from where we are sitting, those of us who deal in the
    space program, whether it is intelligence, defense, or this
    Appropriations Committee. And we talk, the concept sounds
    great. The fact that we are putting a lot of money into
    research and development, and we have not done that for a
    while. In fact, if you look at, I think, the failures of our
    space programs, things that really are still classified, we
    cannot talk about all of them. A lot of it is because we took a
    lot of money away from research and development and testing and
    the things that needed to be done. You can have a major
    contract with one of the big boys, whether it is Northrup, or
    Boeing, or Lockheed, you know, all the big corporations. And
    they would have these contracts, and then they would do the
    research and development along the way. It would be over price,
    over time, and half the time the bird would be so big because
    every three-star wanted everything on it and nothing was going
    to happen. So I think your concept is good.
        My concern is that it is happening very quickly without a
    plan, the way we see a plan. And we need to have a plan. And
    then let us evaluate that plan. You look at this county, some
    people feel that if you control the skies you control the
    world. When Sputnik came out we responded as a country in eight
    years and put a man on the moon, and that really helped us do
    the research and development to get us where we are now as
    being dominant in space. But as you know, we have had a lot of
    failures. And that is what I am sure you are focusing on now.
    But I am worried about the details, and doing something too
    quick, too soon. It almost reminds me of the healthcare bill.
    And, you know, when you, when you are focusing on something as
    important as our national security, and where you are going to
    be going, I feel the commercial is very important. I feel in
    the area of defense and intelligence we have been way behind
    and we have lost money where we could have one, four satellites
    to one because of the traditional ways that the, I call it, not
    out of disrespect, but kind of a joke, the old bulls, admirals,
    and generals, or whatever. And just wanting not to take the
    risks that maybe we took when we put a man on the moon years
    ago.

                                   NASA--MARS

        But where the concern is, and I am going to ask you this
    question, is it our intention to put a man on the moon again?
    Or a man on Mars again? Is that the administration's intention?
        Dr. Holdren. I think in short yes. Mars, everybody agrees I
    think Mars is the ultimate destination. We are not ready to put
    a date on that. There was no date, by the way, on going to Mars
    even in the Constellation program. But yes, Mars is the
    ultimate destination for human space flight beyond low Earth
    orbit. The President has not abandoned that. Administrator
    Bolden has not abandoned it. We will ultimately put people back
    on the moon, when we are ready to do interesting things with
    them on the moon surface. The problem with the Constellation
    program is that we would at most have been ready to put U.S.
    astronauts in the vicinity of the moon around 2028, according
    to the Augustine Committee. And we would at that time have not
    had the capability to put them on the surface, because we would
    not have been able to pay for the lander under the budget that
    was foreseen.
        We will go back to the moon and we will ultimately get
    people on Mars. But when we do it we will do it in a way that
    makes sense, a way that we can afford, and a way that is safer
    for the astronauts.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. The way the administration, the
    perception at least from my perspective, is that, ``Well, we
    are going to go where we need to go in space, but we are going
    to let the commercial side take more control.'' And I do not
    have an issue with that. And some, as I said before, in defense
    with some intel. But if you are going to put a man on the moon,
    commercial has not had the research and development. They do
    not have the capacity at this point to put a man on the moon or
    Mars. And by the way, why that is relevant, too, is because our
    younger generation, I feel, is not going to space anymore
    because these programs are out there forever, it takes forever
    to go where we need to go. And, you know, that is, the younger
    generation really needs to be more active and we need to focus
    more in this area of space.
        Also, we need to get the country excited. Because people
    are tired. They are just not used to having, let me say it this
    way. In the old days, an astronaut was as popular as an NFL
    quarterback. These days that is not the case. And I think the
    country just is not excited about going to the Space Station
    and back.
        I am going to get back, though. What is the plan? I mean, I
    am hearing theory but I am not hearing detail. And until you
    have detail, and we are sitting here as appropriators, and we
    are worried about national security. And, you know, it is such
    a big decision on where we go and how we are going to develop
    our space and science, and how we are going to control the
    skies. I am worried we are going too quickly on this thing.
        Dr. Holdren. Okay, let me respond on a couple of points.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. So educate us.
        Dr. Holdren. First of all, I want to be clear. We are not
    proposing to use commercial to go to the moon or to go to Mars.
    The proposal is to turn over the most straightforward part of
    the task, which is lifting cargo and astronauts into low Earth
    orbit, to public-private partnerships in which the private
    sector plays a bigger role than it has played in the past. And
    what has basically changed here is the acquisition model. We
    have relied on the private sector to build the technologies
    that take our astronauts into space from the beginning. The
    Mercury capsule was built by McDonnell. General Dynamics
    launched it with an atlas converted from an ICBM. Rockwell
    International built the space shuttle. What is changing is the
    acquisition model, where the idea is we will buy the service
    and the private sector, investing substantial amounts of its
    own money, but also some government money at the outset, will
    deliver that service. But the technology that we have been
    using to take U.S. astronauts into space has always been built
    by the private sector.
        At the same time, by turning over more of that task of
    lifting cargo and astronauts into low Earth orbit to the
    private sector we are going to free up NASA's resources to do
    the more demanding, tougher, cutting edge jobs for which NASA
    is uniquely suited. NASA is going to have----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Give me an example?
        Dr. Holdren. NASA is going to have the responsibility for
    developing in-orbit refueling capabilities. NASA is going to
    have the responsibility for the development of advanced heavy
    lift capability. NASA will have the responsibility for
    developing the advanced space propulsion engines that can get
    us more rapidly to destinations like Mars. If we try to use
    chemical rockets to go to Mars we are going to have our
    astronauts out there for so long we are going to have a big
    radiation exposure problem. We need to do this in the right
    way, and the right way to do it is advanced technology. And
    NASA is the operation that is going to bring us that
    technology. We are not turning the whole space program over to
    the private sector by any stretch of the imagination.
        You are right to ask for more detail. This plan awaited,
    first of all, the completion of the Augustine report before the
    administration was even going to consider in any detail what
    the options were, and which option it was going to choose. It
    wanted to have the Augustine Report. We got the Augustine
    Report. We set up an interagency process in the White House to
    consider the findings of that report, to consider and develop
    and cost out the options. NASA was involved in that. NSC was
    involved in it. We in OSTP were involved in it. We presented a
    wide variety of options over a period of time and we ended up
    with a decision. This is not a decision that was reached
    without a lot of input from folks in NASA. It was not a
    decision that was reached without input from the private
    sector, from our experienced contractors who are not all, by
    the way, small operations. The Augustine Committee had an
    exceedingly open process in which they talked with virtually
    everybody, visited the major space centers, and so on. But the
    details do still need to be fleshed out.
        NASA has been working on that very hard ever since the
    decision was made to go in this direction, I think you will be
    seeing from Administrator Bolden, and others from NASA who will
    come up here, the fleshing out that you rightly want before you
    reach a conclusion about whether this is a viable pathway. I
    have seen enough to believe it is.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. There are other, I will get to other
    questions in another round, so John, I do want to say this,
    though. One of the focuses that I feel has to be looked at is
    the DOD, intel, and NASA collaborating a lot more. And a lot of
    times DOD and intel to an extent hold their satellites close to
    the vest when it is not necessary.
        Dr. Holdren. I know that.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. And we need to open that so that maybe a
    defense satellite or an intel could be used by NOAA, or
    whatever. That is something I would hope you would focus on.
    John?

                       NASA--AUGUSTINE COMMISSION REPORT

        Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman. Dr. Holdren, I heard you say just a moment ago that
    your plan, you were waiting for the Augustine Commission Report
    because you would not think of releasing this until they had
    their report, right?
        Dr. Holdren. Of course.
        Mr. Culberson. So you developed this plan before you had
    even seen the Augustine Report, did you not?
        Dr. Holdren. No, I beg your pardon. I said----
        Mr. Culberson. That is what you said.
        Dr. Holdren [continuing]. We were waiting for the Augustine
    Report to look at the options.
        Mr. Culberson. I think that was what you said.
        Dr. Holdren. No, excuse me, sir, but that is not what I
    said. I said we were waiting for the report----
        Mr. Culberson. Yeah, I think that is what you just
    testified.
        Dr. Holdren [continuing]. So we could see, we were waiting
    for the report so that we could see how it characterized the
    different options. We had not decided----
        Mr. Culberson. You were not even thinking about this and
    planning this before the Augustine Commission released its
    report. Are there any memos, any discussions at your office, at
    the White House of cancelling Constellation before the
    Augustine Commission released its report?
        Dr. Holdren. I would have to go and look to see if there
    was any consideration of that. We knew, sir, from many other
    sources, from many other analyses, that there were very serious
    criticisms out there about the viability of the Constellation
    program.
        Mr. Culberson. I know, I was wondering what you----
        Dr. Holdren. So it would be surprising if nobody involved
    in any of these discussions had mentioned those analyses. But
    certainly I can assure you no decision had been made about what
    course----
        Mr. Culberson. A decision had been made but you were
    waiting to move until, I heard you just testify you were
    waiting, you would not have announced this before.
        Dr. Holdren. We would not have had anything to announce
    before----
        Mr. Culberson. But you were already contemplating this.
        Dr. Holdren. No, we would not have had anything to
    announce. Believe me, the President did not know what he wanted
    to do. We did not, in the early phases, even have a new NASA
    administrator.

                              NASA--CONSTELLATION

        Mr. Culberson. Let me also ask you, if I could, excuse me
    because our time is so limited, I also heard you just say that
    you contemplated, this was developed with the input of NASA
    deputy administrators and, you know, you talked to folks out in
    the field. Yet the field center heads, who are your best
    experts, Mike Coats who is a prince, he is Director of the
    Johnson Space Center, these men and women are the best in their
    field. And these field directors, the directors of the field
    centers, your associate administrators and field center heads
    were not even told of the final details of the plan to cancel
    Constellation until just a couple of days before its release.
    They were not consulted with.
        Dr. Holdren. They were consulted early in the process and
    during the process about the options, the characteristics of
    different possibilities.
        Mr. Culberson. That is not a direct answer. Your testimony
    was you consulted with NASA directors and associate
    administrators, and it is a fact that your associate
    administrators and your field center heads said they were not
    told about the decision to cancel Constellation until a couple
    of days before the announcement.
        Dr. Holdren. Congressman, with respect you are not
    distinguishing between consulting them during the process of
    developing a decision----
        Mr. Culberson. Well you said consult them about options. I
    am talking about the cancellation. You are attempting to cancel
    Constellation, right?
        Dr. Holdren. Yes, that is correct.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay. They were not consulted, were they?
        Dr. Holdren. They were consulted in the whole process.
        Mr. Culberson. Did you tell them you were going to cancel
    Constellation?
        Dr. Holdren. We did not tell them until we told them, sir.
        Mr. Culberson. Did you ask them what they thought about
    cancelling the Constellation program?
        Dr. Holdren. I could not tell you who talked to which
    director when about the possibility of cancelling the
    Constellation program. The Augustine Committee met with all of
    those folks.
        Mr. Culberson. No, no, no, you, I am not talking----
        Dr. Holdren. We were obviously contemplating a wide range
    of possibilities.
        Mr. Culberson. Yeah. Forgive me, because our time is so
    short. I am not talking about the Augustine Commission. I am
    talking about you and your office, and the folks that sit
    behind you that work for you. Did you or any of your staff
    consult with and ask any of the field center heads, or any
    associate administrator at NASA, what is the impact on American
    leadership in space if we cancel Constellation?
        Dr. Holdren. I did not ask any center director that
    question.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        Dr. Holdren. My assumption is that folks in NASA did.
        Mr. Culberson. Your assumption? You are a scientist, you do
    not assume. You know what that stands for.
        Dr. Holdren. I could not tell you whether any members of my
    staff talked to those particular people or not. I know their
    views----
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        Dr. Holdren [continuing]. Were taken into account in
    developing the Augustine Report.
        Mr. Culberson. Their views were taken into account? They
    were not told of the cancellation until two days before the
    announcement.
        Dr. Holdren. This is a different question. The question of
    when people get told about a decision, and what consultations
    go into the decision are two different questions.
        Mr. Culberson. The reason for the question, Mr. Chairman,
    is very important. Because Dr. Holdren has testified, you just
    said flat out that your plan is going to reduce the gap. You
    are going to be able to reduce the gap, we are not going to
    have to rely on the Russians for as long. I heard you say that.
    And that is a statement which you as a scientist, I am
    confident, do not make statements unless you have got
    verifiable facts that you can back that up. You did not clearly
    consult with or ask any of the field center heads what will be
    the gap, how long will the gap be if we cancel Constellation
    and turn this over to the private sector? And since that
    conversation did not occur, you have no basis to make that
    statement from field center directors.
        And let me also drive this point home. How many, I want to
    know how many private contractors you visited with, or asked
    their opinions. You say that you can shorten the gap with the
    private sector. Did you or anyone from your office ever meet
    with Boeing, or Lockheed Martin, or ATK about what the effect
    on the gap will be if we turn it over to the private sector
    guys.
        Dr. Holdren. I would have to ask the people in my office
    whether they did. But the basis for that statement was the
    Augustine Commission Report, which said that there was a
    considerable probability that the private sector could start
    putting U.S. astronauts in Earth orbit by 2016. And the
    Augustine Committee view was that Constellation would not be
    able to do it until 2017----
        Mr. Culberson. Someone from your office did?
        Dr. Holdren. Sir, I cannot tell you who all people in my
    office talked to.
        Mr. Culberson. Now certainly----
        Dr. Holdren. I have a very energetic and dedicated staff.
    They talked to a lot of people.
        Mr. Culberson. The Augustine Commission looked at a lot of
    different options, and that was one of them clearly. And the
    statement, though, you made though, that we are going to
    shorten the gap if we follow this proposal you have laid out,
    on what do you base that? Who----
        Dr. Holdren. I base it in part on the Augustine Committee
    Report, which concluded that that was a likelihood.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay. Let me, if I could also finally, Mr.
    Chairman, because I know we are short on time, ask Dr. Holdren,
    you directed the administration has essentially as I know has
    told NASA to go ahead and begin to start winding down, get
    ready to shut down Constellation, right? You have already sent
    out those orders?
        Dr. Holdren. Number one, I have not sent out any orders.
        Mr. Culberson. No, the White House, the administration.
        Dr. Holdren. To my knowledge, and I have seen a letter that
    Administrator Bolden wrote in response to a letter from
    Congressman Alderholt and some others.
        Mr. Culberson. And me.
        Dr. Holdren. The NASA Administrator has not sent out any
    orders to contractors to start cutting things down. They are
    complying with the law, they are asking, because the
    President's proposal is to wind down Constellation, they are
    asking what it would cost to do so. That is a different thing
    than saying stop work, sir.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay. The reason, Mr. Chairman, is because
    we put in this Committee, and we did so quite properly, put
    into statute language, Mr. Chairman, that says that none of the
    NASA funds provided herein for prior years shall be available
    for the termination or elimination of any program, project, or
    activity of the architecture for Constellation, nor shall any
    funds be available to create or initiate a new program,
    project, or activity unless such program, termination,
    elimination, creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent
    appropriations act.
        Now that is statute. You cannot in any way alter or change
    or Man Launch Space Program because that is our job.
        Dr. Holdren. Without the consent of the Congress, that is
    absolutely correct.
        Mr. Culberson. NASA can't use one nickel of the money
    appropriated from this Subcommittee to change, alter, or in any
    way the Man Space Program.

                           NASA--AMERICAN LEADERSHIP

        And I would say I share everyone's concern on this
    Committee that we--you are proposing surrendering Little Round
    Top. You are surrendering the high ground to the Chinese, to
    India, to our friends and foe alike, and it is something
    America has never done in its history, and I am frankly
    embarrassed.
        Dr. Holdren. Well, I don't agree with that
    characterization, sir, with all respect. We do not intend to
    surrender leadership.
        Mr. Culberson. I am mortified. Embarrassing and mortifying
    that America would--our American President would voluntarily
    surrender leadership of the world in science and space
    exploration and surrender the high ground to our enemies is
    mortifying, embarrassing, and unacceptable.
        Dr. Holdren. Sir, that is not what we are proposing to do.
    We are proposing to maintain U.S. leadership with what has
    always been our strongest suit, which is advanced technology.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I think one thing the statute did say,
    it did give the right to modify, I believe. Is that correct? I
    just heard that from staff. That is the statute. Mike, do you
    have any questions? We have 332 who have not voted.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we leave and come
    back I will reclaim my time when we get back.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay.

                  NASA--COMMERCIALIZATION OF SPACE EXPLORATION

        Mr. Honda. The question I have is I guess the choice
    between going commercial, privatization of space exploration
    versus the government doing it in terms of advancing technology
    and looking at new technologies.
        When we are looking at turning over the task of space
    exploration in lower orbit, open it to commercialization or
    commercial efforts are we giving up our position on creating
    new technologies? Or what role do we play in terms of
    developing new technologies?
        Dr. Holdren. Well first of all the proposed plan greatly
    increases the investments we are making in NASA in developing
    new technologies. New technologies for heavy lift, new
    technologies for propulsion in deep space, new technologies for
    refueling in orbit. We think we need a range of new
    technologies to make human exploration of deep space practical,
    and it is our intention to develop those.
        The increased role of the commercial sector in this plan is
    confined to an increased role in lifting cargo and astronauts
    into low Earth orbit, and we think for that task that the
    rapidly developing commercial space flight sector can make a
    very important contribution.
        Mr. Honda. So you are saying that we are dividing our
    responsibilities that we will do the things that they need to
    have in order to put their payload up.
        Dr. Holdren. Well again, they already have rockets, they
    are designing additional ones.
        Mr. Honda. I understand that.
        Dr. Holdren. They have already been building rockets for
    our program.
        Mr. Honda. I am not trying to argue with you.
        Dr. Holdren. No, I know, I am trying to answer your
    question.
        Mr. Honda. Saying that we are going to be developing the
    technology for them to use to put their payload up.
        Dr. Holdren. We have already done some of that. They
    already have some of the technologies they need. It is an
    ongoing interaction. It is going to be a partnership. It always
    has been.
        Mr. Honda. Will the partnerships increase in terms of them
    having a greater role----
        Dr. Holdren. Yes.
        Mr. Honda [continuing]. And bear the expense of putting up
    the payload?
        Dr. Holdren. And they are expected to be willing to do that
    because they will have customers other than the U.S.
    government. As again they already do in putting up
    communication satellites and so on.
        Mr. Honda. For us to recoup the investment we make, what
    responsibilities will with they to pay back into the coffers?
        Dr. Holdren. You are now exceeding my competence. I am not
    an expert in the kinds of contracts that will be developed for
    this purpose.
        Mr. Honda. No, but there has got to be some sort of a basic
    concept of we invest the money, they take advantage of it and
    make money, and where does that enrichment go to in terms of--
    --
        Dr. Holdren. Well part of the enrichment goes to
    maintaining U.S. leadership in space, because it frees up----
        Mr. Honda. Well if you look at--I understand that, you
    know, we did that with technology in terms of IT and----
        Dr. Holdren. Sure, we do it across the board.
        Mr. Honda [continuing]. Other areas, but very little of
    that money that we put into it comes back to public education,
    postgraduate work where we lead in that. And if we are going to
    continue to lead that and if we have that confidence that we
    are going to be able to do that we have to find other ways to
    be able to, you know, sustain that in the long term.
        Our Congress, every time we talk about other countries, we
    talk about them as if they were folks who are not going to be
    playing as a team. Are we looking at working with Russia and
    China and Japan and the other countries who are going to space
    as partners?
        Dr. Holdren. We do that already, sir, to a very substantial
    extent. We have up there the International Space Station which
    we are extending to 2020.
        Mr. Honda. Yeah, but we----
        Dr. Holdren. We have got Russians up there, we have
    Japanese, we have Europeans. They are helping to provision the
    station. Their launchers are taking cargo to the Space Station
    regularly. That will continue to happen. There are lots of
    respects in which we do partner with other countries to the
    Space Station regularly. That will continue to happen. There
    are lots of respects in which we do partner with other
    countries to get these tasks done in concert.
        Mr. Honda. And we do that and then we withdraw our
    partnerships at times don't we? And so----
        Dr. Holdren. Well, I think----
        Mr. Honda [continuing]. My concern is being consistent in
    our partnership and our commitment, but also being consistent
    and--I am trying to say it way that I am not going to offend my
    colleagues--but we seem to criticize or put them out there as
    if, you know, they are going to be or constant enemies, and our
    congressional move the past few years where we disallowed our
    companies to work overseas to do the launching, we lost of lot
    of market share in the world. And so you know, we either do it
    right and be consistent, and you know, if Congress went off on
    one end or the other, that somebody's got to say, you know, let
    us just be consistent about this thing. You know, we are very
    schizophrenic about our global relationships, and I think that
    we need to do some work in that area too.
        Dr. Holdren. I would agree with that. There is obviously a
    longstanding tension between competition and cooperation in a
    lot of these domains, and you have to decide when you are going
    to cooperate and when you are going to compete. We are doing a
    lot of cooperation in space.
        Mr. Honda. Right. And I don't think that we have a problem
    understanding that because we do that in Texas, we do that in
    California in terms of, you know, the technologies. Is we have
    to be able to do that with come confidence with other
    countries, and at the same time they have a problem with us too
    I am sure, because they have a history from their point of
    view, and using a minimum of understanding that we deal up
    right now just in the area of global warning, we end up sharing
    the IPs and not fight over it.
        I guess the other thing we need to do if we are going to
    move into this arena is to start looking at how we talk about
    and how we treat our relationships as we move forward in the
    technology.
        Dr. Holdren. No, I agree that is important. I do think we
    made our partners very happy by extending our commitment to the
    space station rather than saying for reasons of our budget we
    have to crash it into the ocean in 2016.
        Mr. Honda. Real quick question.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. We are going to have to adjourn the
    meeting temporarily--we will come back. There are three votes,
    two after this, then we will come back.
        Dr. Holdren. Okay.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. It will probably be about 20 minutes.

                                NASA--SATELLITES

        Mr. Honda. So let me just finish my question though. At
    Lockheed, which is one of the contracts, they are developing
    some satellites for our Constellation Program, correct?
        Mr. Ruppersberger. We have ten more votes.
        Mr. Honda. And my understanding is that they are going to
    have to stop at a certain point, but we will have approximately
    four satellites up there to continue our mediums to put up
    satellites so that we have an increased efficiency and geo
    positioning and controlling kinds of things that we control
    with these satellites both commercial and military.
        Dr. Holdren. Right, those aren't part of the Constellation
    Program.
        Mr. Honda. They are not?
        Dr. Holdren. They are not
        Mr. Honda. Then why is TSAT, I understand that TSAT is
    going to be set aside or we are not going to be funding it
    beyond a certain date, and they are already working along
    those----
        Dr. Holdren. I am not sure what the connection is between
    the satellites you are talking about and Constellation Program.
        Mr. Honda. Does anybody else know?
        Dr. Holdren. Those are separate. The Constellation Program
    consists of the Ares 1 rocket for lifting crew and cargo into
    low Earth orbit; the Ares 5, which is a heavier rocket; the
    Orion Crew Capsule; and the Altair Lander, which was intended
    ultimately to land on the moon. But there are no satellites in
    the Constellation Program.
        There are a whole variety of satellite programs that are
    very important that we are continuing to fund.
        Mr. Honda. So TSAT has nothing to do with this then?
        Dr. Holdren. Yeah.
        Mr. Honda. Then can you help me understand why the future
    funding of that is going to be on hold where the next
    generation they are looking at to be able to produce the system
    that we have out there and increase our dominance and control
    of the technology and satellite and geo positioning? And maybe
    I can get a response back in writing.
        Dr. Holdren. Yeah, this is a military satellite, but I
    would have to get back to you on the details. I am not familiar
    with the TSAT Program or what's happened to its budget. So I
    would have to look into that, sir, and we could get back to
    you.
        Mr. Honda. Okay.
        Mr. Schiff. Mr. Aderholt?
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Chairman, we have two, five-minute votes
    after this, and my question is going to take a little longer.
    Could we just recess for just for about five or ten minutes and
    then----
        Mr. Schiff. Well, if you don't mind, Mr. Aderholt, I have
    got a short question. Maybe I can get that in now.
        Mr. Aderholt. Well then I just defer. Go right ahead.
        Mr. Schiff. Okay, thank you.
        Mr. Aderholt. I will go vote and then I will come back.
    Okay.

                        NASA--PLANETARY SCIENCE PROGRAM

        Mr. Schiff. Super. Mr. Holdren, I wanted to ask you about
    the Planetary Science Program. The President's budget does a
    great job of funding earth science missions and continues
    funding for current planetary science missions, but it doesn't
    do much to move future planetary science missions into the
    formulation stage, in particular the outer planets flag ship
    mission to Europa is not moved into the formulation phase. The
    budget mentions that NASA is waiting for the results of the
    Planetary Science Decadal Survey before formulating the
    mission, but this mission was recommended in the last decadal
    and has been ready to begin development for several years, so
    that seems just another delay, another excuse for delay.
        Those of us that have been strong supporters, but don't
    understand why we continually--it gets approved by one decadal
    and we got to wait for another decadal, and why isn't NASA
    funding the development of an outer planets mission in 2011?
        Dr. Holdren. I don't have the answer to that off the top of
    my head, it is another one I will look into and get back to
    you. I am not sure what the answer is.
        Mr. Schiff. Okay, I appreciate if you would get back to us
    on that. That was the only short question I had.
        Let me start with the next one and we will see how far we
    can get.

                          NASA--HEAVY LIFT CAPABILITY

        The new budget discusses heavy lift, but not with a lot of
    detail. The only time line mentioned is a vague statement that
    we should have a new heavy lift first stage engine by 2020,
    developing a vehicle will then take many more years leaving us
    without a heavy lift capability until 2025 or 2030. All though
    the commercial space flight companies are making great progress
    they don't have plans for heavy lift.
        What would be necessary to get us a heavy lift vehicle by
    2020 to move up the timetable, and can the technologies
    outlined for development using funds currently devoted to
    Constellation reduce the size of the heavy lift launcher we
    might need?
        Dr. Holdren. Let me take the last question first. Certainly
    some of the technologies that are going to be explored under
    the new plan can reduce the need for heavy lift. For example,
    if you can develop and demonstrate in-orbit refueling then the
    need for how much mass you have to put up at one shot can be
    reduced and you can have a smaller heavy lift capacity than you
    would otherwise need.
        There are a variety of other advanced technologies that can
    effect that. For example, if you get advanced space propulsion
    that doesn't need as much chemical fuel to go where you are
    going you can again reduce the amount of mass you have to put
    up there.
        There is no very specific timetable beyond the general goal
    you mentioned in part because we don't know until we start
    reinvesting in technology how fast we can make progress and
    what the most attractive possibilities will be that could be
    converted into real operational systems. So obviously this is
    something that is going to be revisited continuously after the
    research that we have been neglecting for so long gets back
    under way. Obviously the sooner the better from the standpoint
    of our capacities to explore deep space.
        But you know, I have to remind everybody that we wouldn't
    have really had the Ares 5 ready to go, according to the
    Augustine Committee, until the late 2020's in any case. I mean,
    we were looking at a shortfall in heavy lift capability under
    the old program, not just under the new.

                                  NASA--VISION

        Mr. Schiff. Let me ask you a broader question in terms of
    the vision behind the NASA Human Exploration Program. In
    particular the moon, while it was somewhere we had gone before
    was still a goal that caught the imagination of the American
    people and the plan to get there had goals and time lines. The
    President has not been explicit about the long-term goal of all
    the research that is set out, the research and development work
    that is going to Mars, and that is a serious concern.
        Is this plan the faster way to get us to Mars? And if so,
    why hasn't the President made that case?
        Dr. Holdren. I think we will be hearing from the President
    on this. I can't give you a date, but it has been the
    President's intention to speak up on this topic. As you know he
    has had his hands pretty full on some other topics, and I think
    they don't want to put too many out there at once, but we will
    be hearing from the President on space policy and what his
    vision is.
        Mr. Schiff. Well, I think that is really vital. There is a
    lot of concern here, as you can tell, with the direction of the
    Space Program and with, you know, the loss--the potential loss
    of our leadership in this area that has been the source of
    great pride for the country and innovation and technology, and
    if there is a good case to be made for why this advances those
    goals it really will need to be made very forcefully.
        I mean, I represent an area that is very heavily involved
    in robotic exploration----
        Dr. Holdren. Right.
        Mr. Schiff [continuing]. And the budget is very kind to
    robotic exploration, but I also have a great support of the Man
    Space Program and share the concerns about the degree and
    length of time in which we will be reliant of the Russians or
    anyone else for that matter, the degree to which turning our
    Space Program into an international program will result in--
    potentially result in delays and loss of American leadership in
    this area, and I think we would really benefit if we made
    clearly articulated vision about where our Space Program is
    going and how this is the best direction to get there.
        I mean, I am obviously mindful of the budget realities and
    have lamented over the last several years that our aspirations
    and our policies far out stripped our capacity to pay for them,
    so I have never envied the task of reconciling those two, and I
    know if you had your way you would have the President focused
    on this all the time, but he obviously has a lot else on his
    plate as you mentioned.
        I am going to head down, and we probably won't have other
    members back before this series, so we will recess then until
    the conclusion of these votes.
        Dr. Holdren. Good. Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Good afternoon.

                              NASA--CONSTELLATION

        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Dr. Holdren for being here today
    and for your testimony. And no one envies your job that you
    have and certainly we all appreciate it, it is a very difficult
    job that you have and what you are doing.
        I would want to mention a little bit about just the
    overall, and from in recent years the entire discretionary
    budget requested average just under $1 trillion. President
    Obama's budget request average over $3 trillion of course that
    is not counting the stimulus. Our hope was that NASA's request
    would include realist dollar amounts for human exploration.
        The Augustine Commission suggested two to three billion per
    year for any of the human space flight options to be realistic.
    The current plan that is before us flushes away $9 billion
    invested in the Constellation, commits U.S. taxpayer to at
    least two billion more dollars to shut down these programs, and
    provides a top line increase of slightly more than $1 billion
    per year for five years. It terminates the only launch and
    capsule program which have been guided by NASA's safety
    criteria to the level of being human rated by NASA. This plan
    abandons any open of astronauts actually going anywhere beyond
    the station for at least 20 years.
        I am aware of the OMB statement of NASA's mission, I am
    getting ready to go to Mars, but these science projects should
    be worked on at the same time as the launch systems like
    Constellation which will actually get us somewhere.
        My first question is regard to the speed that NASA is
    shutting down the Constellation, even though the commercial
    options for human space flights are not ready at this point.
    Fixed costs of launching Ares 1 would be about $1.2 billion a
    year, any launch system is going to have that high of cost or
    higher. The marginal costs are costs per rocket would be about
    120 million for Ares 1, plus about 50 million for Orion
    Capsule. The latest estimate for the Completed falcon 9 is
    about $130 million.
        Meanwhile we should note that the original March 2006
    contracts NASA sign would the two companies which won COTTS
    contract called for three demonstration flights by the fall of
    2008 showing the ability to deliver cargo to the International
    Space Station, almost four years later we are still waiting on
    that first flight.
        The transfer of human space flight missions to commercial
    companies only goes against number one, 2005 and 2008 Space Act
    bills, 2008 Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel reports, 2009
    Aerospace Safety Panel report, and even the Augustine
    Commission, which I know you referred to earlier, has
    recommended a back-up launch plan.
        The intent of Congress was clearly that NASA would continue
    these programs until Congress made a decision on the
    President's proposal.
        Isn't it a big risk for our Space Program for NASA to be
    aggressively canceling and freezing all Constellation contracts
    which were on schedule to be awarded this year?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, first of all, Congressman, I believe we
    are talking about the fiscal year 2011 budget here. This is the
    President's proposal for what he would like to do in 2011,
    which obviously is going to be before this Committee and other
    committees of the Congress.
        As I understand it, and I read your letter to the NASA
    administrator and I read the response from NASA. As I
    understand it, NASA is not terminating these contracts at this
    point, it is not in violation of the statute to which you refer
    here, and it is not NASA's intention, certainly not the
    Administration's intention, to violate the statute.
        We know we need to work with Congress if we are going to
    execute this change in approach in NASA's Human Space Flight
    Program and we would plan to do that. There is no intention to
    violate the law and I don't believe the law is being violated.
        Mr. Aderholt. So it is your position then that they are not
    canceling or freezing any of the contracts?
        Dr. Holdren. My understanding is the understanding embodied
    in Administrator Bolton's response to your letter. I don't know
    anything that would contradict that at this point. I must say
    that contract law and contract management is not my field of
    expertise----
        Mr. Aderholt. Uh-huh.
        Dr. Holdren [continuing]. And so I am relying here on what
    I read in these materials and what the administrator and his
    staff tell me, which is that they believe they are in
    compliance with the law. And the intention is to work with the
    Congress to implement the change-in-direction for the Human
    Space Flight Program, putting a heavier emphasis on the
    development of new technologies, as has been outlined in the
    Administration's fiscal 2011 budget.
        Mr. Aderholt. So based on the knowledge you have been given
    and if they were to ask your advice on it you would advise them
    not to cancel or freeze any contacts?
        Dr. Holdren. My advice first of all would be to comply with
    the law.

                  NASA--COMMERCIALIZATION OF SPACE EXPLORATION

        Mr. Aderholt. Yes. Okay. The two Space Act bills passed by
    Congress in 2005 and 2008 supported some commercial space
    flight development, but never to the point of eliminating our
    primary launching capsule plans. NASA has spent $500 million on
    the COTTS Program. NASA's budget adds another $312 million,
    which is an additional 60 percent on top of the 500, and then
    another 500 on top of that in fiscal year 2011 for the
    commercial crew, and then billions more.
        Was there a market study which showed that multiple rocket
    companies can survive without continued taxpayer support? And
    can you tell us just how many jobs are created in the first two
    years and how many jobs are lost?
        Dr. Holdren. It is my impression that there have been a
    number of market studies, presumably some of them done by these
    companies or by their investors about what the prospects for
    commercial space industry are. I am not personally familiar
    with those studies, and I can't tell you what particular
    studies say about the number of jobs. I have seen an estimate
    that something like 1700 jobs could be associated with the
    early phase of the growth of a commercial space industry as
    envisioned in the President's proposal, but again, this is
    not--I have to tell you, not my domain of expertise. The
    economic assessment and the jobs assessments, there are other
    folks who have looked at that much more closely than I have.
        Mr. Aderholt. So you are not real sure about whether there
    has been any studies?
        Dr. Holdren. I am sure there have been market studies. I
    mean, these folks aren't crazy, they are not investing their
    own money, as many of them are, without having done some
    studies to determine that there is a market.
        Mr. Aderholt. You are just not aware of any that you
    yourself----
        Dr. Holdren. But I am not personally--I haven't read those
    studies, I am not familiar with them in detail.
        Mr. Aderholt. All right.
        Dr. Holdren. But I would be happy to get back to you on----
        Mr. Aderholt. Sure.
        Dr. Holdren [continuing]. What exists.
        Mr. Aderholt. If you could that would be very helpful if
    you could check into that and find out and let me know all
    about that.
        Dr. Holdren. Yeah.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I guess we will start another round, so
    I guess I will start the round. We won't have any votes that is
    for sure.

                               NASA--INTELLIGENCE

        I asked you when we had a conversation at the White House
    if you had seen or heard of this report that the Select
    Committee on Intelligence had done about the Space Program.
    We've had a lot of failures, and for one year the Technical
    Tactical Committee of the Intelligence Committee did a year
    investigation, hearings with all the majors, commercial NRO,
    the DNI really was our partner, and then we wrote a report, and
    I assume you haven't seen the report. And the only reason I----
        Dr. Holdren. This one.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Well you see it now. But why I want to
    raise this, because--and I said how we were caught by surprise,
    and a lot of what happens in relationships between
    administrations and Congress is because a lack of communication
    and not the right person knowing who where is doing what. But
    here you have a report that deals on a lot of the issues that
    you are talking about, more on defense and Intel, but because
    of the failures we had, and yet the transition team of course
    would sit down and go over it and most of that information
    doesn't go where it needs to do.
        But you know, I think that that is why when you have people
    that--like a Committee or an Appropriations Committee that we
    do NASA's budget, and in Intel you have an authorizing
    Committee and you do all the research and development.
        It is important I think that you or your staff at least
    read these kind of reports or see if they are out there when
    you are dealing with Congress, because we really understand the
    problem I think where you are going, but now the issue is do we
    agree on how you fix it?
        Dr. Holdren. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. And again, you started out this hearing
    about money, we know we have to deal with the issue of money.
    There is not enough money around to take care of DoD, Intel,
    and NASA, and NOAA all together, so there has to be some
    changes.
        Your concept clearly of research and development is where
    we need to go, but don't think Russia and China aren't out
    there also. I mean last year China graduated 606,000
    mathematicians, engineers, and scientists. We are about 66,000.
        The good news, and I want to ask you this question, I have
    been told our curriculum is still superior, but it is not----
        Dr. Holdren. It is, but the gap is narrower.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. The gap is clearly narrowing. And I
    think the anxiety you hear from my friends on the other side of
    the aisle too, and I have the same anxiety, when we in fact
    make a really--a bold move, when we take almost like a drastic
    move in saying all of a sudden we are going to do away with a
    lot of these programs, you have a lot of industrial base that
    have jobs there and a lot of minds that need to be--make sure
    that they are corrected to other areas. I am just concerned
    that it is going too quick. We want to do what is best, but I
    am concerned it is going too quick. I think commercial, as I
    said before is very positive and we need to do a lot more of
    it, but you know, I am not sure on how much we can do to get
    where we need, and if we step back and we allow Russia or China
    to control the skies I think we have problems.

                                NASA--SATELLITES

        I want to get into two other areas. The one area that I
    want to discuss is the--and I think this is your field by the
    way, or you have a lot of say over this, and that is the
    restrictions on imagery resolutions for commercial satellites.
        You know ITAR, and by the way in this report we talk about
    ITAR, how we before ITAR we controlled 73 percent of the space
    industry, we are at 27 percent now, and it is slipping, and we
    got it passed in the House, now we have to get something done
    in the Senate, and hopefully we can do something with respect
    to ITAR. But I see the same analogy here that we are so
    restrictive on imagery resolution for commercial satellites.
    And France, Germany, Spain, and Italy are all building
    satellites that have current resolution capabilities that we
    can't do it because we won't let our people. And I would hope
    that you would look at this so that we can be competitive.
        Congress passes way too many laws, and a lot of these laws
    have unintended consequences, and I think this is exactly what
    happened in ITAR, and I think it is happening here.
        So could you give me a commitment that you will evaluate
    our restrictions on imagery resolutions for commercial
    satellites?
        Dr. Holdren. Absolutely.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Have you looked at it already?
        Dr. Holdren. Absolutely. We have started to look at that.
    The Administration is looking very carefully at the whole ITAR
    and the larger export restrictions domain. We know we have
    problems there, and my own view is that it is possible to make
    some considerable improvements that will benefit both our
    security and our economy.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. And of course you have to balance the
    security. But you know, ITAR has taken ten years just to get
    something out of the House, and we did it in a bipartisan way,
    now the Senate is sitting on it.
        Dr. Holdren. I mean, you know----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. We need the Administration to step up
    for ITAR right now.
        Dr. Holdren. And I think you are going to see that.
        But on the specific question you raise about the resolution
    of commercial imagery, yes, we are looking at that. We know
    there is an active global market in imagery, we monitor those
    developments closely, we understand their issues related to
    what our government will allow that are problematic in that
    domain, and we expect to be reviewing and updating the
    Administration's position on that.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. And that is probably going to be soon?
        Dr. Holdren. Yes. I have no problem giving you the
    assurance you want, Congressman, that yes, we are looking at
    it, we will be looking at it, and sooner rather than later. We
    are already looking at it.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. The other issue is weather
    satellites. Now we know probably you need usually one boss,
    that is a problem when we had the DoD and I think----
        Dr. Holdren. NASA, NOAA, and DoD.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. You know, not any real boss and you need
    one boss, you need a plan, whatever, I mean that is just basic
    management. And then I think you all made a decision to give
    the weather satellites over to NOAA and then they canceled the
    satellites. And even though we know we have two satellites in
    the barn, so to speak, they are older satellites.
        But my concern about the cancellation of the satellites,
    again, something happening rather quickly, there is a lot of
    research and development and there is a lot of technology that
    exists right now that is almost ready to go, because this
    project has been out there for a while, and with NOAA coming in
    and saying well we are canceling the project that we were
    working on, that I am afraid we are going to lose millions, if
    not billions of dollars, a lot of research and development that
    has been there, and it is a move that I am concerned about.
        Dr. Holdren. We are not canceling things there. We are
    splitting the responsibility for acquisition between the
    morning and the afternoon orbits in these polar orbiting
    environmental satellite systems so that the DoD is responsible
    for acquisition for the morning orbit, and NASA and NOAA
    responsible for acquisition for the afternoon orbit, but we are
    not terminating the work that has been going on on the
    instruments, we are not losing that investment. Those
    instruments are going to fly, they are going to continue
    coordination of the data streams and the ground station.
        A lot of the problems with that program have been in the
    acquisition stage, and we think we've got an approach----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. By the way, that falls to space too, is
    that true?
        Dr. Holdren. Yeah, yeah.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Sorry.
        Dr. Holdren. We think we've got an improved approach to
    that. It is a tough problem in which one is looking in a way
    for the least bad solution because there is no ideal one. They
    all have some liabilities, but we are certainly not terminating
    these capabilities, we are not terminating the instruments. We
    are going to finish those instruments, we are going to fly
    them.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. In preparation for this hearing today we
    just got this information, but I would like to know what is our
    plan for future satellites? Are we going to rely on your
    opinions more? Where are we going? The two that we have in the
    barn are I believe rather old, I mean they don't work at least.
        Dr. Holdren. Well those are the ones that DoD has in the
    barn.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Right, okay. Now where is our plan for
    weather satellites? Do you have a plan for that down the road?
        Dr. Holdren. Well in short yes, we do have a plan for
    weather satellites. And again, the origin of this program was
    the realization that the needs of the DoD and the needs of NOAA
    in terms of weather satellites overlap quite a lot, and the
    theory was that since these needs overlap so much why not
    combine them into a single joint operation which would meet the
    needs of the civil sector and the military sector at the same
    time? Now that turned out in practice to be a lot harder to
    execute I think than anybody imagined when it was thought up in
    the '90s, in part because of the different acquisition models
    of these agencies, their different degrees of risk tolerance,
    and differences in their missions----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Uh-huh.
        Dr. Holdren [continuing]. Which were greater I think than
    folks were imagining when they put this together.
        But the fact that we are separating now part of these
    particular missions doesn't have any implication for conceding
    leadership in weather satellites and earth observation
    satellites to other countries.
        We are for these particular polar orbiting satellites
    relying on the Europeans for what's called the mid-morning
    orbit. We have been for a long time, we will continue to do
    that because they are making the observations and making the
    data available that we need. But you know, we have a robust
    program of weather and climate monitoring satellites and we are
    going to keep one.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Okay, who is--Frank are you next?
        Mr. Wolf. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I don't think I am going to ask really many questions, but
    I think there is a degree of secrecy or urgency that has been
    connected with this decision.
        I just saw this press release here and it says, ``Attorney
    General Eric Holder didn't consult the Department of Homeland
    Security before he made plans to try alleged September 11
    mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York city, Homeland
    Security Secretary,'' Janet Napolitano said Wednesday.
        I think the same thing is really happening here. I voted
    against the stimulus package, but there were some members, and
    I thought it made some sense that asked the Administration,
    particularly with some of the funding that went into areas that
    then create jobs to have taken some money out of the stimulus.
    I believe there were some members of Congress, I don't know how
    many, that sent a letter down. Perhaps some voted for the
    stimulus, perhaps didn't vote for the stimulus, and I know that
    the Administration has been critical of people who--and I have
    gone to for ribbon cuttings for any stimulus money because I
    didn't vote for it, and I would never go to a ribbon cutting.
    But there apparently were a number that said you ought to
    consider it.

                                  NASA VISION

        Secondly there is really a concern that there really isn't
    a goal, there really isn't a vision, there isn't anything that
    kind of captures your imagination the way that President
    Kennedy did about putting a man on the Moon.
        I have a whole series of questions that I will submit, but
    it doesn't appear to me that you really have a goal. It doesn't
    appear to me that you have a vision that you can capture. And
    you were talking as I came in about the STEM grants. You know,
    50 percent of the STEM funding last year as laid on the table
    was not accessed. We are losing the young people because there
    is not that imagination, that interest, and everything else. We
    used to be number one on all these test scores and now we are
    dropping, we are dropping, we are dropping.
        And I think before you do anything, I am going to oppose
    what you are trying to do. I have talked to Dr. Griffin, I have
    talked to a number of other people, some just call me out of
    the blue. To me I think it is an abdication of America's
    leadership. The thought of having to abdicate leadership to the
    Chinese, and your viewpoint on China and mine are totally
    different. The President wouldn't meet with the Dali Lama,
    similar to President Ford, wouldn't meet with Solzenitzen, and
    you know, but to have the Chinese impact us that way, and I
    think what this means is they are probably laughing about this
    in Beijing.
        But I think you needed a public aspect, you needed to bring
    some of the best minds together. Iron sharpens iron. Bring them
    together to have a public discussion as to where we go. I am
    not going to say everything you have said is right, or
    everything you said is wrong, but it was sort of a surprising
    decision, and the NASA people have called me.
        One of the interesting things about my district, my
    district is Northern Virginia out into the Shenandoah Valley.
    When the Administration was going to secretly move terrorists
    from Guantanamo Bay and put them in Northern Virginia I had
    asked Eric Holder about it, they refused. Finally people from
    different agencies, three different agencies called and told me
    today the Administration are moving the people. So a lot of the
    people that work in NASA and even some that maybe work right
    where you are, live in my district, some go to my church, so
    everyone that is called felt that this was done in a very, very
    poor way. And so whatever you do you need to bring people
    together of all different viewpoints.
        I stipulate you certainly are not a bad person. I mean, I
    don't think that you are trying to destroy the program, but
    bring everyone in together--and you didn't do that--and as a
    result of that there isn't any plan, there aren't any ideas,
    and your people are becoming demoralized. I talked to a person
    the other day who was down at the space shuttle launch and they
    said the administrator in NASA told the people, and now you
    have done a great job, you won't be around next year because
    you are all going to be gone, but you have really done a great
    job. That's, demoralizing. Here you got a person who has been
    with NASA, dedicated, working the hours that they work, done
    what they have done, maybe have one kid in college, another
    kid, you know, getting ready to go into college and you just
    tell them you are out, you are gone.
        Now this isn't a jobs issue for me. I don't represent
    Alabama, I don't represent Texas, I don't represent Florida. I
    represent the Northern Virginia area, and so I just think the
    way you have gone about it has a degree of arrogance, and I
    think you are going to have a problem.
        I am going to do everything I can to stop this and to see
    if there is a way to kind of look at this thing in a different
    way.
        With regard to that I am not going to ask you other
    questions.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. John. John.

                                  NASA VISION

        Mr. Abney. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I as a Houstonian
    do not physically represent NASA, and my passion and support
    for the Space Program stems out of a personal passion for the
    sciences. I have been an amateur astronomer, was a nerd in high
    school, bought myself a telescope when I graduated from high
    school, great passion about my support for the sciences,
    medical scientific research, and NASA for the technological
    benefits, but as Mr. Wolf has just so eloquently said, NASA
    sparks vision and hope and inspiration in young people where no
    other government agency can. It is probably the only federal
    function other than our military, God bless them, the young men
    and women that go into the Armed Forces have a great deal of
    zeal in their hearts and excitement for the mission that they
    have and it inspires a lot of young people to go in the
    military, the work that our men in uniform do.
        NASA inspires young people to go into the sciences and
    mathematics, and to engineering and is the one agency frankly
    among all of the federal government that has a highest level of
    public approval, support, and it is a fact no matter what you,
    you know, said or how you couch it in terms of you consulted
    with NASA administrators or with the center directors about
    options. The center directors were not told in advance that the
    Administration's number one consideration was to cancel
    Constellation. It was done very poorly as Mr. Wolf says, and
    these are wonderful good people who I honestly--I don't have--I
    have got maybe a few jobs in my district from NASA, I am on the
    far west side of Houston, and this is really a personal passion
    for me. I feel as the members of this Committee do that our
    investment in the sciences and NASA is a viable part of our
    strategic.
        I support strongly what Mr. Ruppersberger does in his
    committee, and how important those intelligent assets are in
    orbit, how critical it is that we preserve that lower orbit
    capability at an absolute minimum, and if the Administration
    were, Dr. Holdren, to succeed in canceling the Constellation
    Program, what space vehicle as we sit here today is capable of
    carrying humans into space and how soon?
        Dr. Holdren. Well first of all, Congressman, let me clarify
    a couple of things. The first is I too was a nerd. I have two
    MIT degrees in aeronautics and astronautics, my senior class
    project at MIT, which I loved, was to design a man to Mars
    mission, and we did it. Class of 1965, 300 pages. And so I
    understand everything you are saying about the importance of
    NASA, its inspirational effect.
        I was one of the kids who was inspired by the need to
    respond to Sputnik in 1957, I was at the beginning of my high
    school years at that time, and so I completely relate to that
    set of views.
        Nothing about what we are doing is intended to run down
    NASA, to retreat from U.S. leadership in space. I understand we
    have a disagreement about the right way to do it, but you need
    to understand first of all that we think we have an approach
    that will help NASA inspire again.
        I don't know if you knew about the event last October 7th,
    Astronomy for Kids on the White House lawn----
        Mr. Abney. But your intention is not what's at issue here.
    The point is what the effect of what you are doing is you
    have--you are proposing to cancel the Manned Space Program.
    There is no other way to look at that. If you cancel
    Constellation the only man ready rocket in the U.S. inventory
    today is Ares, it just was tested, it will be land ready very
    soon, that is the one rocket we've got. Burt Rutan, who is
    opposed to what you are doing, succeeded in doing this, only as
    Alan Shepard did. He just went up and down very quickly. So----

                           NASA--MANNED SPACE PROGRAM

        Dr. Holdren. I understand that, but----
        Mr. Culberson. And other than Ares what other rocket----
        Dr. Holdren. Ares----
        Mr. Culberson. Please answer my question. Other than Ares,
    what rocket as we sit here today is ready within how many years
    to carry humans into orbit?
        Dr. Holdren. First of all Ares is not ready. Ares would not
    be ready until 2017 or 2018 in the judgment of the Augustine
    Committee.
        Mr. Culberson. I am not asking about that.
        Dr. Holdren. Well the point is it is not right to say
    ``well, we have Ares'' as a bird in the hand and you are only
    offering birds in the bush. Ares is out there too. Ares is 2017
    or 2018 if everything goes well.
        Mr. Culberson. It has been tested successfully and it is
    already on path and we've spent $3 billion dollars, Mr.
    Ruppersberger, I know we all on this Committee we spent $3
    billion getting that rocket ready and it is on track, it is
    over budget, and it is a little behind schedule, these things
    are complicated. But other than Ares, if we take Ares as you
    propose to do, you cancel Ares, what rocket as we sit here
    today is ready to carry humans into space and how soon?
        Mr. Holdren. None are ready to carry humans into space
    today. No U.S. rocket is ready to do that today.
        Dr. Culberson. So which one as you sit here today will be
    ready?
        Dr. Holdren. On that time scale we could have a Space X
    rocket, we could have a Boeing rocket, we could have a man
    rated Delta 4, we could have a man rated Atlas 5. The short
    answer is I don't know which one is going to succeed.
        One of the merits of the American system is when you turn
    the private sector loose and say we have got this task and you
    are going to get to compete for success, we will have a
    success.
        Mr. Culberson. And I got a little excited last time because
    this upsets me, this upsets me a lot. But there it is,
    gentlemen, it is speculative. There is no rocket ready to take
    the place of Ares. The gap is going to be five years. I wish
    there were no gap. And I was appalled when the Bush
    Administration's vision turned out to be a press release and
    they didn't give this Committee the money we needed, and we
    know it, you know how it came about. It was infuriating and it
    under funded NASA, short all those wonderful employees with
    mortgages as Mr. Wolf so correctly pointed out. I mean you have
    got kids in college, you have mortgages, you have worked your
    heart out designing a new rocket and you were just told a month
    ago by the new administrator we are behind you, the
    Administration is behind you, Constellation is full speed
    ahead, and then two days before the announcement it is
    canceled.
        Can you imagine how that rips their heart out of their
    chest? What you have done to those wonderful people, those
    engineers, God bless them, and scientists and astronauts. Set
    those jobs aside, those are vitally important jobs that are
    important for America's future, but we have no other rocket
    members of the Committee. There is no other rocket ready. There
    is not even one on the horizon, it is all speculative. The one
    rocket we have that is being tested and is over budget and
    behind schedule is Ares, which you are proposing to cancel.
        Dr. Holdren. It is way over budget and it is way behind
    schedule and we think there are other options.
        Mr. Culberson. But you don't even know what that would be.
    And we can't afford a gap, we can't afford a gap of one year
    much less five years, and then what are you going to do with
    the gap?

                                  NASA--CHINA

        Let me ask also something I know was mentioned by Mr.
    Ruppersberger, I heard you say earlier that the Chinese might
    help us get to the International Space Station. And I just read
    an article, members, that Mr. Ruppersberger I know as a member
    of the Intelligence Committee read, probably the same alarm
    that I did, that the Administration is considering inviting the
    Chinese to come participate and help us in our Space Program?
    Now that has never been done, because the Chinese space program
    is a military space program whose primary purpose is designed
    how to better target their ICBMs on American cities and take
    out our satellites. So I am very concerned.
        Would you please tell the Committee what the Administration
    is doing to expand the cooperation of the Chinese in our Space
    Program, since they have never been allowed before any where
    near our facility?
        Dr. Holdren. I don't think there are any plans that I know
    of. The only thing I know of is that Administrator Bolden did
    go to China, and about the same time the President went to
    China, he certainly had some conversations with leaders of the
    Chinese space program about areas of potential cooperation.
    There were no agreements reached. This was a very exploratory
    discussion. I wasn't there.
        Mr. Culberson. Well certainly for me I know and the members
    this Committee----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. John, It is already happening. The
    Chinese have cyber attacked NASA on a regular basis.
        Mr. Culberson. They do and recollects it is a real concern.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Not that we let them do it.
        Mr. Culberson. Right. It is a real concern that I share
    with my good friend Mr. Ruppersberger from Maryland that
    Chinese are not our friends and particularly when it comes to
    space, and they are using that technology to better target
    their ICBMs and take out our satellites. The high ground today
    is low earth orbit in outer space.
        And again, it is just not acceptable to me or this
    Committee, I am quite confident that we are going to surrender
    the high ground of outer space.
        Dr. Holdren. We are not going to surrender it, sir.
        Dr. Culberson. You have already surrendered it, sir. You
    are proposing to cancel Constellation and you just testified
    there is no rocket ready to replace Ares.
        Mr. Holdren. That doesn't amount to surrendering space. We
    have huge capacities in space.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        Dr. Holdren. And we have them in the military sector and in
    the civil sector, and we are not going to surrender our
    leadership.
        Mr. Culberson. And I would like to hear from Mr. Wolf.
        Mr. Wolf. The arrogant facial expressions of your staff
    behind you is unbelievable. You particularly, you. I mean, I
    don't care who you work for, but the arrogance of it I have
    some pretty tough questions, I am not going to ask them. You
    too. I wish I had a camera taking your facial expressions. I
    think you really bring a degree of arrogance here that it is
    just offensive. I yield back.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay, my turn. One of the issues that I
    think that we are dealing with here today is we don't have
    enough information, it came too quick. You know, those of us
    who work a lot in this area just did not--we were just
    surprised where we are going, but we want a road map and we
    want a plan and then we want it justified.
        I think some of the things about this program, and let me
    try to--and some of this is classified so I won't get into it.
    You know the major program that was canceled about three or
    four years ago, it was one of the majors, it was one of our big
    satellite programs over budget and whatever, and what happened,
    why that was canceled is because it was way over cost, over
    budget, and it got to the point you keep putting more money
    into it what are you going to get out of it number one? And you
    know, some of the things that we wanted to get out of that
    program weren't going to happen, so we had to re-evaluate
    because there was only a certain amount of money.
        Now I assume as you talk about Ares, there is Ares 1, but
    then there is the one we are focusing on now that John is
    focusing on or whatever. And it is my understanding that the
    cost of that, if you move forward the way it is now are in the
    billions and billions, and that we still--it might be a black
    hole that we are not sure if we can produce.
        Wait one second, I will get you. But is that where you are
    coming from on your focus on Ares? I mean, changing----
        Dr. Holdren. Well that is certainly an important part of
    it. Ares which originally was expected to cost four and a half
    billion dollars is now expected to cost something like 18.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Right, okay. I didn't know if that was
    classified, whatever, it probably isn't, okay. But go ahead,
    John, yeah.
        Mr. Abney. Very quickly if I could.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay.
        Mr. Abney. The reason the cost gets so high is because you
    are trying to go to Moon and Mars, and my focus here is I think
    we need as a Committee to stay focused on we have got to
    preserve the ability to go to lower earth orbit. That is far
    less expensive and far more doable.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I would think that we are there more on
    the lower orbit, I think the major concern with the Space
    Program though, if you were involved with Sputnik, the reason
    we are as good as we are now is because we responded to Sputnik
    and we actually created rocket science as people who research
    and development. And all that we did to get to the Moon helped
    us dominate where we are now and we are losing that dominance,
    and that is where I am sure--I applaud you for evaluating where
    we are and what we are doing, I am just worried that we don't
    have enough and that we are not sure. And we want to work with
    you, because it is all end game in the end. What's right for
    our country, our national security. And I will work with you,
    but you know, you have got to work with us.
        Dr. Holdren. Oh, we will, and we want to get the leadership
    back.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. We need a lot more information. You
    know, Augustine has one report. There are people on both sides.
    And I tell you, I haven't been sold yet today, myself. I am
    willing to work with you, but I mean, I just want to get some
    experts and hear these different points of view before I decide
    where to vote--you know, what to do with this program.
        And again, I am worried we are going way too quick when you
    are dealing with the national security that is at stake.
    Because if it is the wrong decision then we could really put
    ourselves in a real bad position. We need to be dominant in
    space.
        One thing about it, do you have launch? Is that in your
    capacity too, the launch issue, launching? The ability to get
    the satellites up?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, I mean in the Office of Science and
    Technology policy we are responsible for advising the President
    on every aspect of science and technology that affect----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I would like you to look at it, because
    in my opinion----
        Dr. Holdren [continuing]. His positions.
        Mr. Ruppersberger [continuing]. We are behind France in
    launch and maybe another country too, and whenever I hear the
    United States is behind and for a lot of different reasons, but
    you know, there is a consortium with one group, you have other
    issues, there are certain satellites that should have gone up
    by now that were canceled because we couldn't deal with it. I
    really hope you focus on the issue of launch, because it
    bothers me when the United States is not number one in that
    arena.
        John. Frank.
        Mr. Wolf. No, I am fine.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Is that it, all the members? Okay, well
    thank you for being here. I think if anything we learned today
    it is the issue of communication.
        Dr. Holdren. Yeah, I agree.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. And you know, we have got to get some of
    our people to advise us and whatever of pulling that together,
    because it is a really big issue.
        Dr. Holdren. We will try to do better with that.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I really understand the cost. You know,
    DoD, Intel, NASA all together, we don't have enough money for
    everyone. Okay.
        Dr. Holdren. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Meeting adjourned.

                                               Tuesday, March 23, 2010.

      NASA (NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION) FY2011 BUDGET
                                    OVERVIEW

                                    WITNESS

    MAJOR GENERAL CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, NASA

                           Chairman's Opening Remarks

        Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order.
        Mr. Wolf is at another hearing and he has asked that we
    move forward. And he should be here shortly.
        Good afternoon. Welcome to this hearing of the Subcommittee
    on Commerce, Justice, and Science for fiscal year 2011. Today
    we will cover the budget status and future direction of the
    U.S. Space Program, and our witness is Retired Major General
    Charles F. Bolden, Jr., NASA Administrator.
        Welcome, General Bolden.
        In 1957, the Soviet Union shocked the world by launching
    Sputnik and challenged the U.S. with its superior capability.
    President Eisenhower responded by forming NASA. And by 1960,
    the U.S. had launched the first weather satellite, the first
    data relay satellite, and the first navigation satellite. The
    first commercial communications satellite, Telstar, was
    launched in July of 1962.
        Confronting the Cold War challenge of the Soviet Union,
    President Kennedy said, ``I believe this nation should commit
    itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out of
    landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth. No
    single space project in this period will be more impressive to
    mankind or more important for the long-range exploration of
    space and none will be so difficult or expensive to
    accomplish.''
        In 1969, NASA delivered on his vision and U.S. superiority
    and technology, especially missile technology, was on clear
    display for all to see. The cost in today's dollars is almost a
    hundred billion dollars.
        This amazing era of accomplishment continues to dominate
    the vision of NASA both within and without, but hard realities
    should be recognized. NASA employment peaked in 1967 and NASA
    pioneered reduction in force, RIF, procedures for the federal
    government. Over 10,000 people who had worked their hearts out
    getting us to the moon were out of job. NASA's budget peaked in
    1966 at over 24 billion in today's dollars. Using Apollo
    Program capabilities, Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz flew. But from
    the summer of 1975 until the spring of 1981, the United States
    did not, could not fly an astronaut.
        In answer to the question of what to do, President Nixon
    supported the start of the Space Shuttle Program. By the time
    it flew, the first U.S. Space Station had fallen to earth due
    to lack of funding and the resulting lack of capability to
    boost Skylab's orbit. The money was not made available to build
    a new orbiting lab as proposed, so the Shuttle had no orbiting
    lab to shuttle to except for the Russian Mir, which it visited
    multiple times.
        In January of 1984, President Reagan challenged NASA to
    achieve a permanent man presence in space and the International
    Space Station Program began. The initial cost estimate was $8
    billion and no one expected it to be 25 years and $40 billion
    before construction was complete.
        In 1984, the Shuttles were new. No investment was begun to
    replace them until 2004--too late to prevent a gap in U.S.
    astronaut launch capability.
        Today it is not the early 1960s. Then a trip to the moon
    was a science fiction dream. Today Star Wars and Star Trek are
    based on a dream of interstellar travel and galaxy-spanning
    federations or empires. In Kennedy's time, rocketry was a major
    hallmark of national technological achievement. Today U.S.
    achievement is evident in creation of the internet, invention
    of the iPhone, production of the fastest super computers, and
    sequencing of the human genome. The Soviet Union is no more.
    Our shooting wars are with those who oppose modernity, not
    those who challenge us in a rush to the future. Competition
    with China is more a matter of innovation, intellectual
    property, manufacturing, and resources.
        In this contemporary context, faced with the need to set
    the future direction of the Human Spaceflight Program, the
    President has formulated a program that shifts from plowing
    ahead with new development programs driven by return to the
    moon to a focus on government development of new enabling
    technologies with the eventual goal of landing astronauts on
    Mars.
        Exploration beyond low Earth orbit will be vigorous, but
    for a time, it will be achieved through the use of robots.
    Commercial provision of astronaut transport to the space
    station is proposed, and the life of the space station is
    extended until at least 2020. At the same time, NASA's programs
    in Earth and space science and aeronautics are strengthened.
    Education programs are continued, and the Kennedy launch
    complex is slated for modernization.
        So today we find ourselves at another pivotal point for the
    Space Program. Like Presidents Nixon and Reagan, president
    Obama is committing the nation to human spaceflight as a
    continuing endeavor, but this commitment is part of a balanced
    effort within a constrained budget. Frankly, many of us yearn
    for the Apollo-like vision of the 1960s, but is that the
    approach that best serves our nation's interests?
        Mr. Administrator, there is much we need to learn about
    this major change in the direction of our Space Program.
    Following my remarks, we invite you to summarize your
    testimony, which will be made a part of the record.
        We just had a vote called. We have 12 minutes and 38
    seconds to vote and I am going to invite you to make your
    remarks. Administrator Bolden.

                     Administrator Bolden's Opening Remarks

        General Bolden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity to appear today
    to discuss the President's FY 2011 budget request for NASA. I
    am grateful for the support and guidance of the Subcommittee
    and I look forward to working with you on enactment of the
    President's bold new direction for our Agency.
        I want to say up front that I understand the Committee's
    concern that details, such as our justification documents, have
    been slow to reach you. I apologize and ask your attention to
    the details of this historic change in NASA's direction. Very
    soon, we will be announcing program office assignments needed
    to carry out the President's vision and challenges to NASA.
    Other details will become available in the coming weeks.
        Since the introduction of the budget, many have asked what
    the destination is for human spaceflight beyond low-earth orbit
    under the President's plan. NASA's exploration efforts will
    focus not just on our moon but also on near-Earth asteroids,
    strategies, and the planet Mars and its moons. For me, the
    ultimate destination in our solar system at present is Mars.
    While we cannot provide a date certain for the first human
    visit with Mars, it is a key long-term destination. We can
    identify missing capabilities needed for such a mission and use
    this to help define many of the goals for our emerging
    technology development.
        The right investments in technology will allow us to map
    out a realistic path to this destination and continues to
    inspire generations of school children, just as it inspired me
    many years ago. Growing up in Columbia, South Carolina and
    watching Buck Rogers go to Mars with ease each week from my
    seat in the balcony of a Carolina theater.

                           PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST

        The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for NASA is
    $19 billion, including an increase of $276 million over the
    enacted 2010 level. Longer term, I am pleased that the budget
    commits to an increased investment of $6 billion in NASA's
    science, aeronautics, and enabling technologies over the next
    five years compared with last year's budget. All of us at NASA
    appreciate the President making NASA such a high priority at a
    time when budget realities dictate reductions and freezes for
    other worthwhile programs.
        With the President's new visions, the NASA budget will
    invest much more heavily on technology research and development
    than recent NASA budgets. This will foster new technological
    approaches, standards, and capabilities that are going to
    enable the next generation spaceflight, Earth-sensing and
    aeronautics capabilities.
        These investments will produce additional opportunities for
    U.S. industry and spur new businesses such as a recently
    announced partnership between NASA and General Motors to build
    an advanced dexterous humanoid robot, R2.

                       CONSTELLATION PROGRAM TERMINATION

        As the Constellation Program has ended in an orderly
    manner, I want to thank all of the NASA employees and
    contractors who have worked so hard on the program. Their
    commitment has brought great value to the Agency and to our
    Nation and they will continue to play a pivotal role in NASA's
    future path. Many of the things NASA has learned from the
    Constellation Program will be critical as the Agency moves
    forward.
        However, as the Augustine Committee concluded, the
    Constellation Program is on an unsustainable trajectory. To
    continue on our current course, at best we will probably not be
    able to fly our astronauts to the moon until sometime after
    2030. But to accomplish that task, we would have to make even
    deeper cuts to other parts of NASA's budget, terminating
    support of the International Space Station early, and reducing
    our science and aeronautics efforts. Further, we would have had
    no funding to advance the state-of-the-art in any of the
    technology areas we need to enable us to do the things in
    space.
        The President's proposal to end Constellation enables us to
    present a fiscal year 2011 budget that includes: A flagship
    technology development and demonstration program with our
    international and commercial partners and other government
    entities, to demonstrate critical technologies, automated
    rendezvous and docking, and closed-loop life support systems.
    Heavy-lift research and development that will investigate a
    broad scope of research and development activities to support
    development, test, and ultimately flight of a heavy-lift launch
    vehicle sooner than projected for the Constellation Program as
    assessed by the Augustine Committee. Robotic precursor missions
    to multiple destinations in the solar system in support of
    future human exploration, including missions to the Moon, Mars,
    and its moons, Lagrange points, and near asteroids. Significant
    investments for the development of commercial, crew, and
    further cargo capabilities. In concert with our international
    partners, extension of the utilization of International Space
    Station to 2020 or beyond. Pursuit of cross-cutting space
    technology capabilities led by the newly established Office of
    the Chief Technologist, to spawn game-changing innovations to
    make space travel more affordable and sustainable. Climate
    change research and observations, which will enable NASA to
    substantially accelerate and expand its Earth science
    capabilities, including a replacement for the orbiting carbon
    observatory. Aeronautics research and development, including
    critical areas of Next Generation Air Transportation System or
    NextGen, green aviation and safe integration of unmanned
    aircraft systems into the national airspace. Education
    initiatives, including the recently announced Summer of
    Innovation Pilot Program to inspire middle-school students and
    better equip their teachers for improved classroom performance
    in STEM-related courses.
        We understand that many concerns are being expressed about
    the budget, but I believe it is the right vision for NASA. I
    look forward to continued discussions with you and our
    authorizers about the concerns and how we might solve them.
        Americans and people worldwide have turned to NASA for
    inspiration throughout our history--our work gives people an
    opportunity to imagine what is barely possible, and we at NASA
    get to turn their dreams into real achievements for all
    humankind through the missions we execute.
        This budget gives NASA a roadmap to even more historic
    achievements as it spurs innovation, employs Americans in
    exciting jobs, and engages people around the world.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your support and that of
    this Subcommittee. I would be pleased to respond to any
    questions you or other members may have.
        [The information follows:]

                             ASTRONAUT HEALTH RISK

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Administrator Bolden.
        Let me let the Subcommittee's members know we are into a
    vote where we have five minutes, five and a half minutes left
    for the vote, 386 members yet to vote. I intend to begin my
    questioning. We will recess during the vote and then come back
    and continue.
        Thank you.
        In testimony last month, you stated that today you could
    not in good conscience send astronauts to Mars given available
    technology. What health risks confront astronauts as they
    venture beyond low Earth orbit?
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, the primary health risk is
    radiation exposure. Secondarily is just the long duration
    spaceflight with less than one G. But the radiation is the long
    pole in the tent. It is the one we do not know how to overcome
    just yet.
        Mr. Mollohan. To what extent do these risks pertain equally
    to flights to the moon, to asteroids, to Lagrange points, to
    Mars?
        General Bolden. To most of the flights in the near Earth
    area such as the Moon, the exposure is not as long as it is
    going to Mars. The trip to Mars today is about eight months. It
    is significantly outside the Earth/Moon system and so the
    exposure to radiation is longer and more intense. A trip to the
    moon is two, three days, and so we do not find ourselves
    confronted by that threat as much.
        Mr. Mollohan. What technologies are needed to enable
    astronauts to survive missions to asteroids and Mars?
        General Bolden. If I had the ability to snap my finger and
    do two things, I would develop much more capable in-space
    propulsion systems that would cut the travel time, the transit
    time from Earth to Mars at least in half and more, if possible.
    The second thing I would do would be to find some material that
    can sufficiently shield orbiting or transiting crew/members
    from the threat of radiation without adding untenable weight to
    the vehicle.

                       CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CANCELLATION

        Mr. Mollohan. The President's budget request is predicated
    on the cancellation of the Constellation Program. Why is this
    drastic step proposed?
        General Bolden. Sir, there are a number of reasons for the
    cancellation of the Constellation Program and it has nothing to
    do with the people in the program who are exceptional
    engineers, scientists, and researchers. But it has a lot to do
    with the status of the program. When I became the
    Administrator, we were severely behind schedule and
    significantly over the amount of money that it would take to
    complete it. I think by the Augustine Committee's estimate, it
    probably would have taken another $45 to $60 billion dollars to
    complete it. In order to invest money in research and
    development that would enable us to get vehicles to put people
    on the surface of the moon or to transit to mars, the
    Constellation Program would have pretty much sucked up all of
    the funds that we could have used for research and development.
    So for a number of different reasons, it was not the right path
    for us to take. It was on an unsustainable path.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, billions have been invested in
    Constellation.
        General Bolden. Sir----
        Mr. Mollohan. Is that a waste or are we wasting billions?
        General Bolden. Sir, we invested good money in
    Constellation and we have received incredible returns. When I
    look at some of the technologies that come out of the
    Constellation Program, and it is everything from just the way
    we process vehicles or the way we would process vehicles, some
    of the technologies like the robotics I mentioned, R2, the
    dexterous robot, that is a part of the Technology Demonstration
    Program that was a part of Constellation.
        A lot of the human research that we do today, actually some
    of the research that is conducted on the International Space
    Station comes from expenditures that were a part of the
    Constellation Program trying to help us find better ways for
    humans to survive the trips that they were going to have to
    make, Rovers that are present that we could use today to go to
    the moon which have changed my mind about the need for
    permanent habitats. While not a direct part of the
    Constellation Program when it started, the funding for the
    Rovers and the research actually came out of the exploration
    system in the Constellation Program.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, those are some of the benefits coming
    out of the Constellation Program.
        General Bolden. Yes, sir.

                      LOST CONSTELLATION PROGRAM BENEFITS

        Mr. Mollohan. But there are those who are saying that those
    benefits aside, not going forward with Constellation is a waste
    because perhaps you are throwing away those benefits, but you
    are throwing away a lot of other investments, a lot of other
    progress, or is there a waste in going forward or are both
    correct?
        General Bolden. Sir, as I mentioned before, I would not
    call it a waste, but I would say going forward with the
    Constellation Program as it exists today, going forward with
    the program of record puts us on an unsustainable trajectory
    considering the economics of today.
        We would probably not get to the moon with a human until
    after the 2030s. I am convinced that with the technologies that
    we can develop, we will get there much sooner. We could not go
    to Mars probably not in my lifetime to be quite honest. I am
    convinced that given the opportunity to expend some funds on
    research and development, technology development, we can
    actually do that.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, I am one that totally subscribes to the
    idea that President Bush announced a great vision and then did
    not fund it. But we are where we are. So why would we not just
    stretch it out, keep the investment, stretch out the
    investment, and not throw away the accomplishments up to date?
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the reasons
    that Constellation has grown the way it has is because that was
    the technique used. We stretched out the investments. You made
    the comment about the cost of the Space Station Program, that
    it was envisioned to be, $8 billion when proposed by the NASA
    Administration under President Bush or President Reagan and it
    ended up costing $40 billion plus.
        What was not said in your statement was that the
    International Space Station, if I am not mistaken, is the third
    or fourth iteration of a space station and that resulted from
    stretching the program out and rewicking it looking for a
    better way to do it. I just could not in good conscience advise
    the President that we should follow that same course with the
    Constellation Program. Constellation today, the program of
    record today is a lunar-centric program. It has us trying to
    get Ares I that would take us to the International Space
    Station, take us to low-earth orbit, and then Ares V would come
    somewhere along the road. That would be the vehicle that we
    would use to go beyond low-earth orbit. The Ares V would get us
    to the Moon and it would get us there without a way to get down
    to the surface of the Moon. Altair, the landing vehicle, had
    not been funded. We were about to do some studies on it, but we
    had whittled away at the Constellation Program and had gotten
    ourselves in a situation that was essentially unrecoverable.

                                     ARES I

        Mr. Mollohan. Well, elaborate on that. Why wouldn't Ares I,
    why shouldn't it become the basis for the U.S. astronaut
    transport to the space station?
        General Bolden. Well, sir, in my opinion, Ares I is a very
    costly program that keeps us in the same paradigm that we have
    been since the earliest days of human spaceflight here in the
    United States with a huge infrastructure. That is in terms of
    facilities, people to run those facilities. We think that we
    can actually get away from that way of operating by utilizing
    the commercial entities that already build the vehicles for us
    and already operate the vehicles for us as they do in Shuttle
    today.
        My vehicles today are commercial vehicles. Every Shuttle is
    a commercial vehicle built by a commercial vendor that will
    probably participate in the building of the commercial next
    generation vehicle. The only difference is the acquisition
    strategy used to operate that vehicle.
        And today we buy shuttles. Well, we bought at the cost of
    about $2 billion a copy. In tomorrow's paradigm, I am not going
    to buy a vehicle, but I am going to use the vehicle produced by
    an American corporation in terms of, what do you call it, my
    idea is that we lease it and then we use it to fly a NASA crew
    to the International Space Station to do a mission.
        The operation of that vehicle is primarily done just as it
    is today by USA with the Space Shuttle. It will be done by the
    vendor that owns the vehicle. The mission control center will
    be done just as it is today probably with Shuttle and the
    International Space Station. The people in the mission control
    center will be partially those from the company that built the
    vehicle and partially from NASA engineers and flight
    controllers.
        Again, in my way of thinking, the operational concept,
    which has not been developed yet, but I will have a large part
    to play in what it ends up being, in my operational concept,
    the Flight Director is still a NASA person, the one NASA person
    that you can count on being in the control center.
        Mr. Mollohan. So you are not suggesting that Ares costs any
    less or any more than developing the technology and doing it
    commercially? You are suggesting, I think I am hearing you
    suggest that the savings is in the operations; is that correct?
        General Bolden. I am suggesting that the production----
        Mr. Mollohan. Do we have a comparable development cost----
        General Bolden. I do not----
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Going commercial versus Ares?
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I actually think the
    development costs, which we pay in part through the amount that
    we pay for seats, I think the development costs will actually
    be somewhat less than Ares I. That is something that it is too
    early to say, but I do believe that.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, what is the basis of that belief?
        General Bolden. The basis of the belief is that the
    technology today, you know, it----
        Mr. Mollohan. You are pretty far down the road with Ares.
        General Bolden. With Ares?
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
        General Bolden. Sir, we have quite a way to go. You know,
    we just finished the----

                          COMMERCIAL ORIENTED APPROACH

        Mr. Mollohan. Well, does not commercial approach have as
    far to go or even further?
        General Bolden. They have as far to go in one respect, but
    they are getting ready to actually test fly the vehicle here
    next year. In fact, we are going to test fly two of those
    vehicles.
        Another potential source of commercial is the Atlas V and
    the Delta IV and those vehicles have been flying for quite some
    time. So for cargo to orbit, they are ready right now. If the
    companies that own them, if ULA decides that they want to enter
    the competition----
        Mr. Mollohan. The cargo----
        General Bolden [continuing]. That will be another round.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes. But cargo transport is not the defining
    goal here. It is----
        General Bolden. Sir, the defining----
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Human transportation.
        General Bolden. The defining goal is commercial transport
    of crew to orbit. And we are at the same stage of development
    whether it is Atlas, Delta, Falcon, Taurus in terms of
    certifying them for spaceflight, for human rating. There is an
    involved process of human rating that we would have to go
    through with any vehicle.
        Mr. Mollohan. We are going to have to recess.
        General Bolden. Yes, sir. I understand.
        Mr. Mollohan. We will return afterwards sometime. Thank
    you.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will resume.
        I am going to have a couple continuing questions with
    regard to costs and timing of these two different approaches.
        I believe your testimony up to this point was that you
    think the cost of a new commercial oriented approach would be
    less than pursuing the Constellation Ares approach; is that
    correct?
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I do. I went back and thought
    about it after you went out. When I last asked my folks how
    much it would cost us if we were to try to fly Ares, for
    example, Ares I, it turns out that it is about four billion to
    four and a half billion a year just for Ares I.
        The primary reason for that is there are $600 to $700
    million dollars alone just in the infrastructure that is left
    over right now from the Shuttle era. We need to phase out all
    of that if we are going to gain the cost savings that I
    anticipate we can do.
        Mr. Mollohan. What about if you used a different upper
    stage and a limited capability crew module, one not capable of
    transit to the moon? Would that be an acceptable approach and
    would that bring the cost comparison in line or would that give
    Ares a cost advantage?
        General Bolden. Sir, are you asking if--let me make sure
    I----
        Mr. Mollohan. If you used a different upper stage, would
    the cost of Ares be significantly reduced through the use of a
    different upper stage and a capability of just going to the
    moon?
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, the Ares I is----
        Mr. Mollohan. I am sorry. Station.
        General Bolden. Oh, to go to station, the problem there we
    found was that in order to design and build a crew vehicle, it
    ends up being what some people call an Orion light. I am
    certain you get visited by the commercial entities every day
    and some of them will tell you that they would like to use a
    readily available expendable launch vehicle, an EELV with an
    Orion light.
        Orion light is a vehicle that carries crew, but we would
    not send it anywhere outside of lower-earth orbit. So, you
    know, we end up having to design and build different vehicles
    for low-earth orbit than you do for the lunar and Mars
    missions. And it all----
        Mr. Mollohan. How is the commercial approach and the
    technologies and capabilities that are going to be developed
    there different?
        General Bolden. Because the commercial vendors will develop
    their own--for example, if I name Space X, for example, their
    capsule is Dragon and it has the ability to cargo and crew
    with--you look at orbital, theirs is Cygnus. If you talk to
    ULA, either of their partners, Boeing or Lockheed Martin, they
    would probably use something like an Orion light. So the
    vehicle in which you carry the crew is going to vary by who the
    vendor is.
        One of the things I would like to do is help them use some
    of the research and development money that we have to help
    build a common crew module that can be interchangeably used on
    a number of launch vehicles. We cannot do that today. Today
    everything is tailored. Everything is individual.
        One of the reasons that it costs so much or when we talk
    about the 21st century range, that concept, it is because
    everything is unique today. I cannot put an Orion vehicle on an
    Atlas or a Delta or a Space X vehicle, and I would like to help
    the commercial entities design a single crew module because it
    is good for us to train in.
        We do not have to train crews for multiple crew modules.
    That can be used interchangeably on any launch vehicle. We can
    not do that today or we have not done that today. But those are
    the kinds of things that you would be allowed to do with the
    President's budget when we talk about research and development.

                         HUMAN LAUNCH CAPABILITY TIMING

        Mr. Mollohan. Moving from cost to timing, what is the
    fastest path to restoring U.S.'s human launch capability, Ares,
    commercial?
        General Bolden. It is my belief right now, Mr. Chairman,
    that the fastest path is the one that I helped the President
    propose and that is to go to the commercial entities to allow
    them just to qualify their vehicles first for cargo to low-
    earth orbit, to the International Space Station.
        Mr. Mollohan. All right. You are describing in your
    testimony a kind of faster, better, cheaper.
        General Bolden. No, no. I----
        Mr. Mollohan. Not in----
        General Bolden. You will never, Mr. Chairman----
        Mr. Mollohan. Not in the way that has been understood.
        General Bolden. You will never hear me say faster, better,
    cheaper.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, it sounds like it is going to be
    faster. It is going to be a better way of doing it and it is
    going to cost less when they say it like that.
        General Bolden. Well----
        Mr. Mollohan. That is what you are describing.
        General Bolden [continuing]. If it works out that way, that
    would be----
        Mr. Mollohan. Well----
        General Bolden [continuing]. that would be incredible.
    But----
        Mr. Mollohan. And that is my question. What is your feeling
    testifying here today about it working out that way?

                  COST OF ASTRONAUT FLIGHTS TO LOW EARTH ORBIT

        General Bolden. My feeling is that it will be cheaper for
    NASA to get to low Earth orbit on a commercial vehicle. Also, I
    do believe that we will get to the International Space Station
    quicker than we could with Ares I just because of where I found
    the program when I came in.
        In terms of getting to the Moon, which is really NASA's
    ultimate goal, it is getting to the Moon and Mars, we cannot do
    that right now if we continue to march with the Constellation
    Program. That is my concern.
        I really want to get NASA back into the exploration
    business and free us up from the day-to-day responsibility for
    operations of activities in low Earth orbit. That is critical
    and we will have oversight of that. But there is a big
    difference between oversight and day-to-day operations. And I
    want to get us----
        Mr. Mollohan. And that is where you see the savings, the
    cost savings----
        General Bolden. I see the cost savings----
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Managing these systems, the----
        General Bolden [continuing]. In managing the systems and
    getting away from having to maintain the infrastructure, the
    things that we have to do today.

                        OBJECTIONS TO THE BUDGET REQUEST

        Mr. Mollohan. The Financial Times, the March 18th issue,
    there is a, and I know you read this, feature story, the Pull
    of Gravity. You are smiling already. And some of those who are
    expressing concerns about this program. I have a couple quotes
    here I would like you to respond to.
        The President's proposal, opponents of the President's
    proposal from, and now I am quoting, from both political
    parties say the decision to turn from Constellation to the
    approach reflected in your budget jeopardizes national
    security, prestige, and commercial interests at a time when
    other countries are boosting their own space programs.
        What is your response to that?
        General Bolden. Sir, I disagree with that. I do not think
    it jeopardizes our national security. In fact, in my
    conversations with the national security representative if it
    is all the way from Secretary Donnelly, the Secretary of the
    Air Force, to General Kehler, to General Carlson, we all agree
    that going the commercial route is the best thing for the
    country. I think if you talk to any of us, we will tell you
    that. Is it risky? Yes, it is. But it is risky to go to space.

                                U.S. LEADERSHIP

        Mr. Mollohan. Further in the article, I would like you to
    respond to this, the article makes the point that NASA would
    pursue new technologies that could eventually take astronauts
    beyond earth orbit to places that humans have never visited
    such as asteroids or the moons of Mars, your argument, but
    there is no clear headline destination and no timetable for
    going further than the hundred billion dollar space station
    which has been assembled over the past 15 years as a
    collaborative venture group among the U.S. and its partners.
        Is that the problem here, that you are not really
    articulating a vision that inspires or you are rolling it out
    piecemeal or why is this not grabbing a lot of people?
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, my attempt to articulate a
    vision was to answer the question that everybody said. If you
    are not going anywhere, you are not going anywhere. We are
    going to Mars eventually. That is the destination.
        As I have told everybody, I wish I could tell you the date
    certain, but I do not have the capability of getting there just
    yet. That is what I need time to put into place, the
    capabilities that will allow us to get there.
        It is very important for people to understand we are still
    going to be, Americans are still going to be very active aboard
    the International Space Station for another ten years, thanks
    to the budget that has been proposed by President Obama.
        In the article, it talked about national security and
    leadership. It is really important for people to understand
    that the International Space Station today is what allows us to
    lay claim, uncontested claim to international leadership in the
    world in human spaceflight.
        I Chair something that is called the International Space
    Station Heads of Agency. It is an organization of five people
    who represent the five partners in the International Space
    Station, Russia, Japan, Canada, the European Space Agency,
    which is 15 nations that Mr. Dordan has responsibility for, and
    the United States. The Chairperson of the Heads of Agency is
    the United States. It is not questioned by anyone.
        In our last meeting a little bit more than a week ago in
    Tokyo where we all endorsed extension of the utilization of the
    International Space Station, the statement was made by the
    Russian counterpart that the leadership of the United States is
    greatly appreciated and they hope that that would remain the
    case.
        It is because we are the acknowledged leader. Everybody
    realizes that the International Space Station would not even
    exist today had it not been for us. Everybody wants to partner
    with us. That is something that our international partners make
    very clear every time I talk to them.
        So it is very important that we not shrink from that, but
    that we also, as the President himself says, we have to take
    bold steps. We are a bold nation. Sometimes people confuse
    bigness with boldness. I am sorry. Sometimes you lead not by
    being out front where you are very visible, but you lead by
    being influential and being able to get people to do the things
    that you need to do. We do that every single day on the
    International Space Station.
        When there is an issue, whether it is in a Russian module
    or a Japanese module or the European module, everybody comes to
    us. We pull the teams together in Houston whether it is by
    internet, by telecon or by video telecon or whatever, and the
    solution is made right in Houston.
        So I cannot give a better example of leadership than that.
    I wish I could vocalize it better. We are the acknowledged
    leader in the world in human spaceflight. Unless we choose to
    say we are, that is not going to change.

                          GENERAL BOLDEN'S EXPERIENCE

        Mr. Mollohan. General, how long were you in the Astronaut
    Corps?
        General Bolden. Sir, I was there for 14 years right in the
    middle of my 34 years in the Marine Corps.
        Mr. Mollohan. How many Shuttle flights did you participate
    in?
        General Bolden. I flew four and my first flight ended ten
    days before we lost Challenger. And my next three came in the
    wake or in the aftermath of Challenger when I realized that it
    was so important that we do what we do that I remain a part of
    the program.

                        CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CONTRACTS

        Mr. Mollohan. That would suggest you had some insights into
    these issues.
        A final question here. In our report last year, we included
    this provision ``provided, none of the funds provided herein
    and from prior years, shall be available for the termination or
    elimination of any program, project, or activity of the
    architecture for the Constellation Program, nor shall such
    funds be available to create or initiate a new program,
    project, or activity unless such program termination,
    elimination, creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent
    appropriation Acts.''
        There is some concern that or some question about whether
    that provision is being strictly complied to. Can you speak to
    that question?
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, that provision is being
    strictly complied to. We have not terminated nor cancelled any
    contracts in the Constellation Program. We have not directed
    the slowdown of anything in the Constellation Program. I have
    authorized the cessation of procurement activities, five
    different activities that were in the process of going through
    competition to become contracts and I have explained that to
    members of Congress before. They were decisions that I felt
    were prudent because they had to do with downstream
    Constellation type projects.
        One of them was construction of the processing platforms at
    the Kennedy Space Center. We would not have gotten to that in
    2010 anyway. So, I just stopped the procurement activity that
    would have gotten that contract.
        Another one was for what we call an Eagle contract. It is
    the ground support. It is all the engineering and everything at
    the Kennedy Space Center. I on the recommendation of Bob
    Cabana, the Center Director at the Kennedy Space Center,
    terminated the efforts on that because his advice to me was, if
    we compete this contract and it is won and we do not have a
    budget that funds a follow-on program, I am going to have
    people out of work because they will be working under a
    contract that is not funded.
        And there are three others that I could mention that we
    stopped because it----
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, with regard to that one, could anybody
    fairly consider that to be a termination?
        General Bolden. No, sir. That was not a termination because
    we did not have a contract. So all of the existing
    Constellation contracts their work is still being fulfilled.
        I did ask people please do not expand the scope of any
    work, please do not go out and begin any new work because I am
    not authorized to do that.
        Mr. Mollohan. In regard to the decisions that you have
    referenced here in answer to my previous question or with
    regard to any decisions you might have made that could be
    construed as being covered by my question, have you consulted
    lawyers in making those decisions?
        General Bolden. Sir, I consult my Office of General Counsel
    before every decision and frequently we consult lawyers from
    other organizations which I have learned is not always, and I
    do not say this meaning any slight about attorneys, but----
        Mr. Mollohan. Of course.
        General Bolden [continuing]. As a general rule when I ask
    for multiple opinions from multiple organizations' attorneys,
    then I get multiple answers. So I do count on my General
    Counsel who I consider to be an incredible attorney and his
    team. So the advice was that I was not in violation of the 2010
    Joint Appropriations Act and I do not believe I have done any
    of that.
        Mr. Mollohan. So based on your----
        General Bolden. In fact, the GAO is about to undertake or
    has already initiated an investigation into just those things.
    It will allow me to have an outside organization assess that I
    have not violated the law, that I did not violate the direction
    of the Congress.
        Mr. Mollohan. So with regard to these questions and those
    decisions, you feel, your testimony is here today that you have
    made all of them in compliance with the law based upon the
    advice of your lawyers?
        General Bolden. Yes, sir, I have.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Wolf.

                   PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL FOR SPACE EXPLORATION

        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I apologize for not being here at the outset. I was
    Chairing a hearing on Human Rights and Religious Freedom in
    Vietnam, so hopefully the questions will not repeat.
        But I talked to a lot of people about this. There are two
    things. One, everyone thinks you are a fine person. So I think
    if there were a vote on that, you would win a hundred percent.
        The other side of the coin is that not many people that I
    have spoken to, some who have interest because of jobs, but
    others who just care about the country, do not agree with the
    Administration.
        Some of the comments. Former NASA Administrator, Mike
    Griffin, said I believe this budget request advocates a
    strategy that is frankly disastrous for U.S. human spaceflight.
        Dr. Chris Kraft, the legendary Apollo Flight Director and
    former Johnson Space Center Director said, ``the U.S. Space
    Program is in great peril if the President's budget proposals
    are enacted.''
        Apollo 7 astronaut, Walter Cunningham, said ``the proposal
    accelerates, quote, accelerates America's downward spiral
    toward a mediocrity in space exploration.''
        Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. Senator, Harrison
    Schmidt, wrote this proposal, ``would cede the moon to China,
    the American Space Station to Russia, and assign liberty to the
    ages. Other nations would accrue the benefits, psychological,
    political, economic, and scientific, that the United States has
    harvested as a consequence of Apollo's success 40 years ago.
    This lesson has not been lost on our ideological and economic
    competitors.''
        Apollo 16 astronaut, Charlie Duke, said we cannot afford to
    lose our leadership in space.
        Then it goes on. I will not go through them all? I will
    just ask unanimous consent to submit them for the record.
        [Clerk's note.--Letters can be found following QFR
    responses.]
        I have a series of question. The first is, the President's
    proposal for space exploration has not been embraced by many
    members of Congress. There are some that have. But overall, it
    has not.
        I made an effort to solicit the views, positive or
    negative, of space exploration experts, former astronauts, and
    former Administrators. And I have done it in a very
    intellectually honest basis. I would call them and say just
    tell me, and I could off the record sit down with you and tell
    you who, what do you actually think. Some were astronauts, but
    some were not. Some were in the program. Almost no one has an
    involvement with regard to jobs.
        And one of the most frequently heard criticisms is that
    there is no set mission goal. And what are the goals of the new
    program and what time table will these goals be achieved?
        General Bolden. Sir, the primary goal for NASA with the
    President's new program is to be able to put humans on Mars in
    the foreseeable future. As I have explained before, the
    difficulty in doing that and the reason that I cannot give you
    a time certain is because we lack certain technological
    capabilities to do that. That is what is the basis for the
    technological development programs that I would like to put in
    place, so that we can develop those technologies and the
    capabilities that will allow us to do that.
        The reference you made to the group, and I did look at the
    document and I appreciate your giving me that before, they are
    very learned people, but I contend that the paradigm that they
    use is the paradigm of the Cold War when we had a defined
    enemy. So it was a matter of defeating the Soviet Union in the
    Cold War.
        We did not do anything in partnerships at that time. It was
    the United States against if we need to. That is not the
    paradigm under which I have grown up, in my 34 years in the
    Marine Corps. Today we do international partnerships and we
    will not be able to go to Mars, we will not be able to go back
    to the Moon unless we are able to team with our international
    partners.
        The International Space Station which right now is the
    focus of any hope to be able to go beyond lowearth orbit. That
    is an international effort. So, I think they remember the way
    it was when we had a defined enemy and you could state that,
    okay, we are going to beat that enemy to a certain finish line,
    if you will.
        People talk about losing out on the race to the Moon to
    China. That is impossible. We already won the race. There is no
    race to the Moon. We won it. Whenever any other nation gets to
    the Moon, they will find six flags and all six flags will bear
    the colors of this nation. They will have a different number of
    stars depending on when they were there, but, they will be
    United States flags.
        As I tell people all the time, they will probably, because
    the moon surface does not get disturbed like ours, they will
    probably walk in some footsteps. Those footsteps will be the
    footsteps of the 12 American astronauts who first set foot on
    the Moon. So there is no race. We have won that race.
        Mr. Wolf. A lot of the----
        General Bolden. There is no backup leadership. We are the
    designated leader.
        Mr. Wolf. A lot of the individuals I am referencing, and I
    will send you the letters, too, are not in that category. They
    are younger people, younger than you, some of the best minds in
    the country, a vast array of people. And they say basically the
    same thing. And I am going to share everything I have with you
    so that there is no surprises.

                               WORKFORCE CONCERNS

        The Shuttle Program is being closed down at the end of this
    year. NASA was already faced with the difficult task of
    transitioning the Shuttle workforce into the Constellation
    Program. Now you are proposing to terminate the Constellation
    Program at the same time.
        What do you anticipate are the impacts of this decision on
    the workforce, both Civil Service and contractors? How many
    jobs will be lost and what measures do you plan to take to
    minimize the impact of job losses and the negative impact on
    the industrial base?
        General Bolden. Sir, as I think everybody knows, the Obama
    Administration is not the Administration that brought about the
    closeout of the Shuttle Program. We have been working on that
    since 2004.
        While I was sad to see it come, it was time. We have
    learned a lot of lessons in going through the Shuttle
    transition process. So, we think we know how to transition as
    we close down a program.
        So, while we were going to be able to transition a portion
    of the Shuttle workforce to the Constellation Program and this
    has exacerbated that somewhat, we think we know how to
    transition a workforce to a new program. And as I mentioned
    earlier, it is my hope that we will be able to announce the
    programs that we would have as follow-on under the President's
    proposed budget.

                               CENTER JOB LOSSES

        Mr. Wolf. Well, how many jobs do you foresee being lost?
        General Bolden. Sir, I will get that information for you
    for the record because I do not want to--you know, we know that
    in the Kennedy Space Center area from the Shuttle Program, it
    was probably going to be in the neighborhood of 5,000, but then
    we were going to get some that we would transition to
    Constellation. But I will get the definitive numbers for you
    for the record for each of the centers affected.

                              Workforce Transition

        NASA is assessing the workforce implications of the FY 2011 budget
    request. While more precise workforce projections are not likely to be
    available before the submission of the FY 2012 budget request, the
    Agency believes it will be able to support delivery of the next
    Workforce Transition Strategy update--with updated, by-Center estimates
    for the Space Shuttle and Constellation programs and parametric
    estimates for new work, reflecting the President's proposed budget--by
    this August. In May, the Agency plans to deliver an update on its
    workforce transition efforts that will focus on employee assistance and
    related activities. While the May document will not include workforce
    projections, it will reflect the significant ongoing transition
    activity that has occurred since the July 2009 edition of the Workforce
    Transition Strategy as NASA has continued to work towards the
    retirement of the Space Shuttle, and will set the stage for the August
    edition of that report.

                        LEADERSHIP IN HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT

        Mr. Wolf. Okay. Many have characterized this proposal of
    ceding leadership in manned spaceflight to other nations.
    Charles Krauthammer wrote that decades from now, there may be a
    robust private space industry, but ``in the interim, space will
    be owned by Russia and then China.''
        What are the implications of this, because we also have
    seen that the Chinese are very aggressive? And you say that we
    have won and we have, but the opportunities for ceding that
    leadership, because once you are ahead in the race and fall
    behind and somebody comes up, what are the implications if
    China gets back to the moon--gets to the moon before we return?
    Do you see any implications?
        General Bolden. Sir, I do see implications to it, but they
    are not necessarily bad. You know, if the Chinese choose to go
    to the moon while we are trying to go to Mars and we are able
    to develop the technology necessary to do that and we reach
    both destinations simultaneously, which we could, you know, it
    depends on how long it takes them to get there, then I would
    say once again----

                               CHINA AND THE MOON

        Mr. Wolf. But you were mentioning going back, you said, to
    the moon and then to Mars. Assuming you are going back to the
    moon and China is going to the moon, who gets there first the
    next time?
        General Bolden. Oh, the next time?
        Mr. Wolf. Yes.
        General Bolden. Sir, I do not intend, it will sound
    trivial, but I do not think it matters who gets there.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, it does to me. It does to me. And I think
    it matters, with all respect to a lot of Americans. I mean, it
    may not with you. And, believe me, I admire your service, so I
    want to make that clear. But it does to me. And I think it does
    to a lot of young people. We are trying to increase math and
    science and physics and chemistry and get excitement. And
    people do not sign up to get the autographs of the Land Rover.
    They line up to get the autographs of the astronauts. So I
    think it does.
        Somebody said the other day astronauts are the only people
    that people stand in line not knowing who they are just to get
    the names, the autographs of people they do not even know. They
    do not do that with other people. So it matters to me and I
    think it matters to a lot of others.
        But based on that question, who do you think gets there
    first the next time? Do we get back to the moon before China or
    does China get to the moon before we get back to the moon?
        General Bolden. Sir, because of where we are
    technologically in comparison to them, I think we get back
    first. If I am allowed to carry out the vision of President
    Obama and as supported by the 2011 budget, I think we stand a
    pretty good chance of getting to the Moon much quicker than we
    would have with the Constellation Program.

                              PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL

        Mr. Wolf. The President's proposal seemed to take NASA
    workforce by surprise. To what extent was this new plan
    developed and vetted and refined by the NASA scientists,
    engineers, and managers who represent the country's best
    qualified experts in space exploration?
        General Bolden. Congressman, for months prior to the budget
    being announced, I had worked with my senior staff. But
    development as a general rule happens at the--is an iterative
    process. When we prepared our inputs, then there were
    participation among all my senior staff in providing the input
    for the budget.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, that is not completely what we hear when we
    talk to someone.
        General Bolden. Congressman Wolf, if I may----
        Mr. Wolf. Yes, sir
        General Bolden [continuing]. The data that we put together
    for submission for a budget does not mean that, it is like any
    budget. Everybody puts in what they want and then you go
    negotiate and you get out maybe not everything that you asked
    for.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, I understand. For five years, I worked for
    a Cabinet Secretary, former Congressman Roger C.B. Morton. And
    when big decisions were made in a particular area, if it dealt
    with national parks, the National Park Director would come in,
    the park superintendents would come in. It was an in-depth kind
    of consultation before the Secretary just rolled something out.
        And the centers most impacted by this decision, Kennedy,
    Johnson, and Marshall. So I guess directly were the Directors
    of those centers part of the team making the decisions on the
    new proposals and, if not, why not?
        General Bolden. Sir, all Center Directors as well as all of
    my Mission Directorate Associate Administrators were involved
    in all the deliberations that we made prior to my going in and
    meeting with the President and working on the budget with him.
        But as I said again, everything that you propose does not
    always come out the other end. I think the budget that we got
    is the best budget for the nation and the best budget for NASA.
    It essentially represents what I recommended to the President.

                           REVIEW OF THE NEW PROPOSAL

        Mr. Wolf. Okay. I just will have one other on this round,
    Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
        After talking to a number of these people, and I appreciate
    the conversation I have had with you, in light of the
    widespread opposition, and I think you would acknowledge there
    has been some fairly widespread opposition, on March 11, I and
    several other members wrote to you asking you to assemble a
    team of NASA experts to conduct a 30-day review of the new
    proposal tested for ground truth and suggest possible
    alternatives and modifications within the current proposed
    budget. Will you be conducting this review?
        General Bolden. Congressman Wolf, we are constantly
    reviewing everything that we do. And I think you will find when
    I respond to your letter, that we have looked long and hard at
    ways to--for example, the one question you asked about,
    ensuring continuous American access to low-earth orbit, we
    continue to look at that in hopes that we would be able to find
    a way to do that. We are unable to do that. So that will be a
    response that I will give to you. I am working on your
    response.
        Mr. Wolf. So are you looking then? Or have you looked and
    decided not to? The request was to take 30 days because the
    President is going to go down to Cape Canaveral on April 15th.
    When something is rolled out then, then you are going to have
    kind of a fairly significant complication.
        Is there an effort to develop, and I do not know if the
    word is compromise, but is there an effort to look at this
    thing again and compromise?
        General Bolden. Congressman, my intention is to continue to
    work with the Congress. I know that the President is going to
    work with the Congress.
        But I think in your letter, if I remember, you asked if I
    were looking to develop a plan B and there is no alternative
    plan. There is no alternative budget. I stick by the budget
    that I helped the President develop. So if the question is am I
    developing a plan B, there is no plan B.
        Mr. Wolf. And what if it is rejected by the Congress?
        General Bolden. Sir, it is my intent to work diligently to
    find a solution to the differences that we have on the
    different parts of the budget. I think, and I hope I am not
    being presumptive, but I think with the exception of the
    portion of the budget that deals with the cancellation of the
    Constellation Program, we are probably in unanimous agreement
    that we have an incredible budget. So my intent is to focus on
    work with the Congress and I know that that is the President's
    intent.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, I guess I could take that as a, yes, we are
    going to try to accommodate and work or I could take it as it
    is and I am uncertain.
        It troubles me, as you know, I do not support what you are
    doing, some parts are positive, but I am already getting calls
    and hearing that some of the companies and our lobbyists
    downtown, former members of Congress, people who really are
    working on this not necessarily for America but to make a
    profit. And that is, I guess, the way this process works in
    this town.
        But are you open to other ideas or is it just the way it
    came out?
        General Bolden. Congressman, personally I am open to any
    ideas that come through my organization. I constantly challenge
    my Center Directors and all of my employees to help us
    determine better ways that we can do what we do.
        We have a budget that has been proposed by the President.
    As I said before, I think it is an incredible budget. I think
    it gives us great opportunities. And I think within the
    constraints of the budget, we are going to find a way to get
    America to mars in due course and we are going to develop the
    technologies utilizing the funds that hopefully will be
    appropriated in that budget to get us there quicker than we
    would have been able to do under the program of record, under
    the present Constellation Program.
        So that is my focus. And I really want to work with this
    body to make sure that we are able to do that.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Ruppersberger.

                               U.S. SPACE PROGRAM

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes, first I know that your position as
    Administrator, you have the President's budget and, you know,
    there are issues there. Once he puts out the budget you are
    going to have to defend that budget. I want to say I respect
    your role as Administrator. And one of the reasons is because
    you were an astronaut and you understand the business, and that
    is important.
        My concern is that if you look at the history of our
    country, and how we evolved to be number one in space, it all
    started really I think with Sputnik. And when the Russians came
    out with Sputnik we were concerned they were going to control
    the skies. And we got together as a country, our American
    ingenuity, our education, and we put a man on the moon in
    twelve years.
        Since that time, though, we have had a lot of failures in
    the space program. We have lost billions of dollars and we have
    had to cancel other programs. And the issue of canceling a
    program is very serious when you have had a lot in it but you
    cannot keep throwing bad money, and you have to have, if you
    are a leader you have to make certain decisions and prioritize.
        My concern is the way this was done, because I think it has
    happened way too quick. When you read about it in the paper,
    and those of us who deal in space and deal with, whether it is
    military intelligence or NASA. And I am concerned that we do
    not have the road map. That we all of a sudden have a plan, and
    because of the fact that we have 25,000 jobs at stake, we are
    competing with Russia and China, I think it could put us at a
    disadvantage.
        So I want to ask you a couple of questions. The first
    thing, you have said that you feel that clearly we are number
    one in space at this point. But I think you also, do you feel
    that there are a lot of challenges that we have ahead of us?
        General Bolden. Sir, I think there are definite challenges
    that we have ahead of us and they would be there if we had no
    competition.

                             HEAVY-LIFT CAPABILITY

        Mr. Ruppersberger. All right. One of the challenges that I
    am concerned about is launch. It is my understanding that we
    have not, are not where we need to be with respect to launch,
    that probably Russia and China are ahead of us as far as launch
    capability. And I think this is something we really have to
    focus on. And I hope that you have certain priorities that you
    are focusing on the launch issue. There is a lot, whether it is
    resources, whether it is management, but it is something I
    think that we have to deal with it. We have had too many
    cancellations that seem to we are going down the wrong road on
    launch. Do you have an opinion on that?
        General Bolden. Congressman, you and I have talked about
    this in the past, as I have with several other members. This is
    an area of concern for all of us who are involved in the
    national security arena or space access arena. Just as recently
    as last week I was involved in a video teleconference with the
    space related agencies in our government, led by Secretary
    Donley, the Secretary of the Air Force, and General Kehler,
    General Carlson and me. The issues that we discussed included
    the need for a broad national launch system that will put us
    back where we need to be. We are too reliant right now on old
    systems, and that is one of the reasons that I try to
    reemphasize the importance of President Obama's budget. Because
    in that he has challenged me to find state-of-the-art
    propulsion systems, both for leaving the planet but most
    importantly for in space propulsion. So that we can get to the
    places like Mars, and asteroids, and the Moon, much quicker
    than we can do today.

                                 NASA'S BUDGET

        Mr. Ruppersberger. All right, I understand that. I want to
    get back to the President's budget again. I think that when you
    have such a large program, so many jobs at stake, our national
    security at stake, you really have to focus on where your
    priorities are. But you have to work with the group. And what I
    mean by the group, the DOD. You have to work with intelligence.
    You have, with NASA where you are. You also have to work with
    Congress. And I feel that there needs to be more of a balance
    that has not occurred yet. I think by moving so quickly, and
    having to be here to defend, I think that we ought to really
    take a couple of steps back and evaluate where our priorities
    are going to be as far as jobs, as far as money.
        And I agree with you on the commercial issue. We have not,
    because we had more money than anybody, that is one of the
    reasons why we are superior in space. Europe is doing very well
    with commercial. They are getting a lot of the same pictures
    that we are getting. They are getting a lot of same information
    that we are getting. So we have to make sure, if we can have
    four satellites to one, that we really explore commercial. But
    commercial will not get us to the Moon, commercial will not get
    us to Mars. And this is why I am concerned that based on the
    President's budget at this point, that if we, if we are taking
    man, we are really not focusing on space involving the ability
    to get a man to the Moon or to Mars, it is almost as if we are
    having a mile race to China and we are giving them a half-mile
    head start.
        We know the money that China is putting into their space
    program. And I think if we are going to collaborate, and we are
    going to work with these other countries, that we have to be
    stronger so we have the leverage to work with them. And I would
    like your opinion on if you feel there is a way of flexibility
    to work with us, to make sure that we can reevaluate and we can
    help you put together a plan so that we have all of the
    entities, American entities, whether it is military, intel,
    that is coming together. Because I think right now you are
    going to spend a lot of time defending a budget when maybe we
    should spend more time on how we can be successful in the
    future in our space program.
        General Bolden. Congressman, I appreciate that and that is
    exactly what I intend to do. I want to go forward, and I do not
    want to stop, retrench, go back and look at something. Mistakes
    that I have made, I have made, I cannot correct that. If I were
    to go through the budget roll out again I would not do it the
    way I did it. I would listen to some of these people sitting
    behind me who advised me that this is the way we usually do it.
    I thought I was smarter, and I have apologized for that before.

                           HEAVY LIFT PROPULSION R&D

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Let me give you an example of what I
    would mean, though, why we have to reevaluate. Heavy lifting
    propulsion R and D. Fiscal year 2011 budget for heavy lifting
    propulsion R and D, it looks like you are spending $5 billion
    over the next five years. Now, your budget proposes $3 billion
    over the next five years for a heavy lift vehicle. This is not
    adequate funding for a heavy lift vehicle development program
    and will require a top line increase in NASA's budget. Now, in
    those five years are we going to build, test, or fly anything?
    And with these funds it looks like we are only going to study.
    We have, we have done a lot of study and research, and we need
    to do the testing and the research. But there comes a time when
    we have to make a move. Now, I am going to ask the question. In
    those five years are we going to build, test, or fly anything?
        General Bolden. Sir, it is my hope that we will build,
    test, and fly things in this coming period.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. What will that be, then? That we are
    going to test?
        General Bolden. Well sir, the reason----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Based on this budget? I do not see that.
        General Bolden. Well the reason that I have asked that we
    be allowed to take an opportunity to look at what is available
    in current technology and where we think we can go is so that
    we build smartly. We design and we develop smartly. I think
    there are better capabilities than we presently have today, and
    I want to make sure that when we build and test a rocket that
    it is the best we can do.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. No question.
        General Bolden. I think we can get there within the
    constraints of the present budget, and then, we will certainly
    be required when we get ready to really start going to Mars----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Getting back to my question, though, if
    Constellation is canceled, and I hope we can look and
    reevaluate that. Maybe there are a lot of things that need to
    be canceled within that program, but the whole program being
    canceled I believe is too quick. But let me ask this. And I do
    not know where my time is, Mr. Chairman. But with Constellation
    being canceled, should we not be looking to make sure we are
    pressing forward with good heavy lift capabilities? I do not
    see it with a $3 billion over five years. I do not think we can
    get there with that.
        General Bolden. Sir, I have asked my, one of the things
    that we are doing with the teams that I know everybody is not
    happy with, but one of those teams is a heavy lift launch
    vehicle team. They are assessing what will be required for us
    to, as speedily as possible, develop a new heavy lift launch
    vehicle that will get us where we want to go. So I think when
    we finish that work we will be ready to proceed to develop what
    the nation can be proud of.

                                 CYBERSECURITY

        Mr. Ruppersberger. My time is up? Oh, I have got to get
    into cyber, too. Because that is another area that we have to
    deal with. And we know, and it is not classified, that we have
    had, that NASA has had a lot of cyber attacks, especially from
    China, throughout the years. And, you know, a lot of what we do
    in space deals with a lot of issues, some that we cannot talk
    about. But, you know, how we, commercially, our national
    security, and whatever. Where is NASA now as far as the focus
    on cybersecurity? Are you working with NSA, since NSA has
    jurisdiction over the .mil. What is your plan for
    cybersecurity?
        General Bolden. Sir, I brought in a new Chief Information
    Officer shortly after taking over as the NASA Administrator.
    And she knows that that is probably her number one focus. We
    have actually begun to work with other agencies and other
    organizations that have had perhaps not as many hits as we have
    had but more severe intrusions. We are trying to learn lessons
    from them so that we can restructure ourselves.
        One of the things we could not do, or did not choose to do
    before I became the Administrator, was devote the funds
    necessary to strengthen our cybersecurity----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Are you working with NSA to protect
    these networks?
        General Bolden. Sir, I will get back to you for the record.

                                 Cyber security

        The NASA Chief Information Officer is working closely with members
    of the intelligence community and Department of Human Services on
    matters related to cyber security.

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay, well then you do not have to----
        General Bolden [continuing]. Do not want to say
    specifically the agency that we are working with. Not that I do
    not want to, I do not want to tell you that we are working
    specifically with NSA if I do not, and I do not know that we
    are working specifically with which organizations. But I will
    get that information to you.

                             CONSTELLATION PROGRAM

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay, the final question is about
    Constellation being canceled. You talked about going to Mars
    maybe in twenty years, and maybe that, we are not sure where
    our priorities are. It seems to me that is a long way off, and
    that we need to maybe refocus our priorities and our goals. But
    I think at this point if we just, one year Constellation is
    there, the next year maybe a loss of 25,000 jobs, that if we do
    not reevaluate where and what we can take out of Constellation,
    if it is going to be canceled, where we are going to put these
    jobs, where we are going to get the best. You know, China and
    Russia are Communist countries. They can order the smartest
    people in that area to work wherever they make them work. We
    cannot. So I really would hope that you would reevaluate that
    twenty years, because I cannot see a goal twenty years out with
    canceling Constellation. I think we have to work up to that.
        So I am just saying we are going to work with you. You are
    going to get a lot of accusations, and there is emotion just
    like the healthcare emotion and, you know, everything else. But
    this is so serious to our country and our national security.
    And I think you are the right person in the right place, by the
    way.
        General Bolden. Congressman, if I may? I share your concern
    about having a target that is twenty years away, and trying to
    tell the American public that, ``Just wait twenty years.'' That
    does not get it, and I say that. What I have told my leadership
    team, and everyone in the NASA workforce, all 18,000-plus of
    them, is that if we cannot do something that gets people's
    attention preferably every year, but every other year, then we
    are going to be lost. I really believe that.
        And what the President's budget allows me to do is to
    launch smaller test flights of technology. I do not have to
    have a specific vehicle to launch a technology test. I can use
    anything. I can put something on one of these commercial
    vehicles that is going to the International Space Station. I
    can fly it on a commercial vehicle that is doing their own
    thing, taking tourists around the planet. I can fly it on a
    suborbital vehicle. I can, that is the way we do things today.
    We put more than one payload on a satellite. Or we put a
    payload on somebody else's launch vehicle that has nothing to
    do with what we are trying to do. That is what the money for
    technology development is going to allow me to do. Because we
    cannot, we cannot just fly, twenty years from now. We have got
    to be doing things that are causing us, or allowing us, to get
    incrementally to where we want to go. And that is exactly what
    I want to do.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Visclosky.

                       HEAVY-LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE CAPACITY

        Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator,
    thank you very much for your time. And in many ways you have
    answered the question I am going to ask you and that is about
    lift capacity. I serve on a Defense Subcommittee as well and we
    are very concerned as far as launch capabilities. You had
    mentioned your meetings with the Air Force, and you had talked
    about crew modules, and cargo. As you are looking ahead, is it
    your anticipation that you are going to use something along the
    lines of the evolved expendable launch vehicle? Or will there
    be a new system in place as far as launch capabilities?
        General Bolden. Sir, if I understand your question
    correctly, for a heavy lift launch vehicle my intention would
    be that that would be a newly developed system. We can use the
    EELVs for any number of things. We can use them for getting to
    low Earth orbit. We can use them for getting satellites to
    orbit. But that would not be my vision, that we would use that
    as the nation's heavy lift launch vehicle to try to get us to
    Mars. And that is simply because in the----
        Mr. Visclosky. I am not talking, I am sorry, I am not
    talking about Mars. I am talking about just this country's base
    launch abilities. And are you as you pursue new launch
    capabilities for NASA, you mentioned Air Force----
        General Bolden. Yes, sir----
        Mr. Visclosky [continuing]. Are you working----
        General Bolden. My desire is to----
        Mr. Visclosky. Put out of your mind human space flight.
        General Bolden. Yes, sir. I understand.
        Mr. Visclosky. Okay.
        General Bolden. There are needs for a heavy lift launch
    vehicle for national security purposes. So, my intention is to
    develop in coordination and consultation with the other space
    agencies that need that capability, so that we build a
    nationally usable heavy lift launch vehicle. The same thing
    with propulsion systems. I want to be able to develop the first
    stage engines that can not only lift a NASA crew and cargo that
    is going to go to Mars, but will be able to lift something for
    the national security apparatus. Or even the commercial
    entities can use it on a vehicle should some business
    entrepreneur decide that he or she wants to fly something to
    the Moon.
        Mr. Visclosky. And you are hopeful you would see that
    flight within five years? If I understood your answer to the
    gentleman from Maryland?
        General Bolden. Sir, I do not think I said we would have a
    heavy lift launch vehicle in five years, no sir.
        Mr. Visclosky. Okay. Do you have an estimated time?
        General Bolden. My desire would be to get us on a
    trajectory where we can realize a heavy lift capability by,
    within the next ten years or so. That is what we show on most
    of our forecasts if we are able to expend the funds the way----
        Mr. Visclosky. And you are in consultation with DOD?
        General Bolden. I am in consultation with DOD and the
    intelligence communities also.
        Mr. Visclosky. And you believe you have enough money in the
    2011 budget to pursue that?
        General Bolden. I have enough money in the 2011 budget to
    begin the pursuit, yes sir.

                           ROBOTIC SPACE EXPLORATION

        Mr. Visclosky. A more philosophical question if I could.
    And this is the first time I have had a NASA hearing. I believe
    the agency does an incredible amount of good work with unmanned
    exploration of space. Do you have a list at NASA of projects
    and proposals for unmanned exploration that we simply do not
    have money on because of the cost of keeping a human being
    alive in space, that are being unmet?
        General Bolden. Yes, sir. I could give you----
        Mr. Visclosky. I would take, I guess, an approach different
    from colleagues----
        General Bolden. I could give you a long list of those that
    existed while we were trying to sustain the Constellation
    program. As I have said before this panel, before this
    Committee and others, Constellation itself was on an
    unsustainable trajectory to getting where we wanted to go in
    human space flight. While doing so it was sucking all the
    oxygen out of the room in terms of support to aeronautics
    research, science research, and the like. That is no fault of
    the people involved. That is just a fall out of the funding
    that went to the program over the last ten years. I just do not
    know how to explain it any better.
        But in the 2011 budget I think you will see, I would love
    for us to be able to talk about the ninety-some odd percent of
    the 2011 budget that is really, really good. And it is the
    increase in spending on Earth science, climate science,
    planetary science, pulling missions forward that we, that came
    out of the decadal surveys by as much as a year to two years.
    When we start flying these missions in, I think, 2013, 2014,
    there is going to be a string of missions that we could not
    honestly say we would be able to pull off----

                         Human Exploration and Robotics

        NASA is continuously engaged in the study of potential future
    missions and projects. The Agency is guided in this process by national
    needs and priorities as well as by scientific priorities as established
    by the National Academies of Sciences. The sets of meritorious and
    exciting robotic missions identified by the National Academies
    inevitably exceeds the available resources. NASA considers a balanced
    program that includes both human exploration and robotic exploration to
    be essential to America's future in space exploration. Robotic and
    human exploration are mutually supportive and interdependent. NASA's FY
    2011 budget request reflects an appropriate balance between these two
    critical activities.

                               FY 2011 PROPOSALS

        Mr. Visclosky. And let me ask you one final question,
    setting aside human space flight and setting aside Earth
    science, what are some of the things you would, under the
    proposed 2011 bill, be able to do that you would not have been
    able to do?
        General Bolden. Under the 2011 bill in the field of
    aeronautics we are going to do, I think there was recently the
    FAA authorization bill passed that put a significant plus up in
    the FAA budget for Next Generation Air Transportation Systems.
    We are vital cogs in the wheel in producing that system. I
    would like to be able to get to the 2011 budget because it has
    a significant amount of money that we are going to be able to
    put into the NASA portion of the development of next year. When
    you look at green aviation, or when you look at other types of
    things in the field of aeronautics, that is all covered in the
    2011 budget where the aeronautics budget had pretty much shrunk
    to about half of what it used to be over the last eight or ten
    years.
        Those are the things that I am very excited about----

                               PLANETARY SCIENCE

        Mr. Visclosky. Any additional programs in planetary
    science?
        General Bolden. I beg your pardon, sir?
        Mr. Visclosky. Any additional programs in astrophysics or
    planetary science?
        General Bolden. We have some that we are now hopeful that
    we can fly that were doubtful before. The one that I like,
    because it goes to a place called Europa, where we think that
    it is an ice-covered moon of Jupiter that we think has a huge
    ocean beneath it. Where there is an ocean there is a
    possibility of some type of life. So for a planetary scientist,
    or a life scientist, that is exciting.
        Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.

                                  NASA'S ROLE

        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Culberson.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, thank you
    for your service to the country and your leadership at NASA. We
    all admire you immensely and just continue to hear great good
    things about you. I especially appreciated, Mr. Chairman, I
    think your line of questioning was right on target, Mr. Wolf's.
    And particularly I want to follow up on Mr. Ruppersberger's and
    Mr. Visclosky's line of questioning. I think the questions they
    asked are right on target.
        The concern we all have as part of our job as members of
    this Committee, as members of Congress, is to protect the
    nation's national security interests and NASA's role in
    preserving America's national security is vital. That ability
    to have a heavy lift vehicle, the manned space program, there
    is just no substitute for it.

                                 HUBBLE REPAIR

        Hubble could not have been repaired, the initial problem
    with the mirrors, the final, the other two repairs. I think you
    actually flew on one of the, did you fly on one of the repair
    missions?
        General Bolden. I put the flawed telescope into orbit.
        Mr. Culberson. You were on the first one, then, that fixed
    the spherical aberration problem with the mirrors?
        General Bolden. I, when I left it we did not know it. But a
    couple of weeks later when we started to check out we
    discovered we had what was called a spherical aberration. And
    that is all I am going to say, because somebody told me that
    but I cannot describe it.
        Mr. Culberson. That is right, you were on that. And I do
    not think a robot could have done that, could they?
        General Bolden. I also worked on the National Academy of
    Science Committee to save Hubble. And we thought we could
    support NASA's intent to develop a robotic mission to Hubble.
    When I talk about the necessity of technology development, at
    that time in 2003, 2004, when I met, although it was our firm
    intent to find a robotic method to go and service Hubble the
    technology was not there at the time.
        Mr. Culberson. Right, it had to be a manned mission.
        General Bolden. It had to be a manned mission. And----
        Mr. Culberson. And so many other ways.
        General Bolden [continuing]. We were able to convince the
    incoming NASA Administrator Mike Griffin that it was worth the
    risk.

                                THE HIGH GROUND

        Mr. Culberson. Right. The problems you encounter in space,
    whether it be the deployment of a solar panel, or whatever has
    happened before, you have just got to have human beings in
    space. And that is an absolutely essential part of America's
    national security. And space is the high ground today, is it
    not? That is the high ground.
        General Bolden. It is the absolute high ground. Going back
    to your point, robots can do almost everything. But today they
    do not reason, they cannot. Although they are very good, we
    build dexterous robots. I think you and Congressman Wolf
    hopefully saw R2 in a recent visit to the Johnson Space Center?
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir.
        General Bolden. R2 can do amazing things, but R2 cannot
    think.

                                 EUROPA MISSION

        Mr. Culberson. Right. Well your, and I was glad to hear the
    Europa mission. Mr. Visclosky is right, how important that is
    that NASA also maintain world leadership in exploring the outer
    planets. And those are now of necessity robotic missions. The
    Europa mission in particular, the highest priority of the
    decadal survey, because Europa has more liquid salt water than
    the Earth even. And we know it has got heat, there is almost
    certainly volcanic vents and life. Very exciting mission, look
    forward to seeing that blossom and develop and fly.

                  HEAVY LIFT LAUNCH AND HUMAN CAPSULE VEHICLE

        But Mr. Ruppersberger asked and Mr. Visclosky a very, very
    important question, and I cannot see it either, they are all as
    concerned as I am, about the heavy lift capability of NASA that
    we just do not see it in the budget. And I would say to Mr.
    Visclosky and Mr. Ruppersberger, the letter that Mr. Wolf sent
    you in asking how within the existing budget can we preserve
    the ability to have a manned capsule and heavy lift vehicle
    within the existing budget? That question we asked I think
    would give us the fall back, if you do not want to use the word
    compromise, position that we are all looking for. So you will
    be able to answer that question within the thirty days?
        General Bolden. Congressman, it is my intent to get your
    response, a response to Congressman Wolf in the very near
    future.
        Mr. Culberson. So within the timeframe Mr. Wolf gave you?
        General Bolden. In that timeframe Mr. Wolf----

                       CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CANCELLATION

        Mr. Culberson. Super. That is critical. Because, Mr.
    Visclosky, Mr. Ruppersberger, I know members of the Committee,
    members of Congress, and I, we have only been able to find one
    member of the House that supports the President's budget
    proposal. And we need to make sure we will as a nation preserve
    America's leadership in manned space exploration. And the key
    is to find a reasonable middle ground, and that letter will
    help us do that. How many----
        General Bolden. Congressman, may I make one, please?
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir.
        General Bolden. Because the tone of your comment, I want to
    make sure that everyone understands, I am not developing a Plan
    B. There is no Plan B. There is no alternative budget. But I am
    trying to answer the Congressman's letter----
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir. That is right. We will do that.
        General Bolden [continuing]. Within the constraints----
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir.
        General Bolden [continuing]. Of the President's proposed
    budget.
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir. The President----
        General Bolden. As long as everybody understands that.
        Mr. Culberson. The President has made a proposal and we
    will, yes sir. I wanted to ask you, General Bolden, the
    President's budget was announced on February 1st. How many days
    before that did you first hear that the Constellation program
    was going to be canceled?
        General Bolden. Sir, that particular piece is what they
    call pre-decisional. I am not, I think it would be
    inappropriate for me to talk about the date on which the
    President, I was notified----
        Mr. Culberson. Well what I am really driving at, though, is
    that the, the decision to cancel Constellation was a surprise?
        General Bolden. Sir, because of the way that I chose to
    roll out the NASA budget, and I did not go through the normal
    process of getting with members of this Committee, or other
    members of Congress several days before the budget was
    announced, then it was a surprise to the world.
        Mr. Culberson. It was a surprise to you?
        General Bolden. Oh, no sir.
        Mr. Culberson. And a surprise to, certainly a surprise to
    the center directors. And Mr. Wolf is right. We, Mr. Wolf has
    talked with all of them. I have talked extensively with Mike
    Coats, who I just admire. He is a national treasure, take good
    care of that man.
        General Bolden. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Culberson. It was a surprise to everybody. Because the
    Augustine Commission said that the Constellation program was
    unsustainable because of inadequate funding. And the reason we
    are in the box ring today is because of inadequate funding from
    the Bush administration Office of Management and Budget and
    failure to fully fund the vision that was laid out prior to the
    election in 2004. So that is the dilemma. It is not that there
    are any inherent flaws in the Constellation program. The
    Constellation program is, was on track, had a successful test
    flight? Right? It was on track? It was inadequately funded.
        General Bolden. Congressman----
        Mr. Culberson. That is the problem with Constellation.
        General Bolden. I wish I, I honestly wish I could say that
    it was a singular problem of funding. Funding was the principal
    driver in causing the Constellation program to be
    unsustainable. But the Constellation program as it is had been
    downgraded to the extent that it, as I mentioned earlier, it
    had denigrated to, or degraded to a lunar program. And it was a
    lunar program without a lander.
        Mr. Culberson. Right.
        General Bolden. Those decisions, while they had to be made
    because of insufficient funding, they put us in a situation
    where we almost could not recover.

                          COMMERCIAL ASTRONAUT LAUNCH

        Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Thank you. And if I could, Mr.
    Chairman, I will be as brief as I can because I understand they
    have called a couple of votes, you said earlier, General
    Bolden, in your testimony at the beginning that essentially
    what you envision, and I tried to write this down accurately.
    What you are envisioning is that NASA will, you will no longer
    buy vehicles, NASA will lease them. And the operation will be
    by the vendor who owns the vehicle, correct?
        General Bolden. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        General Bolden. And ``lease'' is my term.
        Mr. Culberson. I understand.
        General Bolden. The acquisition strategy has not been
    decided yet.
        Mr. Culberson. Yeah, yeah----
        General Bolden. But that is the closest thing I can, lease
    it as opposed to getting it as a taxi. I differentiate it
    between the taxi service and getting the vehicle that becomes
    mind for a period of time.
        Mr. Culberson. Right. The analogy, the concern that I think
    we all have as members of Congress is, can you imagine the
    United States government having to lease the USS Harry Truman
    from Northrup Grumman? If Northrup, imagine if Northrup Grumman
    owned the Harry Truman, and we had to lease it, or ask
    permission to take it to the Persian Gulf. That is really what
    you are talking about.
        General Bolden. Sir, I do not, I appreciate the analogy.
        Mr. Culberson. Or the nuclear subs. You know, General
    Dynamics. Imagine if we had Mr. Visclosky go to the General
    Dynamics and lease a USS Texas, for example. That is really
    near and dear to my heart. There is a big problem there.

                     SPEECH BY DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR GARVER

        And then finally Mr. Chairman, let me point this out
    because I know time is short, but the, and I do not know if the
    Committee is familiar with this, and I am going share this with
    you. Lori Garver gave a speech on March 10th to the American
    Astronautical Society. And I, this was dumbfounding to me. The
    statute creating NASA, Congress' direction to NASA, and the
    nation's direction, is that NASA's job is, ``to pioneer the
    future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and
    aeronautics research.'' Lori Garver told the American
    Astronautical Society that NASA's priority are to fight
    poverty, promote world peace and societal advancement, and
    protect the environment. I, this is, I think, she says and I
    will quote it directly. She says, ``The President's budget will
    enable NASA to align with the priorities of the nation, and
    these key national priorities that I am referring to are
    economic development, poverty, hunger and jobs, international
    leadership and geopolitics, world peace, education, society
    advancement, environment, future of the planet, and humanity.''
    And I would suggest to you that Ms. Garver has completely lost
    sight of the core mission of NASA, which is to preserve and
    protect America's leadership in manned space, manned and
    robotic space exploration to pioneer the future in space
    exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research. To
    go where no one has gone before and explore new world. And that
    is NASA's mission. It is, NASA's mission is not fighting
    poverty, world peace, and protecting the environment. Those may
    be subsets or spinoffs. But I, you know, Ms. Garver's, I will
    make sure my colleagues see this. This is very disturbing. Were
    you aware of this?
        General Bolden. Congressman, I----
        Mr. Culberson. Is your vision of NASA that NASA's number
    one job is to fight poverty and world peace? Surely not.
        General Bolden. Congressman I, know Lori incredibly well
    and I know that Lori knows what the mission of NASA is.
        Mr. Culberson. Well, this is what she told the astronomers
    at----
        General Bolden. I do not think she questions whatsoever
    what our charge is and what our mission is under the National
    Space Act and the subsequent appropriations acts.
        Mr. Culberson. Would you please talk to her and get, I
    mean, this needs to be retracted. This is not acceptable.
        General Bolden. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Culberson. You do not agree with this, do you?
        General Bolden. NASA's mission as established by the
    National Space Act has not changed. NASA's mission, is still
    what it is.
        Mr. Culberson. So you disagree with Ms. Garver? You
    disagree with this speech?
        General Bolden. Congressman, that is the first I have seen
    that.
        Mr. Culberson. I will share it with you, make sure you see
    it. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Was Ms. Garver asserting that that was the
    sole mission of NASA? Was she asserting that was the sole
    mission of NASA?
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir. The speech was to the----
        Mr. Mollohan. No, I'm not asking you, was she asserting
    that was the sole mission of NASA?
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir. Yeah, these are their national,
    these are NASA's, aligning with the priorities of the nation,
    and here are the priorities.
        Mr. Mollohan. I did not hear that was the mission of NASA.
    My question is, was she asserting that was the sole mission of
    NASA?
        Mr. Culberson. She lists all the other things they are
    doing as spinoffs. Yes, sir. This is their lead role. This is
    their lead mission.
        Mr. Mollohan. So you are saying she said in that speech
    that those are the sole missions of NASA?
        Mr. Culberson. The sole mission? This is NASA's mission.
    Yes, sir, this is NASA's mission.
        Mr. Mollohan. You----
        Mr. Culberson. The word mission is not, but it is clear
    that is what she is saying. I mean, it----
        Mr. Mollohan. Ah, thank you. Mr. Honda.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you very much. Just to gentlelady Garver,
    I guess there are a lot of visions that we have of projects
    that we get involved in. And it is probably her vision that
    ultimately all the things that we do scientifically and
    socially, it is for ultimately world peace, and getting along
    with each other, and creating international cooperation. Not
    unlike the Spaceship Enterprise, hm?
        General Bolden. Congressman, I think if we are allowed to
    take her speech in context I think it would be the same thing
    that I do. Anybody that has heard me speak knows that the most
    passionate part about anything I say is about education.
        Mr. Honda. Yeah.
        General Bolden. That is not NASA's primary mission. And I
    am criticized by some of my predecessors and some of my
    contemporaries because I focus, I put big focus on education
    because I think it is critical for this nation. I think that
    NASA has a responsibility to partner with the President in
    trying to pull our nation out of its, now if you want to talk
    about leadership, we are twenty-something in the world in math
    and science. We have got to be the leader there. And I think
    while that is nowhere in NASA's mission statement from the
    National Space Act, I do not think, it is incredibly critical
    that we play a role in that. I just think we need to look at
    Lori's comments in context.
        Mr. Mollohan. Excuse me just one minute, would the
    gentleman suspend for a minute? We have six minutes to finish
    this vote, which means we have some more minutes. I plan to go
    past the voting time. And we have three members, including Mr.
    Honda who is now questioning, and then any second rounds. If we
    cannot finish before, which is perfectly fine, I intend, if the
    Administrator is able, to return after the vote for further
    questions. I just wanted to let the members know that.

                                NASA'S MISSIONS

        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the
    continued comments regarding science. Because I, you know, one
    of the things that would, we could think about reestablishing
    is a independent office, like the old Office of Biological and
    Physical Research. But I think in the last few years that I
    have been here we have been trying to keep the A and the S in
    NASA, you know aeronautics and space. So I think after the
    shuttle disaster things got a little bit disarrayed and
    confused. And then I think that the way NASA was being
    administered in terms of its mission, its budget, and
    everything else like that, it seemed like we sort of tried to
    find out why. I think that it caused a lot of confusion. We
    lost a lot of good scientists and good contractors on that way.
        It feels like the administration, it feels like the
    administration is trying to refocus and capture what we have,
    what we inherited. And it seems like the piece that the
    Constellation, that is left over from the Constellation is that
    piece of the heavy lift portion. And I heard you say that you
    did not cancel any contracts, you just said, ``Let us stop and
    figure out where we are going to go from here.'' And it feels
    like that, that might be part of the piece that the Augustine
    Commission was looking at when they said that you all ought to
    look at some of the different options we put out there. And
    some of them are, I guess it was suggesting a flexible plan so
    that you have options and in using some of the different
    options you might be able to catch up and recapture the lead in
    the space exploration.
        You stated very clearly that the vision was not necessarily
    staying at the Moon but going to Mars. And in order to do that
    we have to probably bring back the issues around human biology
    in space and the other things that were cut out. And a lot of
    things were cut out, I think, to support the old Constellation
    program. And I think we lost a lot of pieces in there. And I
    think, it feels like you are trying to look at how do we piece
    it back together so that we have a coherent program so that we
    can move forward? Would you like to comment on that?
        General Bolden. I would be happy to comment on that. NASA
    can walk and chew gum, and we can keep many balls in the air.
    As you said, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
    the aeronautics have suffered. Through no fault of any of my
    predecessors, but we just did not have the funding to support a
    robust aeronautics program. President Obama in the 2011 budget
    proposal is giving us significant amounts of money to rebuild
    our aeronautics program, to put money into colleges and
    universities so that we can get researchers who will want to do
    research in aeronautics and basic science in any number of
    things.
        We talk about inspiring kids, and Congressman Wolf have
    talked about this a lot because he does it with a school in
    this area. Kids have got to have someone to whom they look up.
    While I agree they will stand in line to get the autograph of
    an astronaut they have never heard of, but they make decisions
    about what areas of study they are going to go into based on
    the professors and what they are doing when they get to
    college. Today in colleges and universities across the country
    we are not putting sufficient money in for research and
    development. President Obama's proposal for 2011 will allow me
    to put money back onto college and university campuses. I think
    professors are going to be doing robust research and
    development that is going to help us do the things that we have
    talked about, help us get a better heavy lift launch vehicle,
    and kids are going to want to be with them.
        Some of them, hopefully some few, will want to be
    astronauts. But most of them are going to decide that they want
    to go to graduate school, and that they want to become a
    professor. That is just not happening today in the fields of
    science and engineering. Most of our students are turning to
    business. Not that it is bad, but we need scientists and
    engineers if we are going to continue to lead the world in
    technology.

                         RETAINING CONTRACTOR EXPERTISE

        Mr. Honda. Just very quickly, given what you said, and I
    think that is the right direction, and the uncertainty that we
    are faced with right now, what is it that we are going to be
    able to do to hold the contractors and the experts that we have
    currently and not lost them because of the uncertainty? What is
    it that we can provide them so that they hang in there until
    things become more clear?
        General Bolden. Congressman, I have a two-headed workforce.
    I have civil servants and then contractors. And it is the
    second head of my workforce, it is the contractors that I am
    concerned about. Because in going away, in phasing out the
    shuttle program, we were going to lose some of those jobs. We
    were trying to find ways to help them transition either into
    another program in NASA or to the civilian workforce in the
    fields of science and technology. We have another challenge now
    in that we have decided that it is best to cancel the
    Constellation program and move on to something that will enable
    us to do the things we want to do much sooner. So it is
    incumbent upon me to work with the contractors and help them
    find ways that we can transition as many members of the
    workforce as possible to our follow on programs. But we will
    not be able to place everyone. So it is incumbent upon me to
    work with them to find transition programs where we can try to
    get them into other jobs in the high technology community.
    Because that is the way the nation has to go, if we are going
    to remain the leader. I pledge to all of them, I meet with the
    CEOs and the leaders of these companies on a regular basis, and
    I have asked them and told them, I want to be a partner with
    them in finding ways that we can find employment for their
    people. That is not going to be easy. But I am not the only
    aspect of American society that is going through that right
    now.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. General, we are going to recess. Are you able
    to stay past 4:00?
        General Bolden. Sir, I am able to stay until you are ready
    to go home. This is my day today.
        Mr. Mollohan. There are several other members that have
    questions. Mr. Wolf may have some more.
        General Bolden. Sir, I can stay as long as you all can
    stay.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
        General Bolden. I can stay longer. I am a Marine.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, we will see.
        General Bolden. Thank you, sir.
        [Recess]

                             HEAVY-LIFT TECHNOLOGY

        Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will resume. I am going to ask a
    few questions before we get some other members back. General,
    you had some questions with regard to heavy lift. Let me ask,
    what are the challenges in heavy lift technology, and to what
    extent are the technology requirements dependent upon the
    ultimate mission?
        General Bolden. Sir, the principal challenge in any launch
    vehicle is mass. My exploration systems associate administrator
    has shown me a chart that he has that shows you historically as
    we have progressed in space exploration we have been able to
    get the mass of the vehicles down. So that is one of them. That
    may be just in the material that we use to construct the
    rocket. We now have something called ``friction stir weld.'' It
    is a means by which we put components together that makes them
    much stronger, but it is much less weight than in the old
    method where you applied molten metal to a joint. Friction stir
    weld just takes two pieces of material together and it uses
    pressure and heat, and it bonds the material from its own
    composition instead of adding something to it. So they tend to
    be much lighter weight. We use it quite a bit now in the
    external tank and in some of the other, and it was actually
    developed for the dome of one of the Constellation modules, but
    that is just a technique that came about from Constellation.
        So propulsion is the big challenge. And I was having a
    discussion over here, whereas I am not, to be quite honest I am
    not real confident that we are going to find any revolutionary
    type of propulsion to leave the planet. You can take much less
    weight with you if you are able to develop propulsion systems
    that can be refueled on orbit, or if you go to Mars, you can
    dramatically reduce the amount of weight you have to take to
    the planet if you have a way to get in situ material, material
    that is there, like methane. So, if you develop a LOX-methane
    engine that can be refueled on the Martian surface because you
    have developed a method to take methane from the planet, then
    you reduce the amount of weight required for a heavy-lift
    launch vehicle.
        Mr. Mollohan. Which speaks to the last half of my
    questions. The rocket is the substantial part depending upon
    the mission, and the design of it?
        General Bolden. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Schiff.

                    CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CANCELLATION COSTS

        Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
    here, Mr. Administrator. You have a very tough job. And in many
    respects I think the job your predecessors had was easier
    because we had the vision, we did not have the resources, but
    we were content to suspend belief. But we have to come to grips
    with the financial realities.
        There are three things I would like to ask you about. One
    is, I know one of your colleagues testified, the President's
    Science Advisor, that he was not sure what the cost would be of
    canceling Constellation. That it was a very substantial sum,
    the attorneys were still trying to figure that out. Are the
    contracts written in such a way that the taxpayers can get, if
    there is a major change of direction like this, taxpayers can
    get their money's worth in the sense that the contractors can
    be redirected to do the R and D, or other work, that will be
    useful in building the program and the launch capability, even
    if it is not building Constellation? Doing the R and D? Do we
    have the flexibility to do that so that we are not just paying
    liquidated damages?
        General Bolden. Congressman, that is one of the things that
    I have asked each of the tiger teams or the teams that are
    looking into the Constellation program. One of the things that
    we do want to determine is, are there contracts either in
    existence or contracts that we were considering that can be
    transitioned to a new program so that you do not go through
    termination liability, you do not go through a lot of the other
    things that, where you incur cost because you are completely
    doing away with a program. We are not there yet. I wish I could
    tell you today that we have answers in all these regards. But
    that is one of the things that we are looking at. How can we
    take advantage of what we have in Constellation that we may
    want to use as a part of another system? And just transition
    that over to the other system? There are methods to do it, but
    I would really mislead you if I tried to describe them because
    I am neither informed nor educated on them.

                        ARES V AND HEAVY-LIFT CAPABILITY

        Mr. Schiff. Well I would think that it would have three
    benefits. The first is making good use of the taxpayer dollars,
    not just paying damages. The second is you maintain a lot of
    those jobs. And then the third is that you maintain the skilled
    workforce. So I would hope that we would maximize the degree to
    which we do not pay damages but rather put the contractors to
    work in a new direction, if that is the course we head in.
        What kind of a budget would you have needed to have to go
    forward with let us say the Ares V, to go forward with the
    heavy lift capability? And let me give you the context of my
    question, which is it would be, I am sure, very advantageous to
    the Defense Department, to our intelligence agencies, to have
    access to our satellites. If we have a malfunction in a
    satellite, or we have aging components in a satellite, it would
    be of a great, you know, probably ascertainable value to DOD
    and intel to be able to say, ``Okay, we have the proprietary
    capability to get to that satellite to make repairs.'' And we
    could probably project that into the distance, however long it
    would take us to develop that capability. So to the degree
    that, you know, we may not be able to redirect the workforce
    that is working on Constellation, and have to pay damages, if
    you take that sum and you invest it in a proprietary
    capability, let us say an Ares V kind of capability, if you
    take a DOD investment, or an intel investment, and what it
    would save them from seeing satellites that malfunctioned or
    aged out, and have the capability to be repaired, does that get
    you close to the budget that you would need to go forward with
    the proprietary capability? And how much time does that shave
    off of the current plan that you have developed for heavy lift?
        General Bolden. Congressman, I asked about this because I
    thought it would be much less if we kind of picked and chose.
    Just to do Ares I would be in the neighborhood of $4 billion to
    $4.5 billion a year, on top of the President's budget proposal.
    Say we wanted to do that and do all the science and technology
    development, the aeronautics increase, and everything else. The
    Constellation program in 2011 had it, were it to go on, you are
    probably talking up to $5.9 billion over and above. I cannot
    really say that we would be able to get where we want to go any
    faster, even having spent that amount of, if we were to spend--
    --
        Mr. Schiff. How is that, though? I mean, if we decide that,
    you know, Ares V is the design we want to use, and we just
    start the development of Ares V, how can that possibly take
    longer than doing R ` D on other potential lift technologies,
    settling on a new technology, developing that new technology,
    how could that possibly be quicker than developing Ares V?
        General Bolden. Congressman, I think the biggest thing
    would just be the fact that we would not be able to--let me ask
    a question here because I want to make sure I understand your
    question. You are saying if we decided that we were going to
    put the money into Constellation to develop Ares V, and not add
    any, just take money the way we could find it? If that is the
    question you asked, without putting an additional $5.9 billion
    on top of the program, what we would find would be that we
    would have a heavy-lift launch vehicle with no capability of
    putting people on the surface of the Moon or on Mars or
    anywhere else because we would have expended all the money on
    the vehicle itself. We would find that we are back in this
    conundrum that the Augustine Committee found us, where money
    was really not the only problem. It was a significant problem.
    But it was not the only problem because we had allowed the
    program to deteriorate to the point that if you threw all this
    money down here, it was not that we had things waiting to be
    built.
        For example, one of the procurements that I stopped was a
    study for the Altair, the lander. The Constellation had not
    been allowed to go that far because of the shortage of funds.
    So, we would have found ourselves having to go from scratch to
    do the studies on development, and design and development of a
    lander for them.

                                 EUROPA MISSION

        Mr. Schiff. Let me ask you about one other subject matter
    area. The budget does do a great job of funding Earth science
    missions, and continues funding for current planetary science
    missions. It does not, however, move future planetary science
    into the formulation stage. In particular, the outer planets
    flagship mission to Europa is not moved forward. The budget
    mentions NASA is awaiting the results of the upcoming planetary
    science decadal survey before finalizing the mission, or
    formulating the mission. But this mission was recommended in
    the last decadal. My understanding was that NASA had also
    endorsed Europa, and to be followed at some later time by
    Titan. So why are we kicking this can down the road again? I
    mean, how many decadals do we have to have recommend Europa?
    And if this was ready to begin development, why are we not
    moving forward? Why the delay?
        General Bolden. Congressman, I will have to get back to you
    with the details. But as I think you had discussion with Ed
    Weiler, with my Science Mission Directorate Associate
    Administrator. I went back and talked with him after I
    consulted with you, and I think it is a matter of making it a
    priority of the agency when the decadal comes out, and list it
    where we think it is going to be listed in terms of priorities.
    I think you are familiar with the tier system that they use. I
    do not know why it did not rank high enough in a previous
    decadal, but I will go back and ask the question.
        Mr. Schiff. Well I mean it has always, I mean, it did rank
    very highly in the last decadal. And Mr. Culberson is not
    present at the moment, another big advocate of Europa. But last
    year, and I think the year before, we went through kind of a
    similar permutation. And NASA finally kind of made a decision,
    let us do Europa, let us do Titan next. Now it seems we are
    stepping back from that. And if you could get back to me I
    would like to----
        General Bolden. I will do that.
        Mr. Schiff [continuing]. I would like to see this----
        General Bolden. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Schiff [continuing]. Us move forward with this, and
    not, you know, punt it again, and go through another kind of
    soul searching about it, that it enjoys such support in the
    scientific community.
        General Bolden. Sir, I will get back to you. Because I got
    excited about it after having talked to you and Ed Weiler, and
    again, because I am just a Marine I did not realize that Europa
    had what it has. And that is pretty exciting, as I said to
    somebody.

                                     Europa

        As you noted, NASA takes its priorities for its science missions
    from the National Academy of Science's decadal surveys. These surveys
    involve the broad scientific community and peer review to delineate the
    highest priorities for future missions and research targets for the
    next decade. The Europa-Jupiter System Mission was identified by
    National Academy in the 2003 Planetary Science Decadal Survey as the
    highest priority flagship planetary mission. Because of this, NASA
    recently initiated discussions with the European Space Agency (ESA) to
    significantly increase the potential science return from this mission
    as a possible joint mission. NASA's budget over the past several years
    was fully subscribed by the Planetary Science missions in development,
    and did not afford the initiation of any flagship missions.
        NASA FY 2011 budget request does not include funding for the
    Europa-Jupiter System (EJSM) mission, as NASA is awaiting results of
    the NRC Planetary Science Decadal Survey before setting a budget
    priority and pace for this future Outer Planets mission, vis-a-vis
    other Planetary Science programs. However, funding is included in the
    FY 2011 budget request to continue to invest in technologies to
    mitigate several key mission risks that a Europa mission would
    encounter, such as technologies for radiation-hardened science
    instruments and components necessary to survive the harsh radiation
    environment in which this mission will operate. NASA and ESA have
    cosponsored three instrument workshops, with a fourth and final
    workshop scheduled for July 2010 to help prepare the science community
    to design these radiation-hardened science instruments. NASA will fund
    the conceptual study and preliminary analysis for this mission and
    initiate a two-step instrument selection process, all of which would
    significantly reduce the cost risk for this future mission.
        NASA's ability to move forward with any major Outer Planets mission
    is also dependent on the availability of Pu-238 needed to power this
    mission. Pu-238 has provided power for 26 different missions that NASA
    has flown over the years, most of which would not have been possible
    without the radioisotope power sources that require this particular
    fuel. Both the Department of Energy and NASA requested $15 million in
    their FY 2011 budget request to restart the nation's ability to produce
    this critical isotope.

                       ORBITING CARBON OBSERVATORY (OCO)

        Mr. Schiff. Last item is OCO. I am glad the decision has
    been made to do OCO again. Do you know what the planned launch
    date is for OCO?
        General Bolden. Sir, we are looking at 2012, I think. And I
    will get back, I will make sure that I enter it into the
    record, the official launch. But I, as my memory serves me, I
    was hoping we would be able to turn it around real quickly, but
    I think it is 2012.

                         MARS SCIENCE LABORATORY (MSL)

        Mr. Schiff. And finally, any progress report on MSL, on the
    Mars program?
        General Bolden. Sir, the reports on MSL are all good. You
    are very well aware of the fact that we were in the doldrums a
    couple of months ago because we had problems with titanium,
    which is almost everything on the vehicle. We had problems with
    actuators that we did not know whether they would even last.
    According to what I have been briefed, all of the actuators
    have now been cleared, the titanium has been cleared, and I
    think we are on target for a 2011 launch date for MSL. We even
    have, as you may or may not know, there is always a good side
    to every bad thing that happens to you. The delay has actually
    allowed famed director James Cameron, who is actually a
    scientist of a sort. He has a 3-D camera system that is going
    to allow us to bring down real time images of Mars unheard of
    before. The development of the camera just did not come along
    to make the original launch date, because of the delay they
    have been able to do it, and we can really swap out the camera
    now. So, instead of having two mono cameras we are going to
    have a real 3-D camera.
        Mr. Schiff. I hope you get a cameo out of it. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        General Bolden. And I just got something that says the
    projected launch date of OCO is February of 2013, so I was in
    error.
        Mr. Schiff. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Aderholt.

                       COST ESTIMATE OF ARES I AND ARES V

        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. Thank you for
    your service and as has already been said by several members on
    this Subcommittee you have a fine reputation and everyone
    agrees that you are certainly someone that people hold in very
    high regard. I know sometimes we may disagree with some of the
    things, so you know, do not take any of this personally. It is
    all, we just sometimes have different opinions on some of these
    issues.

                      AUGUSTINE COMMISSION COST ESTIMATES

        There is a strong reason to question the dollar figures
    that were produced by the Augustine Commission. Can you provide
    the Committee the Ares I and the Ares V cost estimate NASA had
    last spring, they had estimated last spring? And also provide
    the Committee with a written, detailed explanation from NASA as
    to how operating Ares I would cost $4 billion a year?
        General Bolden. Sir, I can provide that for the record. I
    will be glad to do that.

                        Ares I and Ares V Cost Estimates

        Ares I operational costs, if the systems were completed, would be
    an estimated $3.6-4B per year, which equates to the estimated annual
    operational costs for two crewed flights to the ISS following
    successful completion of the IOC, currently targeted for March 2015.
    However, this estimate assumes that NASA has received full funding to
    fully complete development of the Ares, Orion and associated support
    elements prior to IOC. (Note: NASA does not currently believe an IOC of
    2015 would be achievable, given the impact of several FY 2010
    appropriations actions, including the FY 2010 Continuing Resolution.)
        NASA recognizes that there is often confusion with regard to
    publicized flight cost estimates associated with the Ares projects,
    largely because those estimates often include different assumptions.
    One key point of confusion, for example, comes from the fact that the
    Ares I and Ares V share significant fixed costs for vendor production
    base and sustaining engineering, since both vehicles would use similar
    solid rocket boosters, upper stage engines and avionics. Therefore,
    there are two ways to consider the cost of an Ares I flight--one, where
    the Ares I fixed costs are lower because it is assumed that certain
    fixed operational costs would be shared with the Ares V, and another,
    where the Ares I fixed costs are higher because the current shared-cost
    scenario is not assumed.
        In general, NASA does not budget by flight, but rather by fixed and
    marginal costs expected on an annual basis. The fixed cost (i.e. prime
    and non-prime support labor, costs of facilities) would be the cost
    that must be incurred whether one rocket or multiple rockets are built.
    In other words, the fixed cost is absorbed by the first annual flight
    and is not counted again that year. The marginal costs, on the other
    hand, are those costs that can be cleanly attributed to the production
    of one unit, and that cost is generally the same, unit by unit. So for
    each subsequent annual flight, NASA adds on only the marginal cost,
    given that the fixed cost has already been absorbed into the first. It
    is important to note, however, that NASA's formula of calculating the
    cost of an Ares I flight (or subsequent annual flights) does not
    include the project costs for the associated support elements, such as
    ground operations, mission operations, EVA and program integration.
    Those costs would be book kept under their respective project lines.
        With regard to the cost per flight, NASA currently estimates that
    both Ares I and Orion account for $69M each in marginal costs for a
    flight unit, thus totaling $138M in marginal costs for each flight
    since each flight would be assumed to have a capsule and a rocket.
    However, the fixed cost per flight would vary based on whether Ares I
    and Ares V shared operational costs were assumed.
        For example, the FY 2010 budget request assumed that Ares I and
    Ares V would share some operational costs--approximately $700M per
    year, which would, in turn, equate to lower fixed costs for the Ares I.
    Therefore, under that scenario--which was provided to Congressman
    Aderholt's staff in November 2009--the total cost for the first flight
    would be $919M ($781M in fixed cost plus $138M in marginal costs) with
    each subsequent flight costing $138M extra in marginal costs, as
    outlined in the chart below:

       ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATIONS FIXED AND MARGINAL COSTS FOR ARES I AND
             ORION WITH ARES I AND ARES V SHARING OPERATIONAL COSTS
                              [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY08
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fixed Costs (Ares I and Orion).............................        * 781
    Marginal Cost for 1st flight...............................          138
                                                                ------------
    Total cost for first flight................................          919
    Marginal Cost for 2nd flight...............................          138
                                                                ------------
    Total cost for 2 flts per year.............................        1,057
    Marginal Cost for 3rd flight...............................          138
                                                                ------------
    Total cost for 3 flts per year.............................        1,195
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Note: This assumes Ares I fixed costs are shared with Ares V. It also
      excludes fixed costs for supporting elements.

        However, if the assumption is that Ares I and Ares V would not
    share operational costs, it is equally true to say that the cost of an
    Ares I flight is nearly
    $1.6B--. Under this scenario, all operational costs would be carried by
    Ares I--which would account for an approximate $700M increase in the
    fixed cost for Ares I. Thus, under this scenario, the total cost for
    the first flight would be $1.461B in fixed cost plus $138M in marginal
    costs, with each subsequent flight costing $138M extra in marginal
    costs, as outlined in the chart below:

       ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATIONS FIXED AND MARGINAL COSTS FOR ARES I AND
             ORION WITH ARES I CARRYING ALL OF THE OPERATIONAL COSTS
                              [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY08
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fixed Costs (Ares I and Orion).............................      * 1,461
    Marginal Cost for 1st flight...............................          138
                                                                ------------
    Total cost for first flight................................        1,599
    Marginal Cost for 2nd flight...............................          138
                                                                ------------
    Total cost for 2 flts per year.............................        1,737
    Marginal Cost for 3rd flight...............................          138
                                                                ------------
    Total cost for 3 flts per year.............................        1,875
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Note: This assumes Ares I fixed costs are shared with Ares V. It also
      excludes fixed costs for supporting elements.

        NASA is unsure about the source of the number cited since there are
    similar figures often used, albeit with different assumptions included
    in each. However, judging by the hearing exchange, it seems the
    question derived from a discussion about how much it would cost to keep
    the Ares project running in FY 2011. If that is indeed the question,
    then, in order to understand the cost of the Ares I project, it is
    important to understand the full cost of the Constellation Program.
    Based on the FY 2010 budget request, NASA estimates it would cost $5.4B
    in FY 2011 to continue the full Constellation Program, including Ares I
    and Orion development and testing, and all supporting elements (ground
    processing facilities, mission control, program integration etc.) which
    together would lead to an Initial Operational Capability for two crewed
    flights to the International Space Station per year. Of the $5.4B
    figure, the Ares I project was estimated to cost $2.1B, with Orion
    costing $1.8B, and other Constellation supporting elements equating to
    about $1.5B.
        The FY 2011 budget request transitions away from the Constellation
    Program. Therefore, under this assumption, if NASA were required to
    continue only the Ares I project, the cost to do so would be about $4-
    4.5B in FY 2011--which would pay for the project elements and also
    include the full cost of all supporting elements outlined in the FY
    2010 budget request, such as ground processing facilities, mission
    control, program integration etc. Without these supporting elements,
    the Ares I could not fly. This scenario also assumes that Orion would
    be cancelled, so close-out costs for Orion were factored into this
    estimate. (Note: Without an Orion, this scenario would not provide an
    IOC capability.) Additionally, it is important to remember that under
    the FY 2010 budget request and its five-year runout, the Constellation
    Program as a whole was expected to begin ramping up work in FY 2011,
    and in doing so, was expected to also begin assuming additional Shuttle
    infrastructure and workforce costs in addition to increased development
    costs, currently estimated to be $600-700M. Therefore, those costs are
    factored into the continuation cost estimate.

        Mr. Aderholt. And the reason I mention that was because
    the, you know, my staff was given the numbers of Ares I, the
    operation cost at $1.3 billion.
        General Bolden. That is per flight.
        Mr. Aderholt. Okay. So you are saying----
        General Bolden. I do know that, I do know that the $1.3
    billion, $1.6 billion, and when I talk about things that
    shocked me, because, I wanted to use an Ares type vehicle as a
    test vehicle. And when I asked the question how much would it
    cost me to fly, not an Ares I but that kind of vehicle, then
    the number given me at the time was $1.6 billion per flight. It
    seems like an extreme number to me, and I am still looking. So
    I will be glad to provide you with the information for the
    basis for that number.
        Mr. Aderholt. Well the reason I say that is because this is
    the response from NASA and it says total cost for three flights
    in a year is $1.1 billion.
        General Bolden. I will go back and double check my numbers,
    and then get back to you for the record, sir.

                               ANTIDEFICIENCY ACT

        Mr. Aderholt. If you could, yeah, give us some explanation
    on that. Because there is some difference, a big difference in
    the amount of money that is in there. It is, it has been
    rumored that NASA is about the send the prime contractors of
    the Constellation program letters which remind them of the
    Antideficiency Act, and telling them that NASA is under no
    obligation to cover termination costs beyond appropriated
    funds. I just wanted to, is that correct? Or----
        General Bolden. Congressman, I think most of the
    contractors are fully aware of what is in their contract. They
    realize that they are obligated by their contract to reserve
    funds that would be needed for termination liability. One of
    the things that I have asked be done is that we go out and get
    estimates from the contractors as to what their estimate on
    termination liability will be. And then that will determine
    what type of action that we take. I do not think we have seen
    more than a couple of the contractors that have said they have
    a significant problem. And in that case, it may be necessary
    for us to have the contracting officers talk with them about
    their obligation under the contract as opposed to ours.
        Mr. Aderholt. So you are saying there is no, no letter is
    about to go out like that?
        General Bolden. There probably are letters going out to
    some of the contractors who say that they thought it was our
    responsibility. There probably are.
        Mr. Aderholt. Was this the direction of OMB?
        General Bolden. No, sir, that was my direction, because
    under the Antideficiency Act, I hope I am wrong, but I am
    legally liable if I allow a company to spend more than I have
    to pay them, I go to jail. So, I am very serious about wanting
    to be around for my three granddaughters. So on advice of
    counsel, it was felt that we should at least remind people of
    what is in their contract. And you would think that that would
    not be necessary. But in some cases, it may be necessary.
        Mr. Aderholt. Certainly I can appreciate the going to jail
    aspect of that. So what do you think the contractors will do in
    response?
        General Bolden. Sir, I don't even want to conjecture on
    that. But, I hope that they will take it as, responsible
    direction.
        Mr. Aderholt. Is there similar letters that are going out
    to contractors about the shuttle program?
        General Bolden. To my knowledge, we have no letters that
    are going to any of the shuttle contractors, because as I
    mentioned before, we have a very well developed transition plan
    for shuttle that covers termination costs and everything. That
    is pretty well known.
        So I will get back to you if I find that I am incorrect.
    But I think shuttle is in pretty good shape in terms of
    termination.

                             Termination Liability

        Termination liability letters are not being sent to Space Shuttle
    Program contractors. The Shuttle contracts are not being terminated--
    they are being concluded as the fleet flies out the remaining manifest.
    Plans for the safe fly-out and retirement of the Space Shuttle have
    been underway for several years, and were initially developed in 2004.
    Space Shuttle contractors have, therefore, had sufficient time to plan
    for contract closeout activities.

        Mr. Aderholt. Okay. If you could get back on it, it would
    be great.
        General Bolden. And it is not--I don't even know if it is
    termination. I will get back to you, because I don't think it
    is termination in the case of shuttle. That was an orderly
    phase out from 2004 to 2010 agreed upon by everyone.
        So I will get back to you to make sure that I am not giving
    you misinformation. But, I am certain that is not a termination
    activity, so we don't run into the same problem.

                        ANTIDEFICIENCY ACT PROSECUTIONS

        Mr. Aderholt. The Antideficiency Act in itself, predecessor
    statutes have been in existence for about 120 years, do you
    know how many people have been prosecuted under it?
        General Bolden. Sir, I do not. But I was told that there
    have been some. And that if I did not want to be among the few,
    then I should take it seriously. I can find out for you, sir.
    And I will make----

                               Antideficiency Act

        NASA does not have specific information as to prosecutions under
    the Antideficiency Act. NASA is required to and intends to comply with
    all laws, including the referenced provision of the FY 2010
    Appropriations Act.

        Mr. Aderholt. We were told that there is none that have
    been----
        General Bolden. Under Antideficiency Act?
        Mr. Aderholt. That is what we have been told. Now, again,
    we will--maybe you need to check the record on that. That is
    according to a book, The Antideficiency Act Answer Book that
    was published back in 2009, that--a book by William G. Arnold.
    But, again, we----
        General Bolden. If that is the case, there are two of us I
    know in NASA who would be--although as Congressman Wolf
    mentioned, we could be the first. But Doug Cooke, my
    Exploration Systems Mission Director, and me, we would be very
    relieved to find that nobody uses that Act. I am told that it
    has been around.
        Mr. Aderholt. Well, we will certainly need to verify that.
    Of course, like I said, this is--this was something that was
    written. And, of course, as you know anything that always is
    published is not always true.
        General Bolden. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Aderholt. Congress has not specifically told NASA not
    to terminate those programs. And yet in the case of
    Constellation you can hardly be blamed for the Antideficiency
    Act's actions since Congress has specifically told you not to
    terminate these programs.

                  CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS

        The rumor was that the head of contracting at NASA was in
    the process of explicitly inserting a clause in the
    Constellation contract to advise the contractors that NASA
    would cover termination costs but was told to stop last fall.
    Is there any validity to that?
        General Bolden. Sir, I will have to get back to you on
    that. I do not know the answer.
        Mr. Aderholt. But you could check that and let me know?
        General Bolden. I can find out.
        Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
        General Bolden. And so I make sure that I understand the
    question, did the contract manager--did the COTaR issue a
    letter advising them----
        Mr. Aderholt. Explicitly, yes, sir, in a clause in the
    Constellation contracts by the contractors that NASA would
    cover contract termination costs but was told to stop.
        General Bolden. I will get back and get that information
    for the record.

                       Constellation--Antideficiency Act

        That is not correct. There was no direction to stop processing this
    clause in the fall of 2009. In fact, this clause was inserted in the
    Boeing Avionics and Upper Stage contracts on January 21, 2010, and
    January 25, 2010, respectively. Upon learning that the President's
    proposed FY 2011 budget request on February 1, 2010, proposes to cancel
    the Constellation Program, the Head of Procurement at NASA determined
    that NASA would not pursue adding this clause to other NASA contracts.
        The activity that was ongoing relative to a termination liability
    clause during this time period was the investigation by NASA personnel
    as to whether to incorporate into NASA procurement regulations a
    special termination liability cost clause similar to the one utilized
    by the Department of Defense. These types of special termination
    liability cost clauses generally delineate that potential termination
    liability costs will not be funded on the contract; the identification
    of funds to cover potential termination costs; and the maximum amount
    of termination liability under the contract. Incorporation of such a
    clause into NASA procurement regulations is not imminent.

                                  ARES V COST

        Mr. Aderholt. Okay. We have heard a lot about inflated
    numbers, about how much it will cost to complete the
    Constellation Program, including the heavy lift of Ares V,
    which I mentioned.
        My understanding is that NASA's estimate in the spring of
    last year for developing Ares V was about--that by 2020 through
    the first part of Ares V, the cost of development plus
    production costs, would be $16.5 billion.
        If Ares I is not completed, which means we could not
    benefit from the way the two programs were designed to use some
    of the same technology, then the fact would result in a cost of
    Ares V of about $27 billion.
        Our staff were told last Friday by the CFO that the cost of
    developing a heavy lift rocket would be $30 to $50 billion.
    What engineering data would you--have you obtained since the
    spring of 2009, which leads to the incredibly inflated figure
    of $50 billion?
        General Bolden. Congressman, I will have to get back to you
    for entry into the record. I was not aware of that figure.

                             Heavy-lift Capability

        NASA has not established a formal cost estimate for Ares V, nor has
    NASA established a formal cost estimate for a similar heavy-lift
    capability. Additionally, no additional engineering data has been
    obtained to influence these cost estimates. However, the Agency has
    developed rough, preliminary estimates for Ares V costs--estimates that
    vary based depending on which assumptions (i.e. schedule, budget year,
    shared costs etc.) are included in an estimate. Therefore, comparing
    one cost estimate against another can lead to a misunderstanding if the
    assumptions are not standardized or fully understood.
        With regard to the $30-50B figure cited by NASA's Chief Financial
    Officer, NASA would like to clarify that those numbers are most closely
    related to the Ares V project and are rough cost estimates, based on
    varying assumptions. Based on preliminary Agency estimates, NASA
    anticipates that the Ares V project costs, through 2020, including
    development and early production, would be $27B--similar to the $30B
    ballpark figure cited at hearing. The $50B estimate cited is comparable
    to Ares V costs, including development and early production through
    2025--again, if Ares I were cancelled. However, none of the
    aforementioned estimates include any of the supporting elements
    required for launch, such as ground facilities, mission control, and
    program integration, or any payload. Those costs would be additional.
    (Note: Ares I and V share substantial development and fixed costs such
    as shared hardware, which must be considered in any estimate for one
    vehicle without the other. Therefore, if Ares I were continued, Ares V
    project costs through 2020, including development and early production
    would be around $16.5B.
        With regard to cost estimates for heavy-lift, it is difficult to
    provide an accurate estimate given that this estimate would depend on
    type of vehicle chosen and its capabilities, among many other things.
    Such an estimate also would depend greatly on the phasing of funds
    available. However, NASA believes that cost savings could be realized
    by developing a heavy-lift vehicle that could be used by multiple users
    (EELV, commercial, other Government agencies.) As such, multiple users
    of the same vehicle would likely lower the overall lifecycle cost
    through higher production rates.

        Mr. Aderholt. Okay. That is all I have for right now.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Fattah.

                              NASA BUDGET INCREASE

        Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Bolden, I am very pleased to have you before
    the Committee, and your extraordinary record of achievement,
    and leadership now of one of the finest agencies in the
    government. I think that NASA brings a great deal of
    inspiration to Americans because of the work that is being done
    and that has been done.
        I just want to walk through a couple of things. You know,
    we have a major deficit in the government now and a national
    debt that is growing. There is a lot of discussions about cuts
    in programs.
        But in terms of NASA, it is true for the record, that this
    is an increase. This request is an increase in your budget. Is
    that accurate?
        General Bolden. That's correct, sir.

                                  ASTROPHYSICS

        Mr. Fattah. Now one of the areas that I have some interest
    in is in astrophysics, your observatory program, because it
    really I think is kind of like at the vanguard of creating the
    dynamics under which further exploration, even human
    exploration, could go forward under.
        So you have a request for over the allowance in
    astrophysics. Is that for your existing 14 observatories and
    what else?
        General Bolden. Sir, I will get back to you for the record
    with what the funds are specifically identified for.
        Mr. Fattah. Okay.
        General Bolden. There is a number of different projects and
    programs. And I will get that to you for the record.

                                  Astrophysics

        In Astrophysics, NASA is discovering how the universe works,
    exploring how the universe began and developed into its present form,
    and searching for Earth-like planets. The Agency's Astrophysics Theme
    has an integrated strategy, supported by the 14 operating missions
    noted, plus a robust research program, and 10 flight projects in
    various stages of planning and development.
        The overall increase in the FY 2011 NASA budget request for
    Astrophysics (as compared to the FY 2010 request) is due primarily to
    the selection of the Gravity and Extreme Magnetism (GEMS) Explorer
    mission, funded with a transfer from the Heliophysics budget to the
    Astrophysics budget. The Explorer Program is shared by the Heliophysics
    and Astrophysics Themes, and the Heliophysics Theme transfers budget to
    the Astrophysics Division when an Astrophysics Explorer mission is
    selected. The FY 2011 and FY 2010 budget request and runout for
    Astrophysics is below.

                                                  [Dollars in millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 FY 11      FY 12      FY 13      FY 14      FY 15
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FY 2011 NASA Budget Request..............................    1,076.3    1,109.3    1,149.1    1,158.7    1,131.6
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  [Dollars in millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 FY 10      FY 11      FY 12      FY 13      FY 14
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FY 2010 NASA Budget Request..............................    1,120.9    1,074.1    1,042.7    1,126.3    1,139.6
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The FY 2011 budget request for Science includes $1,076.3M for
    Astrophysics. The golden age of Astrophysics from space continues, with
    14 observatories in operation. Astrophysics research, technology
    investments, and missions aim to understand how the universe works, how
    galaxies, stars and planets originated and developed over cosmic time,
    and whether Earth-like planets--and possibly life--exist elsewhere in
    the cosmos. The NASA Kepler telescope has discovered five exoplanets,
    ranging in size from Neptune to larger than Jupiter, demonstrating that
    the telescope is functioning as intended; additional discoveries are
    anticipated in the coming months and years. NASA's newest space
    observatory, WISE (Wide-Field Infrared Explorer), has captured its
    first look at the starry sky and its sky survey in infrared light has
    begun. Radio astronomers have uncovered 17 millisecond pulsars in our
    galaxy by studying unknown high-energy sources detected by the Fermi
    Gamma-ray Space Telescope.
        The Hubble Space Telescope is operating at its peak performance
    thanks to the very successful servicing mission last year by the STS-
    125 crew. The Herschel and Planck missions, led by the European Space
    Agency with NASA as a partner, were launched in 2009 and are returning
    remarkable scientific results. In FY 2011, NASA will complete most of
    the development of the NuSTAR mission and prepare it for launch. NASA
    will also begin developing the Gravity and Extreme Magnetism (GEMS)
    mission recently selected in the Explorer small satellite program. The
    James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) continues to make good progress in
    development toward a 2014 launch. Flight hardware for the many JWST
    subsystems is being designed, manufactured and tested, including the 18
    segments of its 6.5-meter primary mirror; and the mission-level
    Critical Design Review for JWST will occur this spring. The SOFIA
    airborne observatory successfully conducted its first open-door flight
    test in December 2009--a major milestone toward the beginning of early
    science operations this year.
        The NRC is conducting a new Decadal Survey in astronomy and
    astrophysics, which will set priorities among future mission concepts
    across the full spectrum of Astrophysics, including dark energy,
    gravity wave, and planet-finding missions. The ``Astro2010'' Decadal
    Survey is expected by September.

                        MIDDLE SCHOOL EDUCATION EFFORTS

        Mr. Fattah. Okay. And I also want to commend you for the
    requests related to the education efforts in middle school and
    the budget is $445 million.
        The Chairman has been quite supportive of NASA. And the
    Subcommittee always follows his lead. So I am sure that you
    will have, after a detailed examination, a very favorable
    consideration for your request.

                                  SPACE SUMMIT

        And I want to thank you for your great leadership. Now the
    President is coming to host a summit of sorts, a space
    exploration process. Is there anything you can tell the
    Committee about what is expected?
        General Bolden. Sir, it is still in the works. It is in the
    early stage of planning. It is intended to be a space
    conference to be held in Florida where the President and
    members of Congress will participate.
        The primary purpose for the President, is to allow him to
    provide his vision to the nation and the world actually. Also
    to allow him to have an opportunity, which he has not so far,
    to at least see some of the facilities at the Kennedy Space
    Center and hopefully talk to some of the workers and the like.
        Mr. Fattah. Has there been an occasion on which this has
    happened in the past to your knowledge that----
        General Bolden. There have been visits to the Kennedy Space
    Center----
        Mr. Fattah. Walk-throughs, right?
        General Bolden [continuing]. By past Presidents. I don't
    know that there has ever been a President who has taken the
    opportunity to travel there to have a conference on space. I
    know there has never been a President who has had the challenge
    of trying to promote exploration and human space flight at a
    time that is more challenging fiscally.
        Mr. Fattah. Well the fiscal challenge is obvious. And that
    is why the Administration really ought to be commended inasmuch
    as making a submission that would call for an increase in
    exploration.
        So I want to commend you, and OMB, and the Administration
    for seeing the importance of exploration. And, again, I am
    interested in the details on the astrophysics program.
        General Bolden. Yes, sir. I will get that for you and get
    it to you personally. And then make it an entry for the record.
        Mr. Fattah. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
        Mr. Wolf, do you have any questions?

                              HEAVY-LIFT CONTRACT

        Mr. Wolf. I do, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        When do you see NASA issuing a contract for heavy-lift
    system?
        General Bolden. Congressman, I don't have a date, because I
    have a heavy lift launch vehicle team that is looking at the
    path that we should take to get there. I can tell you that we
    are probably years away from identifying a specific
    architecture, because the architecture on which we settle will
    be greatly dependent upon what we learn from the technology
    development efforts that we are going to do using the
    International Space Station, using other vehicles, and using
    some of our research. So the architecture itself won't be
    defined until we find out what capabilities or what
    technological capabilities we have today, which are different
    from what we had when the Constellation Program was originally
    envisioned.

                  SHUTTLE WORKFORCE TRANSITION STRATEGY REPORT

        Mr. Wolf. Fiscal year 2008 Appropriation Bill requires NASA
    to issue a report on shuttle workforce loss every six months.
    NASA has not updated this report for nearly a year. When will
    that be updated?
        General Bolden. Sir, we are going to actually provide a
    preliminary report this coming May that will not be the full
    workforce report as required. We hope to have that one
    completed by August.
        And, again, I must take the blame, because that particular
    report, as you all asked for, is supposed to give a detailed
    estimate in terms of numbers of people and the like and how we
    plan to transition them.
        When I came in to my position, things were in flux, and we
    just did not feel that we had enough facts about where the
    workforce was going to be down the road given the questions
    about NASA's direction. That is why we did not provide one
    recently. But hopefully it will be available in August.
        Mr. Wolf. I don't think there is a criminal penalty for
    that one I don't think. But the Chairman's done a lot of good
    work on prison reform. Well, if you could, I think it is
    important.
        General Bolden. If there had been a criminal penalty for
    that, I probably would have had to suffer the penalty, because
    I just did not have the information to adequately put together
    the report, and we are working diligently to try to do that in
    August.
        Mr. Wolf. How long has it been since there has been a
    report? When was the last report?
        General Bolden. I think the last one, when I looked a
    couple of days ago, I will get back to you for sure. But it
    was--we did one in 2009 I think. I will look and try to find
    it.

                                PRIMACY IN SPOKE

        And, sir, may I offer an apology to you. It has bothered
    me. When I responded to your question on China in the moment,
    it does make a difference to me who is first. And I think in my
    exuberance I said something that I didn't mean. You know, it is
    important that we be first all the time. I am extremely
    competitive. And so I apologize to you for making what was a
    flip statement to be quite honest.
        Mr. Wolf. Well let me ask unanimous consent that your
    apology be taken and you go back and we take out what was said
    the first time, Mr. Chairman, if we can.
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, sir.
        Mr. Wolf. Yes, I think we should do that.
        General Bolden. I appreciate that. But I should have
    spoken----
        Mr. Wolf. Sure. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that
    the first comment be taken out. And you give me your position
    for the record. You submit it for the record.

                        Moon--United States Versus China

        The United States is and should be proud of being the first and
    only nation to land a human on the Moon and should we choose to go to
    the Moon on a priority basis, because of where we are technologically
    in comparison to China, I think that the United States would get back
    there first. However, the President's vision for space exploration
    enables a set of stepping stones that I believe will take us further
    and faster into space, allowing us to reach a range of destinations
    including lunar orbit, Lagrange points, near-Earth asteroids, the moons
    of Mars and eventually Mars itself.

        Mr. Mollohan. We will look at that carefully and excise it
    as appropriate.

                        CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CONTINUITY

        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If part or all the
    Constellation Program ends up being restored by Congress, can
    we be assured that the actions you are taking this year will
    not unnecessarily hamper or delay the continuity of the
    program?
        Mr. Mollohan. Pardon me for yielding. I have a 5:15
    meeting, which I have to attend. Mr. Wolf, I would like to
    extend my appreciation for the General testifying here today,
    for his hard work and that of all his employees. And we look
    forward to working with you.
        I will leave you to the tender mercies of Mr. Wolf. And I
    will yield the Chair to my good friend and colleague Mr.
    Fattah. Thank you very much for your testimony today. Mr. Wolf,
    thank you for yielding.
        Mr. Wolf. To repeat, if part or all the Constellation
    Program ended up being restored by Congress, can we be assured
    that the actions you are taking this year will not
    unnecessarily hamper or delay the continuity of the program?
        General Bolden. Well, sir, I can assure you of that. In
    fact, the only action that we have taken that I mentioned
    earlier in stopping procurement activities that would have
    brought us to a contract competition, those are all procurement
    activities that can be restarted at any time. So there would be
    no break.

                          CONSTELLATION CLOSEOUT COST

        Mr. Wolf. Okay. Your budget describes tiger teams that will
    assess workforce procurement and other closeout issues over the
    coming months. If these issues have not yet been fully
    assessed, what confidence do you have that 2.5 billion is an
    accurate estimate of closeout costs?
        General Bolden. Sir, that is the best estimate that we
    could come up with. And as always, you are hoping that you have
    made a very conservative estimate and that it won't be anywhere
    close to that.
        We looked at past program closeouts and we looked at what
    was in the Constellation Program. There are other factors that
    were taken into consideration that I don't remember. But I can
    get that back to you. But I am hoping that that is a
    conservative number.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay.
        General Bolden. Sir, you asked about the Workforce
    Transition Strategy Report.
        Mr. Wolf. Right.
        General Bolden. The last time we sent one was in July of
    2009.

                            PLUTONIUM-238 PRODUCTION

        Mr. Wolf. July of 2009. I recently talked with Steve
    Squyres, the lead scientist on the Mars Rover Program. He had
    serious concerns about the President's new plan. But also
    raised another area of concern with solar system science and
    exploration. And that is the availability of plutonium-238 to
    power a spacecraft.
        I understand that the fiscal year 2011 budget includes
    funding to restart plutonium-238 production. Can you describe
    the need for this, how much money is in the budget, and whether
    other alternatives exist, and what the plan is for restarting
    the production?
        General Bolden. Sir, we have as recently as this past week
    been involved in discussions with OMB, the Department of
    Energy, on what is the actual future need for plutonium-238. We
    have agreed that we will pay a portion of whatever the cost for
    that production is. We really are just interested in getting
    the production restarted.
        And I think the other question you asked was when would we
    start and how much would we pay.
        Mr. Wolf. Right.
        General Bolden. And those answers I will get for the
    record.

                            Plutonium-238 Production

        NASA has always worked with the Department of Energy (DOE) to
    acquire the plutonium-238 we need to fuel the radioisotope power
    systems that enable many of our most demanding planetary missions. DOE
    and its predecessor agencies have the legislative mandate to ensure the
    national needs for Pu-238 are met and they have been producing
    radioisotope power systems for nearly fifty years. Radioisotope power
    systems uniquely enable missions that require a long-term, unattended
    source of heat and/or supply of electrical power in harsh and remote
    environments. These systems are reliable, maintenance free, and capable
    of producing heat or electricity for decades. The plutonium-238 in
    these units serves as the source for generating heat and electricity.
        In the past, Pu-238 was produced at DOE's Savannah River Site in
    South Carolina, using reactors that are no longer operating. The last
    operating reactor was shut down in 1996. After DOE stopped producing
    Pu-238, DOE made use of its limited, existing Pu-238 inventory to
    supply power systems to user agencies. Beginning in 1992, this
    inventory was augmented by Pu-238 purchased from Russia for peaceful
    applications to fuel power sources that provide heat and electricity
    for NASA missions. However, the agreement to purchase this Russian
    material was recently defaulted upon by the Russian government.
    Although DOE is pursuing a new agreement under new terms with the
    Russians for this material, such an arrangement will always be a risk
    to NASA missions. DOE plans to return to Russia in May 2010 to attempt
    to negotiate a resumption of planned purchases from Russia to continue
    to fill the gap until U.S. domestic production can be restored at a
    rate that will meet our future national needs.
        It is imperative that the funding requested in the President's FY
    2011 budget request for restarting domestic production of Pu-238 be
    approved by Congress. Specifically, $30M is included in the President's
    request, evenly divided with $15M in the DOE's budget request, and $15M
    in NASA's budget request. It is planned that DOE and NASA will share in
    the capital cost of reestablishing a domestic production capability.
    Although NASA is expected to be a primary user of Pu-238 produced in
    the near future, this capability will also be available to support
    future national security applications, if needed. DOE's share in the
    capital costs is consistent with the Department's mission to maintain a
    national capability for a range of potential Federal users.
        In short, a new Pu-238 production capability is required to
    maintain Radioisotope Power Systems as an important national
    capability. Because of dwindling stockpile of existing Pu-238, and the
    long lead-time associated with reestablishing a domestic production
    capability (as much as 6-8 years), DOE is working, in coordination with
    user agencies, to reestablish Pu-238 production at a rate sufficient to
    support both NASA and potentially other missions. Based upon NASA's
    requirements, we believe that a production rate of 1 to 2 kg per year
    is sufficient for the foreseeable future. This rate can be accomplished
    using known technology and similar existing National Laboratory
    capabilities to produce and separate Pu-238.
        This approach minimizes the necessary startup investment, and
    provides the most rapid initial production of Pu-238, which is
    necessary to meet NASA's mission requirements.
        DOE and NASA are preparing a restart plan that will provide
    additional details. We expect to provide that restart plan to the
    Subcommittee in the near future.
        DOE and NASA are also working together to ensure needed purchases
    from Russia are completed to ensure an adequate supply of Pu-238 to
    avoid delaying future NASA missions, including a major Outer Planets
    Mission. This additional plutonium is necessary to retire any mission
    risk due to the schedule of re-establishing U.S. production capability
    in meeting mission requirements. There are no other alternative
    materials or energy sources appropriate for deep space missions other
    than purchasing Pu-238 from Russia or restarting domestic production.
    The potential impact on future missions from delay in restarting
    domestic production is, NASA believes, what Dr. Squyres may have been
    referring to.
        NASA has requested FY 2011 appropriations language that instructs
    NASA to partially fund restart of DOE production infrastructure and
    direct all the necessary NASA to DOE funds transfers. NASA recommends
    that Congress provide this direction in the FY 2011 appropriation and
    has submitted as part of its FY 2011 budget request proposed
    appropriations language that would accomplish this. This inclusion will
    avoid inadvertently creating additional National Environmental
    Protection Act (NEPA) review requirements and/or litigation risk by
    requiring a discretionary NASA funding decision to support this
    project. Formal arrangements to be established under an existing DOE/
    NASA memorandum of understanding (MOU) would also need to be consistent
    with this approach. If approved, NASA will work closely with DOE to
    ensure that the appropriate steps are taken to ensure a timely restart
    of domestic Pu-238 production.

        Mr. Wolf. And whether other alternatives exist.
        General Bolden. Sir, one of the alternatives that we are
    trying to avoid is buying it from Russia.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay. Yes, I would agree with that.
        On education, I congratulate you on identifying education
    as important. Well, let me go back to the Squyres issue too.
    Have you spoken to Steve Squyres since
        General Bolden. Sir, I have not, and I was not aware of his
    concern, but that has not been an issue with us. We understand
    what amount of plutonium-238 is necessary for us, and that we
    have looked at our programs and future projects, and what we
    have stated we need is sufficient for the programs that we have
    on the books. I was surprised that someone feels that we need
    more.
        Mr. Wolf. Yes, he had some serious concerns. I would also
    suggest there are about four, or five, or six people, which I
    am not going to give you. I can give you off the record. But I
    really think it would be helpful for you just to call. I mean,
    you know, everyone has--you know, when I try to make a tough
    decision on something, I try to call people who don't
    necessarily agree with me. But I just want to kind of honestly
    get their best wisdom. The Bible talks about wisdom and the
    judgment of wise men.
        I had a conversation with him. He is someone I think you
    ought to talk to about this and about the overall program. But
    I learned a lot from him.
        I know you are busy. But I think just to have a
    conversation with him on the phone or the next time he is
    Washington. You know, he comes in here periodically. Just to
    sit down and just to get four or five people like that
    together.
        But about the plutonium-238, because he expressed some deep
    concerns.
        General Bolden. Sir, I will go back and review it with my
    directorates, and also talk to Mr. Squyres, and then get back
    to you, because I was not aware. I am not aware of any shortage
    that we anticipate.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay. And we wanted to give you a letter but
    maybe we won't. We will just wait to hear from you.
        General Bolden. Yes, sir.

                                EDUCATION BUDGET

        Mr. Wolf. On the education, I appreciate your identifying
    education as an important priority for NASA. Shortly after you
    came aboard, you came to talk to me about your Summer
    Innovation Initiative. And I think one of the greatest benefits
    of NASA to our society is the inspiration and excitement it
    provides for young people.
        Yet the budget request for education is actually a
    reduction of almost $40 million to 21 percent from the current
    level.
        General Bolden. Sir, in the budget that I received, we had
    a $20 million annual plus-up. You are the second person that
    has said I have a reduction in my budget. I will go back and
    check for the record. But I think someone may have been looking
    at grants from the Department of Education.
        Mr. Wolf. Mr. English said that it went from 180 to 140,
    which was actually a reduction.
        General Bolden. I will go back and double check and then
    get back to you for the record.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay. If we could do that and then let us know.
        Mr. Chairman, I have just one or two other questions. We
    will submit the others.
        Mr. Fattah. Will the gentlemen yield for a second? We have
    an answer on the education budget.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay.
        Mr. Fattah. It is an increase over the request that was
    made from last year. And it is down from what we actually
    appropriated last year.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay. So there are a number of plus-ups.
        Mr. Fattah. No. These are not--they are separate. They made
    a request last year.
        Mr. Wolf. The overall level was plus-up.
        Mr. Fattah. Right.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay.
        General Bolden. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay.
        General Bolden. That is the answer I just----
        Mr. Wolf. Well he is from Philadelphia.
        Mr. Fattah. And so is my Ranking Member.
        Mr. Wolf. Yes.
        Mr. Fattah. And the former Chair of this Committee and also
    a big booster of NASA.

                         BUYING RUSSIAN LAUNCH SERVICES

        Mr. Wolf. After the retirement of the shuttle, you will
    need to buy flights from Russia to deliver the crew to the
    station. Have you secured the necessary agreements with the
    Russians? And to combine the next question, what are the costs,
    and how do the costs compare with those in previous agreements
    with Russia? Do you have an agreement, and what are the costs,
    and how do the costs compare?
        General Bolden. Sir, the existing contract right now I
    think it is $51 million, which includes training and
    transportation. It is a lot of different things. I will have to
    get back to you for the record as to what it was on the
    previous contract.

                            Russian Support to NASA

        NASA purchases comprehensive Soyuz support from Russia, including
    all necessary training and preparation for launch, crew rescue and
    landing for an entire long-duration mission. This support includes
    training and Soyuz seat certification, individual equipment, medical
    checks, supplies, on-orbit consumables, and search and rescue services.
    NASA does not purchase launches or Soyuz spacecraft themselves, but
    rather round trip ``seats'' or crew rotations, which incorporate all
    the associated services outlined above. For the contract extension
    signed between NASA and Roscosmos on April 2, 2010, these services
    amount to an average of $55.8 million for each crew member rotation
    purchased in 2013-2014. For the previous contract extension signed
    between NASA and Roscosmos on May 28, 2009, these services amounted to
    an average of $51M for each crew member rotation purchased.

        The question was not asked. But I feel compelled to say
    that the primary means of getting humans to the International
    Space Station, the expedition crews for a number of years by
    agreement among the international partners has been Soyuz. So
    while it will seem that we are doing something different,
    because we don't have shuttles anymore, we use shuttles to get
    equipment and components, large components back and forth. But
    not as the primary means of getting crew there.
        Before I came, the agreement among the international
    partners was that we would use Soyuz as the primary means to
    get crews there and the primary means to get them back. And
    that is the only rescue vehicle that we have ever had from the
    beginning of the International Space Station Program, because
    back then we as a nation decided that we did not want to follow
    through on the production of a crew rescue vehicle.
        So the international partners again came together and
    decided if the United States is not going to provide it, then
    the next best thing is a Russian Soyuz. So today, two Soyuz,
    well one, because we only have a slight crew there, but
    whenever there is a full crew there, there are two Soyuz
    spacecraft that are there to bring the crews back in the event
    of an emergency.
        Mr. Wolf. What are the costs now? And do you have any
    agreement as to what the costs will be?
        General Bolden. I was saying the cost now is I think $51
    million.
        Mr. Wolf. Fifty one million and do you expect that to
    increase?
        General Bolden. Sir, I do not. In fact, I do not expect it
    to increase significantly. We are in negotiations right now for
    a follow-on contract. If everything works out really well and
    one of the commercial entities that says they can get us to the
    International Space Station by 2013, it would not be necessary
    for me to renew the contract. But at the Heads of Agency
    meeting, the Russians said that they did not foresee a
    significant increase in the cost.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay.
        General Bolden. They talked about it in terms of inflation.

                     COMMERCIAL CARGO AND CREW CAPABILITIES

        Mr. Wolf. Well the last question leads to just really where
    you were. The COTS Program is your attempt to develop and
    procure private sector capabilities, SpaceX and Orbital, to
    resupply the International Space Station.
        The fiscal year 2011 puts an additional $6 billion over
    five years. What is the current status of these efforts? And
    what is the earliest that the commercial cargo and crew
    capabilities to this space station could be operational?
        General Bolden. Congressman, under the current schedule,
    they are planning to take crew to the International Space
    Station by 2015. Both intend to fly their first COTS missions
    from--I think SpaceX is February of 2011 and then Orbital, May
    of 2011. I will add that was just the first round of commercial
    vendors. We are about to enter into another competition where
    we are hoping to increase the number of potential providers of
    commercial transportation. And among those, we expect that
    there will be some of the very well known providers of launch
    services to this date. While it is too early for me to announce
    something for a ULA, the information is that they or their
    partners do intend to bid in the next round.

                         RANKING MEMBER CLOSING REMARKS

        Mr. Wolf. I would end just to say since there is strong
    opposition, I do worry about a series of lobbyists rolling in
    here who, you know, plan on making a lot of money without
    worrying about where we are vis-a-vis the Nation.
        I think it would be helpful to--and I know no one wants to
    back down. No one wants to get into these things. But I did
    work for a Cabinet Secretary. And I think sometimes when you
    have something like this, this is very important. I mean, this
    is one area that we are ahead of everyone else. This is an area
    that has the imagination. I hear the President talking about
    getting young people involved.
        We just had the gentleman yesterday, Neil deGrasse Tyson.
    Have you spoken to him recently?
        General Bolden. Oh, yes, sir.
        Mr. Wolf. How recently have you spoken to him?
        General Bolden. I think the last time was about two weeks
    ago. It was at the last shuttle.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay, yes.
        General Bolden. And he is an incredible human being.
        Mr. Wolf. Yes. And so I think it would be helpful to get a
    group of people like him, and Squyres, and some of the others,
    which we can give you the names, and just bring them in and
    sort of say, you know, where do we go from here? There are some
    good things in there.
        But I really worry at times that--and I know the President
    has got a lot on his mind. He has got other things going on. We
    have a budget deficit. We got a war in Afghanistan. We got a
    war in Iraq. And there are a lot of things going on.
        But I think it would be helpful with the spirit of
    reconciliation, not to use the reconciliation that you are
    talking about in the Congress, but reconciliation from a
    biblical sense, if you will.
        Bring a group of people in and take a day or two to sit
    around and really think about this, because the decisions that
    are made are going to have so many impacts, whether it be with
    foreign nations, whether it be with stimulating that young kid
    at Patterson Elementary that is going to want to know if he
    gets into science. I mean, this is really important.
        And I do worry a little bit about every administration that
    puts something out there. They really almost consider it a
    challenge to them if anyone wants to kind of change anything.
        And I know being a Cabinet Secretary, as you are a Cabinet
    Secretary, your obligation is to advocate for the
    Administration for a proposal. If you don't, then, you know,
    you should leave and let someone else do it. But I think within
    the confines of that.
        So I would encourage you, we will give you some names, to
    pull together some of these people and take a good period to
    see if we can come up with something whereby we resolve a lot
    of the issues, that you understand certainly better than I
    understand, that are out there. And so if you would do that, I
    would----
        General Bolden. I appreciate that recommendation. We will
    do that. I will tell you, the President needs no defense. But
    he is engaged in space policy. I spent a half hour this
    morning, not with him but with the Deputy Chief of Staff,
    because he is engaged. He has promised that we are going to
    find a solution to this problem. He has stated that, or through
    his Deputy Chief of Staff, he has stated that we are going to
    find a way to come together, because it is important for the
    nation. I agree with you, and the President does also.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay.
        General Bolden. I don't think it is a matter of anybody
    backing down. I think it is a matter of us trying to find
    common ground in what is an incredible budget. But what may be
    just differences of opinion that people have. I am confident
    that we are going to find a solution that will be good, because
    no one will be happy.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                       CONGRESSMAN FATTAH CLOSING REMARKS

        Mr. Fattah. Let me thank my colleague who is also from
    Philadelphia. Now we are going to wrap up. And it has been an
    honor to have you present to the Committee. And the Chairman
    made his--made the point that he had an appointment that he had
    to go to.
        But we appreciate your leadership. And I think the country
    will be excited to witness the Space Exploration Meeting that
    the President is coming to lead and to listen. And we are going
    to learn a lot more about the vision. And I think here a host
    of views and the choice points that have to be kind of thought
    through.
        So thank you very much and have a good day.
        General Bolden. Congressman, thank you also very much. I
    appreciate the time you have given us. And I know you didn't
    have to take all this time. But I appreciate it. Thank you.
        Mr. Fattah. Thank you.

                                             Wednesday, March 24, 2010.

            NSF (NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION) FY2011 BUDGET OVERVIEW

                                    WITNESS

    ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR, NSF
        Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order. Good morning.
    Welcome to the Fiscal Year 2011 National Science Foundation
    Budget Overview Hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Justice, and Science.
        Today we will cover the budget and operations of the
    National Science Foundation and the National Science Board and
    also review the status and future needs of U.S. science
    activities other than those in human health.

                           Appreciation of Dr. Bement

        Our witness is the director of the National Science
    Foundation, Dr. Arden Bement. Dr. Bement, I believe this is
    your valedictory appearance before this Subcommittee, and I
    want to begin by thanking you for your service to American
    science and technology and to the people of the United States.
        Dr. Bement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, I think you are leaving NSF well
    staffed with science leaders, you have succeeded in efforts to
    bring forward major cross cutting initiatives, achieving
    cooperation across the different science dictorates, and
    between the education and human resources directorate in the
    science, technology, engineering, and the math programs.
        And on a personal basis it has been a pleasure working with
    you, and I join everybody else who works with you in being
    extremely impressed with you as a scientist and as an
    administrator and as a person, it has been a real pleasure.
        Dr. Bement. And I reciprocate that feeling.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Doctor.

                            DOUBLING THE NSF BUDGET

        Based on considerable evidence, real growth in the U.S.
    economy in excess of population growth, it is primarily the
    result of innovations and new technologies that result from
    public and private investments and research and development.
        Accordingly, we are in the midst of a ten-year doubling and
    funding for NSF contemplated by the America Competes Act. This
    doubling was accelerated by $3 billion added to the fiscal year
    2009 appropriation for the Foundation as part of the American
    Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Those funds have gone to
    increase grant funding across all areas of NSF and to various
    science infrastructure investments.
        The budget request for fiscal year 2011 continues the
    planned doubling with a roughly seven percent increase over the
    2010 enacted levels.

                             STEM EDUCATION REFORM

        In fiscal year 2010 this Subcommittee supported an increase
    to NSF education programs focused on hands on, inquiry-based
    instruction in grades K through 12 and in K through 12 teacher
    preparation.
        Last month we heard testimony from those who work in this
    area, and they provided examples of successful efforts at
    improving science, technology, engineering, and math education.
    Those witnesses offered evidence of the benefits that result
    from federal investments made through NSF.
        NSF has a major role to play in continuing and accelerating
    the reform of science education to include inquiry and student
    assessments of inquiry skills.

                              NSF CLIMATE RESEARCH

        In addition, NSF plays a growing role in climate
    observations and research. Under the Major Research Equipment
    and Facilities Construction Account the request to initiate the
    National Ecological Observatory Network and to provide major
    funding for the Ocean Observatories Initiative should result in
    new understanding of how ecosystems and the oceans influence
    and respond to climate change.
        These research networks, along with the NSF grants for
    critical zone observatories, new research in hydrology, and new
    super computer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research
    have the potential to support climate understanding predictions
    that are both more accurate and finer in spatial resolution.
    These improvements will be needed to assist the private and
    public sectors in choosing climate change adaptation strategies
    and investments.

                           BROAD SUPPORT OF RESEARCH

        NSF is involved in so many exciting areas of research
    including math, genomics, computer science, and engineering. I
    could go on, but this breadth of activity is the unique mission
    of NSF.
        While NSF and the mission agencies support R&D addressing
    changing national priorities, it is NSF's unique responsibility
    to ensure that the U.S. has continuing expertise across all
    areas of science and technology. This provides our Nation with
    the ability to address rapidly new challenges as they arise.
        Given the critical role of science and technology in the
    future prosperity and international leadership of the United
    States, we look forward to hearing from you, Dr. Bement, on the
    state of U.S. science and technology and its future needs and
    prospects.
        Following the opening statement of Ranking Member Wolf, we
    will ask you to provide a summary of your written statement
    which will be included in the hearing record and then we will
    go on the questions from Subcommittee members.
        Dr. Bement. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Wolf.
        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I join the Chairman today and welcome you Doctor to the
    hearing to testify on the budget, and I am pleased to see the
    level of commitment to funding basic science and scientific
    research.

                           Appreciation of Dr. Bement

        And I will just have the Director submit for the record. I
    just want to thank you for your service and to the country, and
    I think it is going to be a loss for our government to see you
    leave, but I am curious to see who they appoint.
        And as we get into talking, since you are never coming back
    here again in the sense that nobody can ever fire you pretty
    much, why don't you really tell us how things really are?
        Dr. Bement. Okay.
        Mr. Wolf. No, no, I mean----
        Dr. Bement. No, I understand.
        Mr. Wolf. You are a father of how many kids?
        Dr. Bement. Eight.
        Mr. Wolf. Eight. And you are a grandfather of how many?
        Dr. Bement. Thirty.
        Mr. Wolf. So you take a different approach to maybe a 28
    year old.
        Dr. Bement. You could have kept going.
        Mr. Wolf. Yeah. And how many great grandchildren?
        Dr. Bement. Nineteen.
        Mr. Wolf. Yeah, so I think you have a perspective. So I
    would hope when the hearing begins, in your testimony you would
    really tell us the truth and just let us know. Because I think
    I really worry that the Nation is ready to come into a period
    of decline.
        I saw Charles Krauthammer's piece about a month and a half
    ago, he said, decline is a choice. As individuals we make a
    choice whether we want to decline, as great nations we make a
    choice.
        And so I would just like to hear you really tell us where
    we are. There is all this research, going on, you have got the
    Board's Foundation, you got this group, you have Arne Duncan
    doing this.
        Really so when you come and tell us, tell us really where
    you think not only as the head of the National Science
    Foundation, but as a father, and a grandfather, and a great
    grandfather somebody who has a perspective from a biblical
    wisdom, if you will, where you think the Nation is and what you
    think we have to do.
        But I join the Chairman too in thanking you for your
    service over the many years. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Bement. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. We are not suggesting that you had never not
    told us the truth though.
        Mr. Wolf. No, but I think--well the reality is though when
    you work in the Administration--I used to work for a cabinet
    secretary who had different views than the White House, and you
    would sit in a meeting and you would know how he felt, then you
    would come up on the testimony and----
        Mr. Mollohan. You wouldn't hear it all?
        Mr. Wolf. It would be different, so I want him to tell us
    the way it really is.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Dr. Bement, we again welcome you and
    invite you to tell it the way it is.
        Dr. Bement. Thank you, Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member
    Wolf, and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here
    with you today.

                        PRESIDENT'S 2011 BUDGET REQUEST

        The essence of the President's 2011 budget request for the
    National Science Foundation is to reaffirm the agency's roots
    as a Nation as well as bring us scientific innovation.
        An assessed 2011 request is $7.4 billion, an increase of
    eight percent over 2010. This keeps us on the road to the
    President's and the America Competes Act goal of doubling NSF's
    budget.
        But as with any budget this request reflects tough choices
    and clear priorities. It recognizes NSF's unique national
    responsibility for supporting basic research, our catalytic
    role in education, and the ongoing need for investments and
    stewardship.
        NSF's research and education agenda is both multifaceted
    and well rounded. It is designed very deliberately to support
    the Administration's plan for making innovation a center piece
    of economic strength and future well being.
        The main driver for this investment is the National
    Innovation Strategy. Nothing speaks more to what NSF is and
    does than the Administration's commitment to fundamental
    research, and that is emphasized throughout the budget.
        You will also see NSF at the forefront of educating the
    next generation of 21st Century knowledge and skills. Let me
    highlight programs that are central to this goal.
        The Advanced Technological Education Program supports new
    and enhanced two year college programs that educate technicians
    for the high-technology workforce. I might say parenthetically
    they also prepare a lot of teachers for STEM education in the
    schools.
        The Graduate Research Fellowship and Faculty Career
    Development Program supports students and early career
    investigators to foster the Nation's next generation of
    scientists and engineers.
        Climate change education addresses learning at all levels
    and is designed to stimulate careers in climate science.
        NSF programs also support next generation information
    technology and secure cyberspace. NSF will support the
    interagency networking and information technology R&D program
    at $1.17 billion.
        Overcoming challenges inherited, today's great scientific
    questions will require a new computer revolution to overcome
    the physical restrictions of today's silicon chip based
    technology.
        NSF's Science and Engineering Beyond Moore's Law is a
    multi-disciplinary research program designed to enhance our
    Nation's economic competitiveness. The program's name refers to
    the proposition that computer processing power based on
    semiconductor integrated circuits doubles about every 18
    months; however, we are rapidly reaching the physical
    limitation of that progress.
        NSF must continue to innovate in tackling the large scale
    scientific and engineering challenges of our age, including
    understanding the Nation's scope of changes in the earth's
    climate.
        NSF contributes multiple resources to support the U.S.
    Global Change Research Program and other interagency
    initiatives that are helping us understand and confront the
    global challenge of a changing climate.
        NSF's contribution to the U.S. Global Change Research
    Program is proposed to increase by 16 percent to $370 million.
        Also in 2011, NSF will spend $766 million on a portfolio of
    activities called Science, Engineering, and Education for
    Sustainability. It will seek integrated approaches to increase
    U.S. energy independence, enhance environmental stewardship,
    and reduce energy use and carbon intensity while generating
    continued economic growth.
        Regaining our Energy, Science, and Engineering Edge, or RE-
    ENERGYSE, is a new $19 million program to help the Nation
    regain its leadership in science and engineering by attracting
    and educating future scientists into the clean energy fields.
        NSF will jointly fund RE-ENERGYSE with the Department of
    Energy to prepare as many as 8,500 highly trained young
    scientists and engineers for clean energy careers by 2015.
        Additionally, RE-ENERGYSE will provide training of
    technicians for clean energy industries.
        NSF's request includes $20 million in its Major Research
    Equipment and Facilities Construction account to begin
    construction of the National Ecological Observatory Network, or
    NEON.
        NEON is a multi-faceted project with a total projected
    budget of $434 million spread out over the next six fiscal
    years.
        NEON will collect data on the effects of climate change,
    changes in land use, and invasive species on natural resources
    and biodiversity.
        NEON will be the first observatory network designed to
    detect and enable forecasting of ecological change on the
    continental scale over multiple decades.
        As with any budget the most important information is the
    message between the numbers. In 2011 that message is the
    Administration's commitment to innovation and economic growth
    through science and engineering.
        The Foundation is pleased to be playing an important role
    in that effect.
        Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Wolf, as this will likely
    be the last time I testify before you before my June 1st
    departure from the Foundation I want to make certain that you
    are aware of how deeply appreciative I am of your support over
    the past nine years as director of NSF.
        And with that I would be happy to answer your questions.
        [The information follows:]

             EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES ACCOUNT FUNDING REQUEST

        Mr. Mollohan. Well over the past nine years several
    chairman, several ranking, Mr. Wolf in both positions and
    myself on both positions, and Mr. Serrano I think was in there
    at a time, Mr. Rogers probably during that time, I know just
    talking with all of them offline they all hold you in such high
    regard, and so it has been easy to support you over nine years.
        Dr. Bement. And I appreciate hearing that.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yeah. And so we thank you for your service
    again.
        Well you suggest that NSF's budget request is eight percent
    above the amount appropriated in 2010, I think that was your
    testimony, and the research and related activities increase.
    What is the research and related activities increase?
        Dr. Bement. It is about eight percent.
        Mr. Mollohan. See we have it at 7.1. I think we have the
    overall at 7.2. I understand the difference in those two
    numbers, but what I am curious about is why the education and
    human resources increase is only 2.2, or that is the way we are
    computing it, but significantly less than the overall increase,
    and the increase for total NASA spending on STEM education is
    by our reckoning 2.3 percent.
        Dr. Bement. I think the primary reason is again the
    importance of the National Science Foundation to the National
    Innovation Strategy. And clearly the budget was skewed to deal
    with economic forces, putting more money into fundamental
    research.
        Again, major programs that encourage high growth and
    innovation enterprise, entrepreneurship. Learning and workforce
    development is an important part of that, and there clearly are
    three principal objectives in the National Innovation Strategy.
        One is to increase the number of graduate research
    fellowships, to provide more support for young investigators,
    especially through career grants, to----
        Mr. Mollohan. So that is all out. So you are explaining to
    me why there is only 2.2 percentage increase in education and
    human resources and only a 2.3 percent for STEM education. Is
    that what you are after?
        Dr. Bement. Well that is not the full story.
        Mr. Mollohan. That is my question.
        Dr. Bement. You are asking a comparative analysis why there
    is more money in R&RA than there is in EHR.
        Mr. Mollohan. Correct.

                    LEVERAGING EDUCATION FUNDING ACROSS NSF

        Dr. Bement. And I am saying that the NIS priority of the
    President, the Administration's priority, skewed more of the
    resources into the R&RA account for the reasons that I
    mentioned.
        On the other hand, I have to say that the EHR account is
    very highly leveraged within the Foundation. For example, the
    total funding for STEM education is $1.225 billion, which is a
    substantial investment. Thirty percent of that investment comes
    from the R&RA account, and those investments deal largely with
    undergraduate education and graduate education, but a
    significant amount also contributes to K to 12 education.
        Now that is a conservative estimate. It doesn't include
    investments that are made by the individual investigators
    themselves through Broader Impacts, and a lot of the innovative
    initiatives in developing instructional materials, and also
    inquiry-based learning, comes out of the research program
    through the Border Impacts account. There is no way to sum that
    up very readily, but it is an additional contribution.
        I could give you other examples. Another factor is that we
    increased the base of several important EHR programs in the
    2010 budget. One example is the ATE Program, the Advanced
    Technological Education Program, which deals with community
    colleges. We increased the base of that program in the 2010
    budget by 23 percent primarily because it was a major priority
    of the Administration.
        By increasing that base in 2010 we also increased the
    fraction of the total funding that would be available for new
    awards. That flexibility carries over into 2011, so we left it
    flat funded in 2011 because we had the additional flexibility.
        So just looking at one year numbers doesn't really indicate
    what the pattern might be over two or three budget cycles.
        Another example is the ARRA funding that went into EHR
    primarily for the Noyce Program and the Math and Science
    Partnership Program. That was $85 million through ARRA funding.
    All that money was put out in standard grants that will be
    spent out over a period of three to five years, let us say an
    average of four years. If you put that against the base for K
    to 12 education, which those two programs support as far as
    teacher training, pre-service and in-service training, that is
    an addition of about eight percent per year to the budget for K
    to 12 education. And then if you add in the R&RA component,
    plus the two and a half percent average for EHR, that brings it
    up close to 10 to 11 percent effective increase in budget.
        We also have to pay attention to sustaining renewals of the
    ARRA funding, so we look at it over several budget cycles to
    determine what will be the impact in 2012, 2013, and so forth.
        So we feel that the 2011 budget for EHR does two things.
    Number one, it hits all the priorities of the Administration in
    graduate research fellowships, in the ATE Program and a couple
    other programs. It also provides funding flexibility for a
    number of programs that are very important for teacher
    education.
        That is what I meant in my opening remarks by saying the
    program is balanced. And it is also very highly leveraged.
        Mr. Mollohan. So this is your work up, this is your
    recommendation to the Administration, the funding increases in
    education, human resources, and the spending on STEM?
        Dr. Bement. Much of the decision making in terms of which
    programs to plus up and which ones to hold constant and the
    impacts of the ARRA funding were decisions that I made.
        Mr. Mollohan. How to manage that amongst those accounts?
        Dr. Bement. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. What about the absolute request number, is
    that your recommendation to OMB or is this a result of push
    back and forth?
        Dr. Bement. Well the early President's plan for 2011 was a
    much smaller number than we ended up with. The EHR component
    stayed pretty much the same as was planned, but the R&RA
    account was actually substantially enriched as a result of the
    National Innovation Strategy. So much more money went into
    research.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. But my question was for these accounts
    that I am asking you about, this human resources and the STEM
    education, did you request more to OMB, and the answer sort of
    suggests you did.
        Dr. Bement. Well that is a pre-decisional question, of
    course.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. So I am looking for a pre-decisional
    answer.
        Dr. Bement. I know I have been in this trap before.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, you know, it is not a trap. You know,
    it is interesting why that should be a secret. And I am not
    sure in this Administration it is, but I guess I will just ask
    that question. Has OMB told you not to answer those questions
    under this Administration?
        Dr. Bement. No, this has been a practice a long time. The
    last time I was, as you recall, stymied by that question was
    during the Bush Administration, the first term.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well then I can understand why you were
    stymied in the Bush Administration. I am asking you has that
    policy changed in this Administration or is it consistent?
        Dr. Bement. Hasn't changed. Hasn't changed.
        Mr. Mollohan. So OMB is directing you not to answer these
    pre-decisional questions as you call them----
        Dr. Bement. That is correct.
        Mr. Mollohan. [continuing]. Before the Appropriation's
    Committee of the United States Congress? So you won't answer
    that?
        Dr. Bement. Obviously as a director of an agency I ask for
    a lot more money than I actually get, so you can draw your own
    conclusions from that.
        You know, it is just like the President's budget. The
    President proposes and the Congress disposes.
        Mr. Mollohan. I have heard that before.
        Dr. Bement. Yes, I am sure you have.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well let me ask you this in a more
    serious vain. When you look at NSF and its role with regard to
    education----
        Dr. Bement. Yes.

        ROLE OF NSF IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATHEMATICS
                                   EDUCATION

        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. STEM education, tell us what is
    the role that you think the National Science Foundation, and it
    is almost at the philosophy level or certainly at the policy
    level, what role do you think the National Science Foundation
    can play, should play, and apply its scarce resources to?
        Dr. Bement. First of all we invest money in research and
    development to develop best practices, but also to innovate . .
    . find innovative ways to not only enhance learning, but also
    to enhance teaching, and to bring learning and teaching
    together.
        We try to focus on quality in education, but again, our
    focus is on math and science education, and as a federal agency
    with limited resources we have to stay focused, and so we
    leverage our resources with the Department of Education which
    deals with states in their formula grants, and we expect that
    once we develop best practice that the Department of Education
    will work with us, as they do, in translating that--or
    transitioning that to broader use across many school districts
    and scaling it up across the country. And that has been the
    essence of our partnership as long as I have been in the
    Foundation.
        Now, I can tell you a story that I think will illuminate
    the point. We run the Teacher's Presidential Award Programs for
    both math and science teachers at both the elementary and
    secondary levels, and every time they come to Washington, I
    would say 100 teachers, I ask them a simple question. I have
    asked this in front of congressmen and congresswomen, and it is
    always a challenge because I never know how they are going to
    answer. I ask them how many of you have been impacted by NSF
    investment in education? And every hand goes up invariably.
        So this time I asked them why we have such an impact
    considering the scale of our program? Their answer was that
    they work in the trenches every day, and in many cases they
    have to struggle within their own social environment within a
    school in terms of what to teach and how to teach and how much
    latitude they will have to teach.
        And almost invariably when that argument ensues if they can
    cite evidence, evidence-based results of something the NSF
    supported or funded and cite that as a case they almost
    invariably win their argument. They appreciate that more than
    anyone can say, even though we don't fund them directly. We
    fund the universities, but the impact does filter down, and so
    that gives me a good feeling. And these are the best of the
    best, these are the cream.
        So hopefully next time when you have one come to town you
    will have a chance to ask that question and see what they say.

                 COLLABORATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

        Mr. Mollohan. I had one visit me this year. I think I do
    every year actually, almost every year.
        With what office or department or person at the Department
    of Education do you interface?
        Dr. Bement. Well we interface at every level. First of all
    at the highest level I think it is Michael Lach in the
    Secretary's office. There is an ongoing dialogue between
    Michael Lach and Dr. Marrett. They meet periodically and they
    meet for the purpose of identifying areas where there can be
    more cooperation.
        We also operate at the division level. We have a close
    working relationship with the Institute of Education Sciences.
    In fact we have two joint programs with them in assessment.
    First of all assessing professional development of math
    teachers, and then assessing professional development in
    science across the board, STEM across the board. But even these
    we are always looking for new opportunities.
        At the program level we have very close working
    relationships. For example, in the Math and Science Partnership
    program we sponsor joint workshops, we meet with state
    officials. We are part of each other's websites. And more than
    that we strategize how to do the transition and also the
    scaling at the state level.
        So today about 60 to 69 percent of the MSP projects that
    are closely linked with state initiatives. These are NSF
    projects that are closely linked with statewide initiatives,
    which is a pretty high fraction.
        So I think that relationship has been effective, it is
    getting better all the time, and the reason for that is that
    Secretary Duncan and many of his associates in the Department
    of Education come from the Chicago school district, and the
    Chicago school district is exemplary because they have used NSF
    funded programs within their various initiatives to improve
    science and mathematics proficiency in the grades from 8th
    grade on up to secondary education.
        We have a very easy way to communicate since we have a lot
    of common ground based on past experience, and so the
    relationship is very close.

                 SCIENCE BOARD SUPPORT FOR THE 2011 NSF REQUEST

        Mr. Mollohan. Well good. Doctor, does the Board agree with
    the relative priorities for funding between STEM research and
    infrastructure and STEM education? Has the National Science
    Board, is it their judgment as to relative priorities for
    funding between----
        Dr. Bement. Well the Board really doesn't differentiate
    much in priorities between research and education because the
    philosophy of the Foundation is to integrate research with
    education, so they have a mutually supportive relationship.
        But I would have to say that in reviewing the budget they
    did review all of the Administration's priorities and they
    approved the budget in its totality before it was submitted to
    the Office of Management and Budget, so they stand behind the
    budget.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Thank you, Doctor.
        Mr. Wolf.

       STATE OF U.S. INVESTMENT IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND
                                  DEVELOPMENT

        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Just looking at this brochure, Key Science and Engineering
    Indicators, on page 14 it shows the location and estimate of
    worldwide R&D has moved from North America and Europe to Asia.
    You said the distribution of R&D expenditures has shifted from
    1996 to 2007, Asia's shares has risen to nearly one-third due
    to mostly by China's rapid R&D. The average annual growth rated
    number researchers you look at that chart B, U.S. is flat, EU,
    flat, Russia down, South Korea dramatically up, Taiwan even
    more, China much more, and Singapore even much more than that.
        With this information and what I asked you at the outset
    and knowing that 50 percent of the money that was allocated
    last year roughly for STEM was accessed, and looking at where
    we are on the math and science scores, where do you think we
    are now as a Nation, vis-a-vis, China manufacturing, education?
        And you know one of the questions you know I am going to
    ask you is on the language that we put in for the study that we
    asked you to do. So where do you think we really on now?
        At one time you had told me that Europe was making an
    effort to bring people back to Europe to work in their
    universities. And so just kind of in a couple minutes tell us
    where you think we really are at this time.
        Dr. Bement. We are going through a period of rapid change
    and we are being challenged in terms of our position in science
    and technology more so than ever before.
        Our world share, even though we are still the dominant
    research performer in the world today, and our universities are
    ranked very highly and are highly regarded, one has to
    recognize that almost every nation in the world recognizes that
    in a knowledge economy, economic growth in prosperity, are to a
    large extent, dependent on investment in education, investment
    in research, and investment in infrastructure. So they have
    been investing very highly.
        In Europe, Germany, and the UK and other countries are
    trying to improve their relative ranking of their universities
    because they don't rank as high as they feel they should. The
    same thing is happening in the Far East.
        For example, KAIST--I was in KAIST just three or four weeks
    ago--KAIST is a Korean Advanced Institute of Science and
    Technology, it is sort of the MIT in South Korea. They have
    come from a position way down to a position where they are now
    ranked 12th in the world in engineering, and there are only
    three institutions in the United States that rank higher than
    they do, Cal-Tech, MIT, and Cal-Berkeley, which indicates where
    they stand relative to a lot of other universities in the U.S.
    as far as international ranking is concerned.
        So the world share of research and development of the U.S.
    has gone down not so much that the absolute numbers have gone
    down, the absolute numbers do continue to go up, it is that
    everyone is investing so much more.
        For example, our investment rate in federal funding has
    been increasing about six percent per year across the board
    roughly. In China it has been increasing 20 percent a year. In
    most of the other Asian nations it has been increasing at least
    ten percent a year. Well those kind of increases over time will
    make a difference.
        And for example, in China data that go back to even 2007
    indicated that the total number of researchers in China equaled
    a number of researchers in the U.S., and I am sure today they
    have more researchers in China than we have in the U.S.
        If you look at advanced technology, we aspire to push
    forward clean renewable energy, nuclear energy, bio derived
    hydrocarbon fuels, and wind energy. Well guess where the
    world's share of the technology, the equipment and the
    facilities and the displays and so forth are going to come
    from? At the rate we are going, we will be buying our nuclear
    reactors from South Korea, we will be buying most of our wind
    generators and photovoltaic panels from China. We are already
    purchasing some bio derived fields from Brazil.
        So that these changes are primarily about national will, it
    is not necessarily changes due to capacity or capability, it is
    national will. They want to be leaders, they want to set the
    standards, they don't want to be dependent on the rest of the
    world for standards, and they are succeeding.
        So that is going back to your earlier question, that is
    what keeps me awake sometimes at night.

                          INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION

        Mr. Wolf. Well then I guess to follow the question would be
    this: If the trend continues where it is now both here in the
    United States and in Asia and other places, what do you foresee
    the circumstances if this same question were asked of the
    director of the National Science Foundation 20 years from now?
    What do you think their answer will be as to where we are? What
    impact do you think this will have?
        Dr. Bement. Well if I could have the luxury of projecting
    myself ahead 20 years and then answer that in retrospect.
        I think the point is, and this is why I put so much
    emphasis on international collaboration. This is the way of the
    world, it is not a ``king of the mountain'' approach anymore,
    it is no longer a matter that the U.S. is going to be dominant
    in all fields of science anymore in the future. We will be
    dominant in some fields, but not every field, not every
    important field.
        So it is imperative that we develop links, we network, we
    have relationships with top scientists throughout the world. We
    have to learn how to collaborate in order to compete. We have
    to know where the frontier is, and the frontier may look
    differently in China and may look differently in France than it
    looks in the U.S. They may be seeing different opportunities.
    If we are not connected, if we are not networked, and we don't
    have frequent exchange, then we are going to get blind sided.
    And blind sided means that we won't have an opportunity to move
    into fast moving markets as a leader. We will be a fast
    follower or maybe even a slow follower, but we will not
    necessarily be the leader.
        So I put a lot of priority in building up our international
    programs and the amount of resources we have for international
    collaboration. We are doing a very good job. We have broadband
    links with almost every region of the world. Some regions are a
    little bit dark, but they will be lighted up in the next five
    years.
        So science is being done on a 24 by 7 basis throughout the
    world, and it is very important that our scientists have an
    opportunity to succeed in some of the fast moving fields that
    may be emerging somewhere else. And 20 years from now in
    retrospect that will be the story.
        Mr. Wolf. Well what do you think it is going to be 20 years
    from now?
        Mr. Bement. Well, you know, that is not just a science and
    technology question, that is a political question for the very
    reason that with information and communication technology the
    world is shrinking faster now than ever before in the past. We
    used to think that international travel was a great
    democratizer or a shrinker of the world. That is no longer the
    case.
        We are going to be interconnected with broadband
    communication where any person in the world will be able to
    talk personally with any one other person in the world before
    too long. We can do it now. In fact, I have international
    meetings under bilateral agreements with teleconferencing now
    on a routine basis, and it works. You don't have to travel, you
    don't lose the time, you don't pay the extra expenses, and you
    get work done.
        We are now entering an era where we can share
    instrumentation like never before. We can have a researcher in
    the United States actually operating a piece of equipment
    somewhere else in the world and getting the data back in real-
    time. They don't have to have their own instrument.
        An example is the ten meter telescope at the South Pole. No
    more remote region of the world than the South Pole. We have a
    telescope there that operates during the austral winter, which
    is summer here, and that is the best viewing season for doing
    astronomical observation. Well that has been automated to an
    extent where a researcher, an astronomer here in the U.S. with
    a laptop can operate the instrument and get the data. They
    don't have to travel all the way to the South Pole. That is
    going to be more prevalent.
        Furthermore, I think top researchers are going to become
    more peripatetic, and they are also going to be virtually
    connected with research groups in several parts of the world.
    They are very much like orchestra conductors. Orchestra
    conductors will conductors a symphony in Washington, the next
    day they will be in London, the next day they may be in Moscow,
    different orchestras.
        I see top scientists doing the same thing with research
    groups in different parts of the world where they will have an
    influence, and that will all be virtually connected. They can
    manage all that in Santa Fe, New Mexico if they wish.

                         CHINA'S POSITION IN THE WORLD

        Mr. Wolf. Well okay. I guess I would comment, you know, I
    agree with a lot of what you say, probably all.
        When I was the chairman of this Committee we reversed the
    decline in the sciences. It keeps me awake. My wife and I we
    have five kids, we have 15 grand kids, and I see things taking
    place and I think I bring a perspective of concern from outside
    to scientific area.
        Norm Augustine came to a group that we had where he made a
    comment that in the 16th Century Spain was number one, and we
    know what happened to Spain. In the 17th Century, it was the
    French century. In the 19th Century it was the British century,
    you know, the sun never set on the British empire, if you will.
    And the 20th Century was the American century. And he made the
    comment that he was concerned that the 21st Century could be
    the Chinese century.
        And I think what troubles me, I get that this institution
    doesn't seem very troubled by it, and the previous
    administration didn't seem very troubled by it and this
    Administration doesn't seem very troubled by it do they? They
    just don't seem to care.
        But if you look at China and their values; the Chinese
    government. I mean the persecution of the Catholic church. I
    used to say there were 34 Catholic bishops in jail, I can't say
    that anymore because some of them were so old they have died.
    But everyone that was in jail was still in jail, the ones that
    are out of jail now have died. Nobody says anything, nobody
    seems to care. That is a value that is not good for the
    country.
        Protestant pastors are being rounded up, thrown in prison.
    That is bad, that is a value. A government can round up
    somebody purely preaching the gospel. That is not good.
        What they have done to Tibet. I went to Tibet ten years
    ago, I went with a young Buddhist monk, we went in the
    monasteries. They have tortured the mild mannered Tibetans.
    Nobody cares.
        This Administration, the President won't even meet with the
    Dalai Lama the first time he came. They are persecuting the
    Muslims, the Uighur. The Uighur are going through a very
    difficult time. They are spying against us. These are cyber
    attacks. I am sure you have had Chinese cyber attacks against
    you. They have had cyber attacks against this Congress and they
    don't really do anything about it.
        And so the values--and if you want to take it down to the
    raw what it means for real people, the number one supporter,
    the government is China, the genocide in Darfur is Chinese
    generated. Chinese generated. They sell the bombers, the
    Kalashnikov's, the Soviet helicopters.
        So the world will be a different world from a values point.
    And so while the Chinese people are wonderful, when they come
    here they come through my office, I don't worry about the
    Chinese people, but I worry about the Chinese government.
        Dr. Bement. Yeah.
        Mr. Wolf. And since the Bush Administration and this
    Administration, China has the worst human rights record than it
    did ten years ago.
        And we see Google. Very few people want to come to the
    defense of Google. You know I admire the leadership of Google
    that is willing to speak out.
        So the world will be different with China with those values
    because then they can use it for bad, for evil, for bad things.
    And so it worries me deeply.
        Dr. Bement. Well, I don't believe very much at all of what
    Lenin said, but he did say one thing that I think applies to
    this situation. His statement was ``quantity has a quality of
    its own'', and that is what we are facing is quantity.

                      EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE STEM EDUCATION

        Mr. Wolf. The question I wanted to ask you. We put language
    in asking NSF to convene a panel. We had originally-- we were
    going to put in Norm Augustine's name, but we didn't, we didn't
    do that. I was a little disappointed that we got a response
    back from your people saying we have identified the National
    Research Council Board because we wanted some best practices,
    and with all the funding they get we believe that you know
    understand best practices.
        The response we got back said that you are going to
    contract it out, the report will require nine months to
    complete from the time the award is made, from the time the
    award is made. The language called for 180 days. So if you can
    use your bill signing ceremony pen just to tell whoever is
    responsible we would like to see this kind of pushed up much
    faster. The bill passed in what, November?
        Dr. Bement. Yes.
        Mr. Wolf. So you have had December, January, February,
    March, and now we are almost at April. So if you can expedite
    it and try to get something out quickly, I don't think it is a
    major B1 Bomber contract, it is something to get the very best
    information that is around that and kind of pull it together so
    we can get something. Ideally I would like to see you have
    something by the beginning of the school year. I think we
    missed this upcoming school year, so that superintendents
    around the country and other curriculum people can see what
    works.
        Because you would agree, I assume, that if you lost a young
    student by 6th grade, the likelihood of getting them back
    interested in math and science and physics and chemistry is
    very small; if not impossible. But if we capture them in those
    early, early years the better opportunity they will have.
    Because this shows that we are falling behind in that area too.
        Dr. Bement. I will look into a dual track on this. I think
    the approach with the National Research Council is a more
    deliberate approach, but it may be that we do a shorter term
    approach in parallel. I am going to try and satisfy that.
        Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Honda.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Dr.
    Bement.
        Dr. Bement. Thank you.

           INTEGRATING STEM RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACROSS GOVERNMENT

        Mr. Honda. I read the testimony with a lot of interest, and
    permeated throughout the testimony was a discussion around how
    we can improve our research and development, the information,
    and the knowledge that we have gathered through grant funded
    research in the area of STEM, and also the discussion about
    innovation and teaching innovation and inventiveness, and all
    these things that I think came out in the report that the
    National Science Board had put out in 2006.
        And in 2007 I introduced a bill. Right now it is H.R. 2710,
    but at that time in 2007 when we put out a bill it was H.R.
    6104. H.R. 6104 had laid out basically what the report had
    asked us to do.
        And the other thing that we noticed is that based upon the
    report it appeared that there were a lot of silos that were not
    talking to each other in terms of STEM research. Agencies,
    different agencies had done STEM research. I think the number
    was--we spent close to $2 billion with 12 agencies and none of
    the information was being shared with each other where there
    could be a repository of information and conclusions that could
    be shared with the education field and other fields. And we
    shared the Board's concern through that report.
        And it appears that again we are rehashing what was said in
    2006, we tried in 2007, and again we tried to do it this year
    under H.R. 2710. We did H.R. 2710 because part of our original
    bill is taken up by the Science and Technology Committee, so we
    have taken the rest of it.
        Our interest in E-STEM, enhancing STEM education was also--
    we were also saying that in the Department of Education there
    should be an office that would be headed by an assistant deputy
    secretary of education, that you also had a National Science
    and Technology Council, that within that there should be a full
    committee that deals with STEM. None of those things have
    happened, but it sounds like this is what you are suggesting in
    terms of just out of administrative fiat.
        Given that and for sustainability and also assuring this
    scientific innovative ecosystem, I think you called it
    ecosystem, would it not be beneficial to put this into statute
    rather than just have an existing one in the Administration and
    then not having it sustained throughout the time?
        Dr. Bement. Well, Mr. Honda, the current activity in the
    current Administration is to take up this issue based on the
    American Competitiveness Council activity in the previous
    administration where they identified all the various programs
    across the government and to develop a government-wide strategy
    for STEM education. So I think it is totally faithful with what
    you are trying to accomplish with the bill.
        There is within the National Science and Technology Council
    a subcommittee on education which is co-chaired.

       FIRM DIRECTIVE FOR INTEGRATING STEM RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACROSS
                                    SOCIETY

        Mr. Honda. Right, I understand that, now I am suggesting it
    goes up to level of committee.
        Dr. Bement. Well that is up to the director of OSTP.
        Mr. Honda. Well would it have more stature and more impact
    if you had a committee rather than a subcommittee?
        Dr. Bement. I am not sure it would be anymore effective.
    You know, they have got a full platter of work at the present
    time, and I think they have plenty of support. I am not sure
    what the next step would amount to.
        Mr. Honda. Well not to be argumentative, they may have a
    lot of things on their plate, but if all this discussion about
    integrating the research and the development into various parts
    of our societies and various parts of our activities in terms
    of instruction, pre-K to postgraduate, if that is not part of
    the daily discussion, how you doing, how is it going, it will
    never get done.
        But you know, upon reflection everybody will say that was a
    good idea, how come we didn't do it? And we are at that point
    again in 2011, this would be a good idea, now we are getting
    started, we lost five years. And so putting in a statute where
    you have an expectation rather than just only, you know, having
    an expectation to statute at least we can have some guidance
    and create some benchmarks.
        If there were a bill out there like that would that be
    something that you could sign onto?
        Dr. Bement. Well, I think what I would like to suggest is
    that we have people within the Foundation work with your staff
    to at least inform you what the current pace is and what the
    current activity and schedules are so you have a general idea.
        Mr. Honda. We have done that, and we would love to do it
    again. But in terms of----
        Dr. Bement. But I think what is going on now will have an
    impact on the next budget cycle, the 2012 budget.
        Mr. Honda. I am sure it will, but I am looking for
    sustainability. Part of terminology we use in the green
    vernacular is sustainability, and if we are looking for E-STEM
    to be imparting enhanced STEM into everything.
        The other thing you mention in your report, your testimony,
    you are suggesting that there should be an integrated approach
    to other areas, because it does have impact, but there is
    nothing there----
        Dr. Bement. Yes, I fully agree with that.
        Mr. Honda. But there is nothing that says thou shalt. There
    should be some sort of directive or a very stronger statement
    in that, because we could produce engineers.
        My son is an aerospace engineer, and he admits that he is
    not well rounded, he is kind of lopsided and he can do some of
    the other stuff, and all this stuff should be embedded in all
    the other activities it seems to me so that we have a citizenry
    that at least has the baseline and not be not be, misled by
    misinformation to the media that, there is no such thing as
    global warming. At least have an argument with yourself that
    is, critical and based on some facts.
        And I think that is one of the downfalls of our country. We
    only see one side, and our side is always right whether it is
    empires or----
        Dr. Bement. Well, I don't think you could find a better
    champion for STEM education than the President.
        Mr. Honda. I am not arguing that.
        Dr. Bement. He is going on record--gone on record many
    times pushing STEM education.
        Mr. Honda. Dr. Bement, I am not arguing that point. I am
    just asking would it not be sustainable if we had this embedded
    in some statute that reflects the President and your--and this
    report's sense of direction and importance?
        Dr. Bement. Well, I guess I could only say I am not
    inimical to it, I just don't--I just can't speak for the
    Administration on that issue.
        Mr. Honda. Well as an educator it seems to me the public
    policy and the kinds of things you are talking about that we
    should be able to do this.
        I asked Dr. Augustine the question, can innovation be
    taught? And he said, well it is very difficult, because it is
    in the character of each person. And now we are talking about
    being able to teach inventiveness and innovation if we did it
    right, and we put something together for NSF to look at that
    for funding, and hopefully we can revisit that, because as an
    instructor I think we can do that. All you have to do is look
    at the walls of a lot of these companies where they have their
    engineers and scientists with their patents up there, the ones
    with peaks are the ones you want to study I guess.
        But I just wanted to lay that out just so we can have a
    future discussion with our staffs with your staff.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
        Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    joining us today.
        I want to take you to one of my favorite recurring
    subjects, and that is the observatory in Arecibo, Puerto Rico.
        Dr. Bement. Yes.

               NATIONAL ASTRONOMY AND IONOSPHERE CENTER (ARECIBO)

        Mr. Serrano. And I want to first of all, as you know the
    plan seems to be to continue to reduce its funding, while they
    seem to be to want to close it down in the process, and
    continue to reduce its funding, yet I seem to find in my way of
    looking at things a contradiction between people who make
    budget decisions and the scientific community.
        There seems to be more and more statements coming forward
    every so often telling us that there is a need for the work
    done at the observatory.
        Now needless to say in the territory of Puerto Rico this
    has caused great alarm for many reasons. For the importance
    they feel it has in the scientific community, the importance it
    has to the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, you know, in so many
    ways and we just finished that debate this week, that the
    territories get treated differently. In this case having placed
    the observatory there was quite a boost years ago to the
    relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico. There
    is an issue of jobs obviously and of tourism where folks go to
    see it because they know it is advertised as having been in a
    couple of movies. James Bond has a lot of fans throughout the
    world and people want to see this observatory.
        But any way, first of all, is there a contradiction or is
    there at least a difference of opinion between folks who want
    to reduce the budget and eventually close it down and people in
    the scientific community that say there is an importance and a
    need for the observatory?
        Dr. Bement. Well let me state my position. First of all, I
    have never taken a position of closing it down. The senior
    review that looked at all the telescopes and all the assets in
    astronomy made the statement that it continued to do valuable
    research, and I believe that.
        The problem is that it has gotten beyond the capacity or
    the capability of the Foundation to be the sole supporter of
    the telescope, so we have been looking for partners. One
    partner would be NASA, for example. They have the mission of
    tracking low earth objects such as asteroids and so forth.
    Arecibo is the ideal instrument for doing that, and it does do
    so at the present time.
        The opportunities in astronomy are still so great in terms
    of getting back closer to the Big Bang and understanding how
    the universe began and all the aspects of evolution of the
    universe. It is still a very compelling topic. So there is
    always a need to build new telescopes. And we have at the
    present time substantial investment not only in ALMA, but also
    a new solar telescope that we wish to build in Hawaii. All
    those put pressure on the operation and maintenance expenses of
    our existing telescopes.
        Now Puerto Rico has done quite a lot and they have
    increased investment in Arecibo. So you know the intent is not
    to just keep drawing down the budget to zero. The point is to
    find how we can continue to operate Arecibo, but not at its
    full capability. Other people are going to have to come in and
    help.
        Mr. Serrano. But there is a recommendation for yet another
    decrease I believe of $1.6 million less than last year.
        Dr. Bement. Yes.
        Mr. Serrano. So there is that intent, and my question to
    you is how successful are we in getting NASA or others to share
    funding?
        Also the projections were made on flat funding for the
    Foundation. Well that has not been the case in the last couple
    of years, nor do I think it will be the case in future years.
        So you see here is the problem. As I tell many people in a
    very serious way and half joking for some folks, I represent
    two districts. I represent the Bronx and I represent the place
    where I was born, Puerto Rico. And you wonder how much of this
    has to do with the relationship with the United States. The
    territories are always last. I mean, I don't want to drag you
    into another discussion, but you should have seen what we went
    through in the health care bill just to get the territories
    something.
        Dr. Bement. Yes.
        Mr. Serrano. And it wasn't enough that you were talking
    about American citizens. The fact that they don't have two
    senators, and you know, in Puerto Rico's case seven members of
    Congress makes a big difference.
        So it will always, unless we make a special effort to save
    it and to keep it open, Arecibo will disappear because it is
    not a priority.
        In fact when you are telling me you are building a new one
    in Hawaii I am all for that, but it doesn't hurt to have a
    president in the White House--I was born in Hawaii, so I
    suspect that one will do very well.
        Dr. Bement. Well that was planned well before the election.
        Mr. Serrano. I understand. It just coincides this way, you
    know. Just like it coincides on my watch.
        Mr. Bement. Let me clarify one of your issues. I simply
    needed to bring on additional partners.
        Mr. Serrano. Right.

       LONG-TERM FUNDING OF THE NATIONAL ASTRONOMY AND IONSPHERE CENTER
                                   (ARECIBO)

        Dr. Bement. We are also looking within the Foundation for
    additional partners. For example, one of the capabilities at
    Arecibo is they're working on atmospheric and geospace
    sciences, and I have been there and I have seen the facility
    and they do have a good staff and they do make a major
    contribution.
        So we have got in our Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences
    Division and they are--in the fiscal year 2010 budget they put
    in $2.2 million which brought the total up to $10.6 million,
    and as compared with the 2009 budget of $9.6 so that was an
    addition of a million over all.
        Now the 2011 request it goes back down again, but it is
    hovering at around $9 to $10 million a year. I don't see that
    that is inconsistent with my statement that we are trying to
    maintain.
        But I would be more than happy to have another federal
    agency come in and become a co-supporter of that facility so
    that it would have a much more robust program.
        Mr. Serrano. All right. Let me just make two quick points
    here, I don't want to take too much time on this, and at the
    same time ask you a question.
        The original report did recommend closure after 2011 if
    significant non-federal sources of funding are not found.
        Dr. Bement. That was made by a senior review panel that did
    not include officials of the Foundation. I told you my
    position.
        Mr. Serrano. So officials of the Foundation you are saying
    for the record are looking for a comfortable level of funding
    that you can afford, but not intending to close it down?
        Dr. Bement. That is my position.
        Mr. Serrano. Okay. And is that position shared by others
    who may be around after you are not there?
        Dr. Bement. Well that position was taken in fiscal 2007.
        Mr. Serrano. Right.
        Dr. Bement. It hasn't changed in three budget cycles, I
    hope it won't change in the future.
        Mr. Serrano. Okay. And lastly, I just want to for the
    record, Mr. Chairman, remind folks that this past January the
    National Research Council released a report on near earth
    asteroids, that is asteroids that have the potential to hit
    earth, entitled, Defending Planet Earth Near Earth Object
    Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies. The report outlined
    the importance of Arecibo, and it says, quote, ``Immediate
    action be taken to ensure the continued operation of the
    Arecibo observatory at a level sufficient to staff and maintain
    the facility and that it should be supported.'' The report in
    fairness says NASA and NSF.
        Dr. Bement. That is exactly the point I was making earlier.
    This is a NASA mission too.
        Mr. Serrano. And the point I am trying to make is which you
    agree with, that there are folks involved today in scientific
    research who claim that Arecibo is necessary.
        Dr. Bement. And I agree with that.
        Mr. Serrano. All right. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                            INQUIRY-BASED EDUCATION

        Mr. Mollohan. As I noted, Dr. Bement, in my opening
    statement, this Subcommittee held a couple of hearings last
    month focusing on STEM education.
        From the testimony it is clear that the effectiveness of
    the inquiry-based education in STEM education is needed at all
    levels, but implementation is woefully lacking.
        How many and what percentage of colleges and universities
    receiving NSF funding offer courses that are inquiry-based
    other than undergraduate research opportunities and graduate
    thesis preparation?
        Dr. Bement. Our information is that in almost all the
    universities that we support there are faculty that effectively
    use inquiry-based education or promote inquiry-based education.
    As a matter of fact, many of investigators under Broader
    Impacts make a significant contribution to inquiry-based
    education through the type of research that they are doing. But
    that is the good news.
        The bad news is it is not being used enough, especially in
    undergraduate education. It is being underutilized. We would
    like to see a much broader application of inquiry-based
    education and we continue to press for that.
        We feel that first of all the evidence is compelling that
    it not only contributes to understanding concepts, improving
    problem solving, but it also aids retention, recruitment, and
    also graduation success, because students have become more
    interested in the subject if they have an opportunity to either
    carry on some type of project work or some type of research as
    part of the learning experience.
        Even computational application, use of computers, computer
    modeling is a good application of inquiry-based learning, and
    they get a chance to deal with more complex problems than they
    might otherwise do.
        That is the reason why we are stressing the Cyberlearning
    Transforming Education initiative, the CTE initiative, to bring
    on more cyber technology into the classroom for inquiry-based
    education.
        That is pretty much the situation as it currently extends.
    We have made progress, but we have a long way to go.
        Mr. Mollohan. At NSF you primarily fund colleges and
    universities. How can you increase the use of inquiry in the
    teaching of science in our schools?
        Dr. Bement. We can build it into our solicitations, and we
    do in many respects. A lot of our programs focus on inquiry-
    based education, so those are some of the things that we can
    do.
        Mr. Mollohan. To what extent are you doing that?
        Dr. Bement. Well, I will ask Dr. Mundy to answer that
    question. This is Joan Ferrini-Mundy who is the Acting
    Assistant Director for EHR.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well we should have another chair up there if
    you want to do that. That was very clever. It is not June yet.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. So the question is what are we doing
    now? There are lots of strategies for improving the use of
    inquiry methods for improving in general teaching of science
    that leads to conceptual understanding and that leads to
    ability to solve complex problems. And so we have various
    programs that address this.
        One is to try to get the faculty themselves to become aware
    of these methods, to understand them, to try them out in their
    teaching, and we do that through our Transforming Undergraduate
    Education in STEM program.
        Another is to continue the research about these methods so
    that we have evidence about their effectiveness, because that
    helps in their dissemination too. We have other programs that
    do that.
        Helping K through 12 practitioners come into contact with
    undergraduate faculty is another way to try to spread the word,
    and we do that through our GK-12 Program as well as our Math
    and Science Partnership Program.
        And then finally we invest in the STEM faculty of tomorrow,
    during their own graduate preparation, in helping them to
    understand these methods.
        So we work on multiple strategies and continue to promote
    the ideas through several programs.
        Mr. Mollohan. And that is through grant funding?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. And give me an example of a college,
    university, where that is happening.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. So the University of Colorado Boulder is
    a place that has a whole program on using undergraduate
    learning assists in the teaching of physics, I believe, and so
    the physics faculty who are also involved in that teaching are
    working together with undergraduate students to try to improve
    opportunities for physics learning in the classroom. You have a
    mix of undergraduates, folks from the School of Education who
    are doing some evaluation and research about the project, and
    faculty in the sciences coming together to try to improve the
    opportunities to really understand physics as opposed to
    learning physics in a rote kind of way.
        Mr. Mollohan. And that is at what level? That is at the
    college level?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Undergraduate level.
        Mr. Mollohan. Undergraduate level.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Right.

               INQUIRY-BASED EDUCATION IN K THROUGH 12 CLASSROOMS

        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. And so how does that lay a foundation
    for migrating inquiry into K through 12?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Sure. First of all you have the faculty
    in physics and in the science departments who are those folks
    who actually teach the future teachers their subject matter
    contents and so they are getting the chance to see this used
    and then to try to bring it into their own teaching. And then
    hopefully some of these undergraduate learning assistants
    ultimately might consider becoming K through 12 teachers.
        Mr. Mollohan. When you say hopefully, what does that mean?
    Is that what you do once that program is done, then you are
    hoping something happens after that?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. No, we actually follow--all of our
    programs have very strong evaluations components, and so we are
    very interested in particular kinds of outcomes, and a program
    like that the main outcome is I suspect about the undergraduate
    students learning of physics. But our programs for teacher
    preparation are looking at the impacts of our teachers on the
    instruction in K through 12 classrooms.
        Mr. Mollohan. Do your goals go to migrating this or
    inserting it into the K through 12 undergraduate programs that
    are inquiry-based?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Oh, absolutely.
        Mr. Mollohan. What initiatives do you have to help
    facilitate that?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. One of our major programs is the Math
    and Science Partnership Program which involves STEM
    undergraduate faculty, as well as K through 12 teachers and
    leaders, as well as education faculty at universities and
    colleges, and so by using those combinations of leaders you get
    the opportunity to really put ideas together that make their
    way into teacher education programs.
        Mr. Mollohan. How do they make their way into teacher
    education programs?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Well the people who are working in say
    an MSP project may have as a partial goal for their work to do
    some reform of their undergraduate STEM teacher preparation,
    they might make new courses or create new opportunities for
    internships in schools or opportunities for connections to
    industry.
        Mr. Mollohan. It doesn't sound very certain, it doesn't
    sound like it is a piece of that actual strategy forcing a
    prototype experience that was tested out. And is that
    occurring, and if so would it be useful, and if not would it be
    useful?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. All of our programs have a very strong
    research and development focus, so we ask our PI's to come with
    a really clear hypothesis about what they are trying to change
    and why they are--why they believe it is going to make a
    difference based on the literature, based on best practice and
    so forth. They implement those ideas and they study them.
        The idea is to produce models, which as Dr. Bement has
    mentioned, then might be scalable by other organizations by
    connections to the Department of Education.
        So that is the major focus of much of our work, to try out,
    test, refine, and improve models that then are published, are
    discussed, are circulated, and are disseminated.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. What I am hearing is that, you know,
    you are doing education inquiry-based incentivising--
    incentivising inquiry-based as you are instructing at the
    undergraduate level research, at the graduate level, that there
    is--this may go down into the K through 12 where you have
    some----
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Well some of our programs are K through
    12 focused, and so we do a lot--let us say----
        Mr. Mollohan. Who are the grantees? I am sorry.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. The grantees are universities working in
    partnership sometimes with school districts or with non-
    profits.
        Mr. Mollohan. Where is that happening?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. That is the Math and Science Partnership
    Program.
        Mr. Mollohan. But where, give me an example?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Across the country.
        Mr. Mollohan. Colorado? Is the University of Colorado doing
    this?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. I don't know for sure if there is an MSP
    in Colorado, but the University of Georgia has one.

            EXAMPLES OF INDUSTRY-BASED EDUCATION IN K TO 12 SETTINGS

        Mr. Mollohan. Would you identify yourself?
        Dr. Seidel. Yes, I am Acting Assistant Director for Math
    and Physical Sciences, but I have examples of exactly what Joan
    is talking about as a PI at Louisiana State University. I had
    NSF funding at a center there, before I came to NSF, where we
    worked, for example with local school districts and had
    workshops in the summer where we would have teachers and their
    students from local high schools, in fact across the state,
    learning how to build a super computer out of PCs--how to build
    a Beowulf cluster. And the great thing about that is the kids
    get very excited because they understand PCs and they can build
    something that becomes a super computer. And their the teachers
    also get very excited about it and learn how to do this and
    then they can begin to incorporate this into the class.
        When the kids built the computers they brought them back
    into the classrooms and we donated them to the schools, and
    then they maintained these small super computers.
        Another example is funding from an ESPSCoR program where we
    involved students using Sony Play Stations, what they use for
    gaming, but actually they are small super computers themselves.
    And so we taught them to run things like storm search
    calculations on them, which is something understood by many
    kids in Louisiana because of the hurricane phenomenon that come
    all the time. And so they understand how these are actually
    super computers.
        And then we have had letters from parents saying their
    children have been turned around and they are very interested
    now in going onto college when they might not have before.
        Mr. Mollohan. Do you think this kind of education ought to
    be--inquiry-based education ought to be ubiquitous in STEM
    education across the country?
        Dr. Seidel. I think there are all kinds of evidence that
    inquiry-based experiential learning, hands-on kinds of
    experiences, and concept-based learning, that kind of activity
    can be driving what goes on in schools across the country.
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
        Dr. Seidel. That is a yes.

            FULL-SCALE IMPLEMENTATION OF INQUIRY-BASED EDUCATION IN
                                    K TO 12

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you for your testimony.
        So if members of Congress who have year after year heard
    that kind of exciting testimony about these methods that if
    they were employed they would improve whatever standard test
    you judge that, and you understand that, and that if it were
    employed throughout the country would change the testimony
    before us from that of woe is me, we are falling behind to we
    are really getting it and we are implementing the policies and
    techniques and strategies in the school system integrated from
    K up. We are hearing that, but it is the same woe is me
    testimony the next year, so that that integration has never
    happened.
        And so would you think it reasonable for members after
    hearing that to wonder why this is not integrated from the
    highest levels of NSF through education down through
    kindergarten?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Absolutely a reasonable question.
        If you think about the whole K through 12 system the main
    drivers are the teachers themselves, what they know, how
    equipped they are to teach with this kind of material, to teach
    in this style, and the materials themselves. So the learning
    tools, the resources are important. NSF invests of course in
    both areas.
        But not to be overlooked piece is the assessments that are
    used. It is hard to measure some of this.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes but see--let me--just forgive me.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Sure.
        Mr. Mollohan. And explain to me why that is an answer to my
    question.
        What I am trying to get at is I think I could do a fairly
    superficial job of answering a lot of these questions having
    asked them a lot and heard them answered, and I said
    superficial, but the question that doesn't get answered is the
    question I tried to ask just a second ago.
        By what method and does NSF have a role in introducing
    these techniques not sort of as an experiment, but as an
    accepted method to be embraced by the educational communities
    across the country, how does that happen?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Okay. I think I would go back to what
    Dr. Bement said about what he heard from the teachers. Dr.
    Bement is going to comment too.
        One way is by the creation of the funding of materials that
    use these methods that are well tested and have strong evidence
    behind them so that teachers can then pick them up and use
    them.
        Mr. Mollohan. And that is a piece of it.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. That is a piece of it.
        Mr. Mollohan. Materials is a piece of it.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Teacher preparation and education is a
    piece of it.
        Mr. Mollohan. Teacher preparation, teacher support.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. Superintendent involvement and acceptance.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. School-based support.
        Mr. Mollohan. State board of education----
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Support and implementation----
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Absolutely.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. And direction perhaps.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. And assessment again, if the tests don't
    measure----
        Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Assessments to do it. Integration,
    teacher retraining at the colleges. The undergraduate being
    taught inquiry. And you have all these pieces. And are there
    prototypes to tie all that together in different rural, urban,
    southern urban, northern urban, western urban environments to
    see how you can actually integrate that throughout the system?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. So again, this notion of a systemic
    approach seems right where you tie together----
        Mr. Mollohan. I mean would it be NSF's role to run a
    solicitation to invite different educational systems to be a
    part of a comprehensive testing out of how you integrate all
    that, and prove out whether this STEM education works? And the
    only way you could do it would be if you did it in an
    integrated sort of way up and down wouldn't it? Would that be
    an appropriate role for NSF?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. We have had different approaches to
    that----
        Mr. Mollohan. Or have you done it.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy [continuing]. Over the years, and we have
    done it. And I think what we have learned is that it does take
    all of that integration, but it is costly, because you have to
    have a lot of partners on board all headed in the same
    direction and you have to have the policies headed in the same
    direction, but there have been existence proofs. Our Math and
    Science--Partnership Program continues those ideas.
        And so we are all for these kinds of integrations across
    all these different parts of the educational system. But to
    make deep change does take time and does take a lot of
    collaboration.
        Mr. Mollohan. But is that exercise at this point in time
    appropriate or are you beyond that? You didn't hear my
    question, you were talking to somebody else weren't you? Or is
    it useful at this time or are we beyond that?
        Dr. Bement. Let me butt in, because we have been very hard
    at work at this, especially in bioscience.
        There has been an effort through the last three or four
    years of the whole community, and in many cases you have got to
    get community buy in, so this is an approach that involved the
    community at large. It is now being rolled out. There is a
    joint program between EHR and the Bioscience Directorate to
    carry this into implementation. It is primarily focused on
    undergraduate education in bioscience, but it will also impact
    K to 12. And if you wish I will develop a report for the record
    to tell you more about it.
        [The information follows:]

        Over the past year, the American Association for the Advancement of
    Science, with support from the National Science Foundation Directorate
    for Education and Human Resources and Directorate for Biological
    Sciences, held a series of conversations with faculty, administrators,
    students, and other stakeholders on the future of undergraduate biology
    education. The website below outlines the work of this collaboration:
    the issues, discussions, presentations, and other activities. A summary
    of recommendations may be found in the report titled Vision and
    Change--A Call to Action.
        The report may be found here: www.visionandchange.org/
    VC_report.pdf.

        Mr. Mollohan. Okay, and I would like you to come up and
    talk about it, just chat about it.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Could I add one more thing?
        Mr. Mollohan. If you are not doing anything that day you
    could come too.

     COLLABORATION WITH DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IN INQUIRY-BASED EDUCATION

        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Okay, thank you.
        We are in very strong and good collaboration with the
    Department of Education, and so some of what you are talking
    about, this kind of systemic approach to how to roll things out
    in ways that get picked up widely are exactly the topics of our
    conversations with Michael Lach and others at the department.
        That is to say we have even been working on, you know, what
    is well known about math professional development and how do we
    immediately then communicate with states with--chief state
    school officers and with other parts of the enterprise to get
    these ideas out so that some of the NSF investments get picked
    up?
        So a way we have tried to work on it recently has been
    through this kind of leveraging of intellectual resources with
    other agencies that have wider reach where we have been able to
    build and understand in deep ways the models that can work and
    then to take them out broadly.

               FUNDING FOR INITIATIVES IN INQUIRY-BASED EDUCATION

        Mr. Mollohan. Well this is the 2011 budget hearing for NSF,
    and irrespective of conversations with OMB, and not to get into
    any pre-decisional secrets here, this would be your opportunity
    to say gee, if I had my druthers I would like to see something
    in this area in the 2011 budget request for NSF. Can she answer
    that, Dr. Bement? Please?
        Dr. Bement. That is sort of the answer that comes from the
    initial lead in. If you had additional money in your budget
    what would you spend it on?
        Mr. Mollohan. Well no, honestly it is--you know, if we
    wanted to do something in this area we would like to know, and
    have your advice, what would it be? Forget about your budget
    request. If we wanted to do something in this area, a direction
    from this Committee, what would your advice be to what we would
    do? That is a totally appropriate question, I would hope you
    would answer it.
        Dr. Bement. I think what you would do is you would move
    directly to be sure that those programs are well supported.
        Part of what we do in order to bring about systemic change
    is to do innovative institutional integration, and that is
    taking various programs and integrating them in order to
    achieve purposes like this, and there is a budget line for that
    in our budget. And one of the objectives of that program is to
    also boost inquiry-based learning.
        So now that we know the level of interest that you have,
    there are things that we can do with our existing budget and
    with our existing programs in order to intensify attention to
    your interest.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well it is not my interest, I don't want to
    be, you know, I don't have the knowledge base that you have and
    wouldn't pretend to be an expert.
        Dr. Bement. But you know based on our testimony that we
    agree with you fully, so you know, we are not in opposition, we
    are not talking cross purposes, we fully agree with one
    another.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well we look forward to working on this as we
    move our budget forward, and thank you, Doctor, thank you so
    much.
        Mr. Wolf.
        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

           COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NSF AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS

        Following up on one of the Chairman's line of questioning.
    Has there ever been the opportunity for the NSF to develop a
    cooperative relationship with the school district whereby you
    literally, not take over the school district, but you
    literally--they were willing to turn this over to the NSF,
    perhaps one in a rural district one in an urban district
    whereby NSF would run the program?
        Dr. Bement. Not within the limitations of the Constitution.
        Mr. Wolf. No, where they would ask you. School districts
    would be very open. I mean you mentioned Chicago. You know, if
    you have a failing school district they may be very open. I am
    not talking about the federal government taking over, I don't
    believe that. What I meant is that whereby they would say our
    math and science scores are not very good, et cetera, et
    cetera.
        Dr. Bement. Well, I don't know of a single example of that.
        Mr. Wolf. Would you be interested in something like that?
        Dr. Bement. I don't think so. I don't think we are in the
    education business per se, I think we are in the education
    research business, and the investment that we make can have an
    impact on schools broadly rather than just a single school.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, I know that, but the reason we put the
    language in last year was to get you to give us something that
    would be best practices that every other school district could
    use. We don't have that from you now, and if you had a
    situation where you went into a particular urban, suburban,
    rural, whatever and did something it would be an----
        Dr. Bement. Well, we do have pieces of it, Mr. Wolf. We are
    on the website of the Institute of Education Sciences on best
    practices. Some of these best practices are on their website.
    In fact a good fraction of the best practices on their websites
    are based on NSF programs.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay.
        Dr. Bement. And we can give you that information for the
    record.
        [The information follows:]

        The What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
    Department of Education provides a list of nine topic areas under which
    reviews of research on important issues in education can be accessed.
    NSF-funded activities can be found under two of these topic areas:
         Elementary School Math--of the nine interventions
    reviewed, two have received NSF support.
         Middle School Math--of the fourteen interventions
    reviewed, five have received NSF support.
        The web link to the topical index is www.ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
    reports.

                   NSF'S ROLE IN IMPROVING SCIENCE EDUCATION

        Mr. Wolf. This year and the last the Committee heard
    testimony from experts advocating a more prominent leadership
    role from the NSF in a national effort to improve science
    education. Your education budget continues to grow, but at a
    lower rate than your research program.
        How do you see NSF's role as distinct with that of the
    Department of Education, and do you feel that roles and
    responsibilities in funding are properly aligned?
        Dr. Bement. Well, I can say categorically that I believe
    that our programs are effective, I think they are making an
    impact on improving math and science proficiency. I feel that
    it is in the interest of the Nation that we continue that role,
    and we are working very hard to find ways of leveraging our
    resources to do it better.
        Mr. Wolf. But have not the scores continued to drop in
    comparison to other countries?
        Dr. Bement. No. Well the latest international data
    indicates that in 4th and 8th grades math proficiency scores
    have increased significantly.
        Mr. Wolf. What about in high school?
        Dr. Bement. I am sorry?
        Mr. Wolf. How about in high school?

                 STATE OF K TO 12 SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE NSF

        Dr. Bement. I think probably less clear in high school. The
    problem area is in science. Science has been pretty flat, it
    has not improved very much.
        I believe from what the teachers tell me they feel cheated
    sometimes in their education programs because they don't get
    very much exposure to science. Unless they are teaching in
    secondary schools they don't get focused preparation in
    science.
        Mr. Wolf. Cheated by their school district or cheated by
    the college?
        Dr. Bement. I am talking about the colleges. I am talking
    about the education programs.
        Mr. Wolf. The last study that we worked on said that the
    STEM money in 2007 was only 50 percent of the STEM money was
    used. Is that accurate?
        Dr. Bement. I don't know that.
        Mr. Wolf. Wouldn't that sort of fit in though if the
    teachers felt cheated that that would be the no cause and
    effect death?
        Dr. Bement. I think it is an issue that has to be taken
    seriously by schools of education across the board. Under No
    Child Left Behind science was not a measure. It wasn't a
    requirement. So in many cases teachers were not encouraged to
    put a lot of time and effort into science education, and I
    think that has to change. There has to be much more emphasis on
    science and it has to start early.
        Most children by the time they are eight to ten years old
    already have a world view, they already know pretty much what
    they want to be when they grow up. If you don't have an
    influence, if they don't have basic understanding of some
    science or at least the scientific method early they are going
    to have an education deficiency as they try to move up to
    higher grades.
        Mr. Wolf. Well, I think that was why we had asked you to do
    that study.
        There was a full page article in a journal a week ago
    Saturday I think by Chester Finn and he talked about in China
    for instance they go to school 41 more days than we do. He also
    commented on other countries that have Saturday classrooms,
    Saturday schools. He also commented on the number of hours in
    different countries.
        Does this also have a major impact as far as scores, and I
    don't want to use the word techniques, but something like that?
    Because if you take off as he said the full summer the school
    gets out on June 10th, doesn't go back till the day after Labor
    Day, the memory loss drops off.
        Dr. Bement. Well let me give you a case in point in South
    Korea where I just visited. The concern that the president of
    South Korea, Mr. Lee has, is that parents are putting too much
    emphasis and spending too much money on private tutoring for
    their children. The children have hardly any time of their own.
    They start school at 8 o'clock in the morning and they go
    sometimes till 10 o'clock at night, because when they finish
    the school room part of their learning then they go to a
    private tutor and they spend another two or three hours with a
    private tutor.
        That kind of learning will give you better proficiency
    scores on tests because the tests are pretty much what the
    students are being taught, but a lot of it is learning.
        A few years ago I came to realize that education
    administrators from Singapore were quite concerned because even
    though they were scoring high in math and science in Singapore,
    they were finding that their students once they got into higher
    education were not very creative or not very innovative, and
    they saw the United States as the country where education and
    creativity and innovation was the gold standard, and so they
    wanted to learn from us, and these are the exemplars when you
    look at just the scores of math and science proficiency. They
    wanted to learn from us how to teach creativity and innovation.
        Which gets me back to inquiry-based learning. It is in
    inquiry-based learning and activity-based learning that you
    teach creativity and innovation. That is our strong suit. That
    is what we ought to build on. So we are in complete agreement
    on that point. That is the strength of our education system.
    And unfortunately we are faced with a tyranny of averages as a
    Nation because we look at means.
        One has to recognize that we have the brilliance among our
    young people in this country that can go to an international
    math Olympics and come back with gold medals. They can go to a
    computer software Olympics and come back with gold medals. They
    can go for a robotics international competition and come back
    with gold medals. So the talent is here.
        Now the challenge is to make education and excellence in
    education more broadly available, that is where the challenge
    is.
        Mr. Mollohan. Is a part of that mining those high aptitude
    math and science students, those who have inclinations in this
    area, identifying them and concentrating on them?
        Dr. Bement. Well that is being done. Almost every state has
    their own academy or their own institute for bringing in the
    very bright students from around the state and putting them
    into a residence education program where they are taught by
    faculty that have master's and Ph.D. levels of education. I
    mean these are almost like mini universities for the most part.
        Mr. Mollohan. So the answer is yes, and I didn't want to
    take up any more of that time, but maybe I will follow up on
    it.
        Mr. Honda.

        IMPLEMENTING CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The discussion is pretty interesting. Just to continue on
    this line of discussion where you are really promoting and
    being a champion for teaching innovation and creativity, and
    yet I don't see where you are going with it except to say that
    we got the information, but it is up to other people to do it.
        A question, and I don't want an answer right now, but the
    question is then how would you create a process from your point
    of view to operate with the other entities to have a systemic
    process where it will be embedded in our public school systems?
    That is one question.
        Then you talked about the tyranny of mediocrity I guess,
    and then you say but what we have samples----
        Dr. Bement. No, I didn't mean that, sir, I meant tyranny of
    averages. In other words we look at the averages and we believe
    in the averages. You don't see the variability around the mean.
        Mr. Honda. Okay. The tyranny of average then. And I am not
    quite sure what that tyranny is, maybe you can answer that in
    part of your answer, then how do you make excellence the
    predominant effort in our system to make it more available if
    the information you already hold that speaks to excellence is
    not shared or advocated by your group with the rest of the
    community in public education?
        Dr. Bement. Okay. We have clear examples. We have a program
    that is designed----
        Mr. Honda. No, I know we got programs.
        Dr. Bement. Well let me go on.
        Mr. Honda. No, no, I want you to answer the question. How
    do you see this becoming infused into our system then?
        Dr. Bement. And that is the question I am trying to answer.
        Mr. Honda. Okay. Because I will stop you if you say we have
    programs and yet you don't describe how that program works.
        Dr. Bement. Well they start with programs, but to get to
    your question, the math and science partnership is primarily
    designed to bring about systemic change and to improve
    performance in math and science education. And it goes back to
    my question of transitioning and also scalability.
        In other words, within a state--within your state, Chairman
    Mollohan, we have the Math and Science Partnership with West
    Virginia, Kentucky, Southern Ohio. That program has done
    magnificent work in improving math and science performance.
        Now the question, getting to your point, how do you scale
    that, how do you transition it? You have to work with the
    states. Because even though this is a national problem and a
    national issue, the responsibility for education is with the
    state and local areas, not with the federal government. So
    unless the state adopts these methods and infuses them in their
    school systems they are not going to be very effective.
        Mr. Honda. Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I just may insert myself
    again.
        This is based upon the Constitution that the Constitution
    says the states have a primary responsibility for education.
    Okay. The Constitution was written on September 17th, 1787,
    that was the first day of our federal government. They had no
    departments. And so they said it is going to be the
    responsibility of the states.
        We have developed to a point in 2011 where we could talk to
    each other in real-time as you have said, shrunk this world to
    a point where they could never have conceived it at the time
    they wrote the Constitution.
        Is it not time for us to take hold and understand that the
    span of time that has gone on that we jump to 2011 from the old
    Constitution and say in spite of that we have to find a way to
    become partners where what we know and understand should be and
    somehow convince the public, what we call the local entities,
    that this is the reason why, and if you can't understand that
    you complain about other countries, but you have to understand
    that they are not the enemy.
        Dr. Bement. Right.
        Mr. Honda. We are the enemy of our own selves.
        How do you readjust what it is that you know and understand
    in the context of what I just described and make it happen?
        Dr. Bement. Well, Mr. Honda, politics is the art of dealing
    with values, and what you are raising a question about is how
    do you deal with values in a contemporary society? That is a
    political activity that has to be determined as part of the
    national governance----
        Mr. Honda. Excuse me. Education and the expenditure of our
    funds for research and development and the knowledge that comes
    out of it becomes something that we have that we are supposed
    to be sharing. Is that not a right to have that shared with the
    rest of our country and rest of our children instead of hiding
    behind----
        Dr. Bement. Well, you know, your point is well taken, but
    you were asking how do we make it happen, and the only way I
    can respond to how to make it happen is through the political
    process.
        Mr. Honda. In your experience, and sometimes when we accept
    the infrastructure that we have right now, if we accepted the
    old infrastructure we would still be back in the days where we
    used to use people as slaves and things like that. We have
    changed. Our infrastructure has changed. Is it not time to look
    at the public education as if it were a civil right?
        Dr. Bement. No, I think we have to put education under the
    microscope and really study it very hard and make these
    determinations. At what stage do we begin to adopt national
    standards, for example? That has been an ongoing question for
    some time. What is the state-federal partnership in education?
    How do you structure the state-federal partnership? That is
    another key question that has to be resolved. How do state
    governors come together to deal with regional systemic
    initiatives rather than just statewide systemic initiatives?
        In Appalachia, for example, that is a regional initiative.
    It involves four or five different states. They are taking a
    regional approach. We need more regional approaches. But again,
    that is part of the political process.

                       QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD TO FOLLOW

        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Bement, we have been talking to you here
    this morning about 12 percent of your budget plus whatever you
    are spending on education out of research and related
    activities. It is not that we don't realize you are doing other
    things, but you are just doing them so well, and so we
    appreciate that, and we will have questions for the record
    regarding all that and some follow up questions along these
    lines.
        Dr. Bement. I would be pleased to respond.
        Mr. Mollohan. I would appreciate that. And I hope that we
    can find some time to sit down and visit with you.
        Dr. Bement. I will get that on my calendar.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes. Have a cup of coffee and talk about this
    and think about ways that we can help do what you think that we
    should do in this area.
        So again, thank you for your testimony here today. Let me
    repeat what a pleasure it has been for me to work with you
    during a lot of those--well all those years actually, I have
    been on the committee one way or another during that time, and
    wish you well in your future endeavors, which I know will be as
    successful and as impressive as your career up to this point.
        Dr. Bement. I hope our paths will cross many times in many
    ways.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, I hope so, that would be great.
        Mr. Honda. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Mollohan. I would certainly benefit from that.
        Mr. Honda.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me just say that I apologize for being what may be
    considered unkind and unprofessional. I recognize that you are
    an independent agency, but I think of all the kids across this
    country, and we are sitting here cogitating intellectually
    about what they go through every day, and I know that you think
    about that, too.
        Dr. Bement. Yes, we have a shared passion.
        Mr. Honda. Right. And so if the only currency our
    youngsters go to school with is time, and every day that we
    talk about things that should be, that could be, that isn't,
    then that is the investment that we lose from them and they get
    nothing out of it. And if we don't start strengthening our
    systems and pointing out where some of the gaps are and
    suggesting how to fill those gaps on behalf of the children
    then I don't think we have done our work.
        But it wasn't directed to you personally.
        Dr. Bement. I didn't take it that way.
        Mr. Honda. I just wanted to squeeze something out of this
    hour, but I apologize if I offended you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Honda. Looks like I was
    premature in ending the hearing. I hope you haven't already
    readjusted. Mr. Wolf has some other questions.

                              ICE BREAKER FUNDING

        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One question and one
    sort of thought.
        But the fiscal year 2010 bill transferred funding for the
    operation of coast guards pulled the ice breaking vessels back
    to the Coast Guard. It is an initiative we have been involved
    in for years. Your fiscal year 2011 budget again requested
    funding on their NSF. Why is that?
        Dr. Bement. It was our expectation that based on
    legislation that we would find the Coast Guard putting money
    into the operation of maintenance of the Polar Sea and also--
    what was the other vessel? And the Healy.
        And so we were all primed to go into the new mode of our
    operation of paying incremental costs and had thought about our
    MOU with the Coast Guard in those terms; however, we discovered
    that the Coast Guard didn't put money in their budget for the
    operation or maintenance of those ships. And since they are
    essential not only for science funded by the Science
    Foundation, but also NASA and NOAA, we felt that we had to
    preserve the availability of those vessels so we put it in our
    budget.
        Mr. Wolf. Because you would rather it be the other way, but
    since it wasn't you----
        Dr. Bement. That is right. It was a default decision.
        Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well the other question I want to ask you
    is there a benefit to NSF of having the funds appropriated to
    NSF rather than to the Coast Guard? Then the answer would be it
    should have been the other way, but I understand.

                                STATE OF SCHOOLS

        Dr. Bement. Yes. That is the answer.
        Mr. Wolf. I guess the last thing I wanted to say. Once,
    again thank you for your service to our country.
        I think the concern that I have is that it just doesn't
    seem to be working as well as it should.
        And you mentioned the Chicago schools. Well the Chicago
    schools have the highest death rate of any school system. They
    have been gunning kids down left and right, Chicago. And I saw
    this Administration, I saw, you know, the Secretary moved to
    Arlington County, which I represented, because he wanted a good
    school for his kids.
        Last week I went to a school in the inner city, it was a
    little Christian private school, the kids are scoring really
    high, they are really doing amazing things, and yet this
    Administration and this Congress is cutting off the tuition and
    grants to them. These are all inner city kids who are poor.
        I talked to a single parent who said this was their
    opportunity, this was their way out, and yet so I feel the
    inconsistencies of saying we are doing this or putting all this
    in, but yet we just throw these inner city kids in.
        Dr. Bement. I won't argue that. One of the very best
    schools in this whole area is in the District, it is at Howard
    University, it is their middle school, their university school,
    and they take children I guess from about 7th grade, it is a
    middle grade, 6th grade. And so it is six to eight, and since
    they have an open enrollment policy, it is required in the
    District that they have open enrollment, they take kids into
    the school that don't come anywhere near the mean or the
    average performance of the other kids. Within about a semester
    they brought them all up to speed.
        By the time they are finished in the middle school the big
    challenge is what do they do next? I mean they brought them to
    such a high level then where do they go, where do they transfer
    to finish out their high school? But you know, that would be a
    place to do a CODEL or a STAFDEL to go and visit that school
    and see what they do. I think you would be very much impressed.
        We have another example in Alaska believe it or not at the
    University of Alaska in Anchorage where the issue is how do you
    get to the rural communities in Alaska and teach mathematics so
    that native Alaskans in Barrow or other places, in really
    remote areas, can meet the entrance requirements for
    university?
        Well what has happened is that the graduate students at--
    and these are native Alaskan graduate students--decided that
    they would do an online distance learning program where they
    would connect directly with these communities and they would
    bring in the students and they would teach them online. And
    they developed innovations because they wanted to teach better
    than they were taught. And so they have done some remarkable
    things, and they have overcome that deficit. And this is self-
    initiated by graduate students. That would be another great
    STAFDEL. If you ever wanted to go to Alaska that would be a
    great school to look at.
        So those things can happen. If it works in Alaska it should
    be able to work in any EPSCoR state, should be able to work in
    Hawaii, and should be able to work almost anywhere where you
    have to deal with rural school issues. And that is a best
    practice. That is a best practice that ought to be emulated and
    replicated.
        Mr. Wolf. Well hopefully when you look at the kids in the
    inner city in some of the schools, and in my area we have great
    schools. Thomas Jefferson is frankly according to the U.S. News
    and World Report the best school in the country, and I think we
    have to replicate that in the inner city.
        I think we agree you are doing a good job, I worry at times
    though when someone tells me that they are opposed to helping
    kids in the inner city with the tuition help because they want
    to improve their overall schools, but if you are a parent you
    can't wait. Because if you lose somebody you never get them
    back in a way. And so to say that their children should just
    wait unless we want to happen happens----
        Dr. Bement. No, you can't wait.
        Mr. Wolf [continuing]. In the interim. And I just think
    when you come into my--you know where I am from in Philadelphia
    the schools are dysfunctional in parts of it, Chicago, other
    parts, and I just think that is something--just how do we kind
    of broaden this whereby there are the opportunities for
    everyone.
        Anyway, I will just submit the rest of the question for the
    record, and again wish you the best.
        Dr. Bement. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well as I indicated there is a tremendous
    amount of interest in this----
        Dr. Bement. Obviously.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. And I was premature in thinking
    we were closing up, but some really good questions happened
    after I said all those good things about you.
        So let me just--let us refer to the record to see what I
    said and by reference will be the end of the hearing.
        Thank you, Dr. Bement.

                               W I T N E S S E S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Bement, A. L., Jr................................................   423
    Bolden, Major General C. F., Jr..................................   189
    Hill, Dr. Oliver.................................................     1
    Holdren, Dr. J. P................................................   107
    Luft, Dr. Julie..................................................    55
    Miele, Dr. Eleanor...............................................     1
    Strang, Dr. Craig................................................    55

                                   I N D E X

                                  ----------

           SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATH (STEM) EDUCATION

                                                                       Page
    Breaking the Cycle of No Inquiry.................................    11
    Decline in U.S. Manufacturing....................................    26
    Education
        Creativity and Innovation....................................    83
        Crisis.......................................................     5
        Drivers of Curriculum Choices................................     9
        Educational Materials........................................    93
        Effective, Accelerated Implementation........................    24
        Effects of Poverty...........................................    33
        Eighth Grade Projects........................................    29
        English As a Second Language.................................    33
        Grants.......................................................    46
        High Stakes Standardized Testing.............................    14
        How We Can Bring About Change................................    35
        Improving Higher Education...................................    45
        Mathematics..................................................     3
        National Science Education Standards.........................    99
        New Course Development.......................................    13
        Science Teacher Certification................................    92
        Standards of Learning........................................    84
        Student Assessment...........................................    99
        Teacher Challenges...........................................    86
        Teacher Preparation in Science...............................    88
        Teacher Preparation in Science...............................    88
        Teacher/Student Rapport......................................    45
        Teacher Talent...............................................    25
        Teaching Instead of Retiring.................................    37
        Test Scores and Science Interest.............................    43
    Exit Projects and Student Assessment.............................    13
    Historically Black College and Universities (HBCUs)
        Challenges for Young Faculty at..............................    27
        Role of......................................................     4
    Inquiry Based Instruction
        Assessing Student Inquiry....................................    82
        Building a Cognitive Network.................................    41
        Doing Science--Inquiry.......................................     9
        English Skills...............................................    34
        Implementation of............................................    78
        Inquiry Skills...............................................    39
        Instruction and Evaluation...................................    10
        Recommendations through NSF Funding..........................    51
        Student Math Achievement Evaluation..........................    42
        Superiority of...............................................23, 77
        Support/Spreading............................................76, 86
        Testing......................................................    42
    National Science Foundation
        Funding......................................................    11
    National Security Perspective....................................    36
    Prepared Statements
        Hill, Prof./Chairman Oliver, PhD.............................     6
        Luft, Dr. Julie..............................................    58
        Miele, Eleanor, PhD..........................................    16
        Strang, Dr. Craig............................................    65
    Schools
        Are Improvements Ready for Broad Implementation..............    43
        Building Student Support.....................................    33
        Charter......................................................    30
        Local School District Issues.................................    36
        Math and Science School......................................    28
    Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Education
        Career Choices...............................................11, 23
        Department of Education......................................    88
        Good Education...............................................    27
        Importance of................................................    84
        Increased Undergraduate Majors...............................    14
        Individual Successes and Pervasive Problems..................    25
        Funding Impact...............................................    49
        National Security & Production of STEM Professionals.........    34
        NSA..........................................................    35
        Personnel Turnover...........................................    98
        Reward of STEM Careers.......................................    26
        Rural America................................................    28
        Systemic Initiatives.........................................    97
    Training
        Cognitive Training...........................................    21
        Innovative Role of Junior Faculty............................    37
        Inquiry Skills...............................................    39
        Skills Training Versus Inquiry...............................    39
    Using Local Resources............................................    12

                 OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY (OSTP)

    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act...........................   153
    Climate Change...................................................   181
    Climate Observing Systems........................................   163
    Doubling Path for Basic Research Agencies........................   187
    Exploration Beyond Earth's Orbit.................................   176
    International Space Station and Crew Transportation to LEO.......   175
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).............   110
        American Leadership..........................................   134
        Augustine Commission Report..................................   131
        China........................................................   149
        China and Russia.............................................   126
        Commercialization of Space Exploration................134, 141, 170
        Constellation..........................123, 126, 128, 131, 140, 188
        Heavy Lift Capability........................................   138
        Hubble Space Telescope.......................................   169
        Human Space Exploration....................................125, 168
        International Space Station..................................   169
        Intelligence.................................................   142
        Job Losses...................................................   127
        Manned Space Program.........................................   148
        Mars.........................................................   128
        Planetary Science Program....................................   138
        Satellites.................................................137, 143
        Vision................................................139, 146, 147
    National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
      System (NPOESS)..............................................161, 184
    Ocean Surface Vector Wind (OSVW) observing system................   162
    Opening Statements
        Holdren, Dr. John............................................   108
        Mollohan, Chairman Alan......................................   107
        Wolf, Ranking Member.........................................   121
    Research and Development.........................................   171
    Science
        Astrophysics and Heliospheric Physics........................   161
    Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)
        Advanced Technology Education................................   166
        Education....................................................   155
        Inquiry Based Instruction....................................   164
        Reform.......................................................   166
    Space Exploration................................................   174
    Prepared Statements
        Holdren, Dr. John............................................   112
    Questions for the Record
        Mollohan, Chairman Alan......................................   153
        Wolf, Ranking Member Frank...................................   174
        Culberson, Representative John...............................   188

              NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

    Aeronautics Research
        Aviation.....................................................   313
        NextGen......................................................   316
    Antideficiency Act (ADA)..................................249, 250, 367
        Antideficiency Act Prosecutions..............................   250
    Astronaut
        Commercial Astronaut Launch................................237, 272
        Corps........................................................   270
        Flight Schedules.............................................   268
        General Bolden's Experiences.................................   220
        Health Risk..................................................   213
        Launch Capabilities..........................................   271
        Positive Effects of Astronaut Visits.........................   304
        Safety.....................................................270, 377
        Training Facilities..........................................   271
    Budget Request
        Authorizations and Obligations...............................   326
        Cost of Astronaut Flights to Low Earth Orbit.................   218
        FY 2011 Proposals............................................   234
        NASA's Budget..............................................228, 252
        Objections...................................................   219
        President's................................................191, 213
    Closing Remarks
        Congressman Fattah...........................................   263
        Ranking Member Wolf..........................................   261
    Construction of Environmental Compliance and Restoration
    Constellation
        Constellation Closeout Cost..................................   257
        Constellation Program.................................231, 275, 276
        Constellation Program Continuity.............................   256
        Constellation Program Contracts.......................220, 251, 366
        Constellation Program Contract Modifications.................   251
        Constellation Program Cancellation Costs..............242, 275, 278
        Constellation Program Termination................191, 213, 236, 353
    Contracts
        Constellation Program Contract Modifications.................   251
        Heavy-Lift Contracts.........................................   255
        Termination Cost.............................................   366
        Termination Liability........................................   250
    Cooperation with China...........................................   274
    Cost Overruns in Major Projects..................................   357
    Cross-Agency Support
    Cybersecurity..................................................230, 231
    Deputy Administrator Garvey Speech...............................   238
    Directors Discretionary Funding..................................   296
    Education
        Budget.....................................................259, 356
        Middle School Education Efforts..............................   254
        Retaining Contractor Expertise...............................   241
        Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics (STEM)........   297
        Space Grant................................................305, 311
        Summer of Innovation.........................................   297
    Exploration
        Animal Experimentation.......................................   266
        Ares I................................................215, 245, 371
        Ares V...........................................243, 245, 251, 371
        Augustine Commission Cost Estimates........................247, 377
        Commercial Cargo & Crew Capabilities.......................261, 382
        Commercial Oriented Approach.................................   216
        Constellation Closeout Cost..................................   257
        Constellation Program.................................231, 275, 276
        Constellation Program Contracts.......................220, 251, 366
        Constellation Program Cancellation Costs..............242, 275, 278
        Constellation Program Termination................191, 213, 236, 353
        Exploration Technology................................252, 362, 374
        Heavy-Lift Capability......................................228, 369
        Heavy-Lift Contract..........................................   255
        Heavy-Lift Launch and Human Capsule Vehicle..................   235
        Heavy-Lift Technology......................................242, 243
        Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle........................232, 276, 285, 340
        Heavy-Lift Propulsion Research & Development Program.......203, 229
        Human Exploration and Robotics...............................   233
        Human Launch Capability Timing...............................   218
        Industrial Base in Solid Rocketry............................   279
        Leasing......................................................   362
        Lost Constellation Program Benefits..........................   214
        Mars.........................................................   372
        Moon.......................................................275, 372
        Orbital Science Corporation................................380, 381
        President's Proposal for Space Exploration...................   222
        Robotic Space Exploration..................................233, 282
        Space Exploration............................................   342
        Space X...............................................373, 380, 381
        Use of Current Year Exploration Funds........................   346
        Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR)......   375
    Full Time Equivalent.............................................   329
    Launch Capability................................................   228
    Letters Expressing Concern over the Human Spaceflight Program....   385
    Opening Remarks
        Administrator Bolden.........................................   190
        Chairman Mollohan............................................   189
    NASA Facilities..................................................   286
        Enhanced Use Leasing (EUL)...................................   290
    Prepared Statements
        NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden, Jr.....................   194
    Primacy in Spoke.................................................   256
    Questions for the Record
        Aderholt (Representative)....................................   366
        Culberson (Representative)...................................   362
        Mollohan (Chairman)..........................................   257
        Schiff (Representative)......................................   340
        Wolf (Ranking Member)........................................   342
    Science
        Astrophysics.................................................   253
        Europa Mission........................................235, 244, 245
        GLObal Backscatter Experiment (GLOBE)........................   308
        Hubble Repair................................................   234
        Mars Science Laboratory (MSL)................................   246
        Missions.....................................................   240
        Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO)............................   246
        Planetary Science............................................   234
        Plutonium-238 Production...................................257, 354
    Space Operations
        Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS)............................   283
        Astronaut Transport to Low Earth Orbit (LEO).................   268
        Buying Russian Launch Services...............................   260
        Center Job Losses............................................   224
        Human-Rate Launch Vehicle....................................   273
        Human Space Flight...........................................   278
        International Space Station......................283, 317, 359, 379
        Launch Services..............................................   284
        Space Shuttle..............................................283, 358
        Shuttle Workforce Transition Strategy Report.................   255
        Workforce....................................................   223
    Space Summit.....................................................   254
    Space Technology.................................................   322
    Super Computing..................................................   295
    U.S. Leadership in Space.......................................219, 325
        China and the Moon.........................................225, 256
        High Ground (The)............................................   235
        Leadership in Human Spaceflight..............................   224
        NASA's Role/Mission........................................234, 264
        President's Proposal for Space Exploration.................222, 225
        Review of the New Proposal...................................   226
        Space Program................................................   227

                          NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act...........................   468
    Appreciation of Dr. Bement.....................................423, 426
    Broad Support of Research........................................   424
    Budget
        Authorizations and Obligations...............................   504
        Doubling the NSF Budget......................................   423
        President's FY 2011 Request..................................   426
        Science Board Support for the 2011 NSF Request...............   442
    China
        Position in the World........................................   445
        Maintaining U.S. Global Competitiveness......................   526
    Climate Research.................................................   424
    Collaboration
        Department of Education......................................   441
        International................................................   444
    Community Colleges...............................................   479
    Cooperative Relationship Between NSF and School Districts........   459
    Doubling Path....................................................   519
    Education
        Education and Human Account Funding Request..................   438
        Implementing Creativity and Innovation.......................   462
        Leveraging Education Funding Across NSF......................   438
        NSF Roles in Improving Science Education.....................   460
        State of K to 12 Science Education in the NSF................   461
    EPSCOR...........................................................   485
    Funding
        Ice Breakers.................................................   465
    GLObal Backscatter Experiment (GLOBE)............................   510
    Industry Based Education
        Examples of K through 12 Settings............................   455
    Inquiry Based Education..........................................   452
        Collaboration with Department of Education...................   458
        Full-Scaled Implementation K to 12...........................   456
        Funding for Initiatives......................................   459
        K through 12 Classrooms......................................   454
    Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction.............   519
    Minority Servicing Institutions..................................   481
    National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center (ARECIBO)...............   450
        Long-Term Funding............................................   451
    NEON Project.....................................................   523
    Prepared Statements
        Bement, Dr. Arden L, Jr......................................   428
    Questions for the Record
        Aderholt, Representative Robert B............................   525
        Mollohan, Chairman Alan......................................   468
        Wolf, Ranking Member Frank R.................................   514
    Research and Development
        Current Perspective..........................................   489
        Future Perspective...........................................   501
        State of U.S. Investment in Science and Engineering..........   442
    Research Vessels.................................................   483
    Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)
        Education Reform.................................424, 469, 514, 525
        Examples of Effective STEM Education.........................   446
        Firm Directive for Integrating STEM Education Across Society.   448
        Integrating STEM Research and Education Across Government....   447
        Role of NSF..................................................   439
    State of Schools.................................................   466
    Stimulus Programs................................................   517