[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NSF MAJOR MULTI-USER RESEARCH
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT:
ENSURING FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-76
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-056 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas PAUL D. TONKO, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
SANDY ADAMS, Florida FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
Tennessee VACANCY
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia VACANCY
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi VACANCY
MO BROOKS, Alabama
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
HON. MO BROOKS, Alabama, Chair
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi PAUL D. TONKO, New York
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
C O N T E N T S
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Mo Brooks, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Research and Science Education, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 16
Written Statement............................................ 16
Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 17
Written Statement............................................ 18
Witnesses:
Dr. Ethan J. Schreier, President, Associated Universities, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 22
Dr. William S. Smith, Jr., President, Association of Universities
for Research in Astronomy
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 38
Dr. David Divins, Vice President and Director, Ocean Drilling
Programs, Consortium for Ocean Leadership, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 57
Written Statement............................................ 59
Dr. Gregory S. Boebinger, Director, National High Magnetic Field
Laboratory and Professor of Physics, Florida State University
and University of Florida
Oral Statement............................................... 68
Written Statement............................................ 70
Dr. Sol Michael Gruner, Director, Cornell High Energy Synchrotron
Source and The John L. Wetherill Professor of Physics, Cornell
University
Oral Statement............................................... 87
Written Statement............................................ 89
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Ethan J. Schreier, President, Associated Universities, Inc... 112
Dr. William S. Smith, Jr., President, Association of Universities
for Research in Astronomy...................................... 116
Dr. David Divins, Vice President and Director, Ocean Drilling
Programs, Consortium for Ocean Leadership, Inc................. 120
Dr. Gregory S. Boebinger, Director, National High Magnetic Field
Laboratory and Professor of Physics, Florida State University
and University of Florida...................................... 122
Dr. Sol Michael Gruner, Director, Cornell High Energy Synchrotron
Source and The John L. Wetherill Professor of Physics, Cornell
University..................................................... 127
NSF MAJOR MULTI-USER RESEARCH
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT:
ENSURING FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
AND ACCOUNTABILITY
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mo Brooks
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.013
Chairman Brooks. The Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education will come to order.
Good morning. Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``NSF
Major Multi-User Research Facilities Management: Ensuring
Fiscal Responsibility and Accountability.'' The purpose of
today's hearing is to examine the planning, management,
operations and stewardship of major multi-user research
facilities funded through the National Science Foundation. I
now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement.
We all are pleased to have all of our witnesses joining us
this morning to continue our discussion concerning oversight of
the NSF's multi-user equipment and facilities. I look to my
colleague, Mr. Lipinski, and my fellow Subcommittee members on
both sides of the aisle to work with us to continue to ensure
the Subcommittee performs its legislative, oversight and
investigative duties with due diligence on matters within its
jurisdiction throughout the 112th Congress and, as always,
appreciate their valued experience and insights.
As mentioned in our last hearing, investments in major
multi-user research facilities comprise approximately 15
percent of the National Science Foundation's portfolio. The
total fiscal year 2013 National Science Foundation budget
request for major multi-user research facilities is $1.1
billion. Of that amount, $196 million is requested for the
major research equipment and facilities construction line item
and $923 million is requested for the Research and Related
Activities line item. We looked primarily at the major research
equipment and facilities construction account in our last
hearing. This hearing will focus more on the Research and
Related Activities funding side as those funds support the
operations and maintenance of existing facilities, Federally
Funded Research and Development Centers, and planning and
development activities.
Major multi-user facilities can include telescopes,
accelerators, distributed instrumentation networks and arrays,
and research vessels. This research infrastructure has a
significant impact on large segments of the science and
engineering population. We in Congress need to ensure the
planning, operations, management and overall stewardship of
these projects is being carried out responsibly and in the best
interest of the American taxpayer.
The National Science Board and National Science Foundation
are currently involved in examining the process of
recompetition for these major multi-user facilities in order to
``assure the best use of National Science Foundation funds for
supporting research and education.'' Our hearing today will
look at the way these facilities are run and managed as well as
the issue of recompetition.
I am eager to hear more about how these important
facilities are managed, including recompetition practices, and
to discuss how we in Congress can continue to support these
worthwhile endeavors while ensuring financial and fiscal
responsibility.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brooks follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Mo Brooks
Good morning and welcome. We are pleased to have all of our
witnesses joining us this morning to continue our discussion concerning
oversight of NSF's multi-user equipment and facilities. I look to my
colleague, Mr. Lipinski, and my fellow Subcommittee members on both
sides of the aisle to work with me continue to ensure the Subcommittee
performs its legislative, oversight, and investigative duties with due
diligence on matters within its jurisdiction throughout the 112th
Congress and, as always, appreciate their valued experience and
insights.
As mentioned in our last hearing, investments in major multi-user
research facilities comprise approximately 15 percent of NSF's
portfolio. The total FY13 NSF budget request for major multi-user
research facilities is $1.1 billion. Of that amount, $196 million is
requested for the MREFC line item and $923 million is requested for the
Research and Related Activities (RRA) line item. We looked primarily at
the MREFC account in our last hearing. This hearing will focus more on
the RRA funding side as those funds support the operations and
maintenance of existing facilities, Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers (FFRDCs), and planning and development activities.
Major multi-user facilities can include telescopes, accelerators,
distributed instrumentation networks and arrays, and research vessels.
This research infrastructure has a significant impact on large segments
of the science and engineering population. We in Congress need to
ensure the planning, operations, management and overall stewardship of
these projects is being carried out responsibly and in the best
interest of the American taxpayer.
The National Science Board and NSF are currently involved in
examining the process of recompetition for these major multi-user
facilities in order to ``assure the best use of NSF funds for
supporting research and education.'' Our hearing today will look at the
way these facilities are run and managed as well as the issue of
recompetition.
I am eager to hear more about how these important facilities are
managed, including recompetition practices, and to discuss how we in
Congress can continue to support these worthwhile endeavors while
ensuring fiscal responsibility.
Chairman Brooks. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lipinski for
an opening statement.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairman Brooks.
As I stated at last month's hearing on NSF's MREFC account,
how we prioritize, fund, manage and oversee major research
facilities, and also how we balance facility funding with
research grant funding, are all important subjects for
oversight by our subcommittee. So I am pleased we are having
this series of hearings.
At last month's hearing we had a very interesting
discussion about facility planning and construction, including
how facility managers calculate and manage contingency budgets
and how NSF oversees the whole process. So today's hearing
begins where the last one left off.
My understanding is that this hearing is not the result of
any specific oversight concern, but rather a broad examination
of the status of NSF's policies for and oversight of the
management and operations of large facilities. It has been
about ten years since the Subcommittee last formally reviewed
NSF's facilities policies, and much has changed in the interim.
Most importantly, I wasn't on the Subcommittee or even in
Congress ten years ago, and neither was the chairman. So I
appreciate the effort by the chairman to educate Subcommittee
members on where things stand so that we will be better
equipped to anticipate and mitigate any problems in the future.
To that end, the policy topic today that is of particular
interest to me is recompetition of management contracts. In
2008, the National Science Board strongly endorsed a
recompetition policy for major facility awards. How this is to
be implemented across the full spectrum of facility types and
management structures remains unresolved. How would
recompetition work for the MagLab or CHESS, for example, which
physically sit on land owned by the respective universities
that manage them? How would recompetition work for any of the
facilities with significant international partnerships?
I would also like to discuss the process for
decommissioning user facilities. That includes how a decision
to decommission a facility is made and how decommissioning
costs are allocated. Without an agency or Board witness
present, I don't think we can get into a full discussion of
recompetition or decommissioning policy this morning but I
certainly would be interested to hear this panel's perspectives
on these issues so that we can further pursue it with the
agency itself.
With that, I look forward to hearing about each of your
respective facilities, both the exciting science you are doing
and your stewardship of the taxpayer dollars that support these
facilities.
With that, I will yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Daniel Lipinski
Thank you Chairman Brooks. As I stated at last month's hearing on
NSF's MREFC Account, how we prioritize, fund, manage, and oversee major
research facilities, and also how we balance facility funding with
research grant funding, are all important subjects for oversight by our
subcommittee. So I am pleased we are having this series of hearings.
At last month's hearing we had a very interesting discussion about
facility planning and construction, including how facility managers
calculate and manage contingency budgets and how NSF oversees the whole
process. Today's hearing begins where the last one left off.
My understanding is that this hearing is not the result of any
specific oversight concern, but rather a broad examination of the
status of NSF's policies for and oversight of the management and
operations of large facilities. It has been about 10 years since the
subcommittee last formally reviewed NSF's facilities policies, and much
has changed in the interim; most importantly, I wasn't here on this
subcommittee or even in Congress 10 years ago, and neither was the
Chairman. I appreciate this effort by the chairman to educate
Subcommittee members on where things stand so that we will be better
equipped to anticipate and mitigate any problems in the future.
To that end, the policy topic today that is of particular interest
to me is recompetition of management contracts. In 2008 the National
Science Board strongly endorsed a recompetition policy for major
facility awards. How this is to be implemented across the full spectrum
of facility types and management structures remains unresolved. How
would recompetition work for the MagLab or CHESS, for example, which
physically sit on land owned by the respective universities that manage
them? How would recompetition work for any of the facilities with
significant international partnership?
I would also like to discuss the process for decommissioning user
facilities. That includes how a decision to decommission a facility is
made and how decommissioning costs are allocated. Without an agency or
Board witness present, I don't think we can get into a full discussion
of recompetition or decommissioning policy this morning. But I
certainly would be interested to hear this panel's perspectives on
these issues so that we can further pursue it with the agency itself.
With that, I look forward to hearing about each of your respective
facilities--both the exciting science you are doing and your
stewardship of the taxpayer dollars that support these facilities.
I yield back.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
At this time I would like to introduce our witness panel
for today's hearing. Our first witness will be Dr. Ethan J.
Schreier, President of the Associated Universities, Inc.
Associated Universities, Inc. manages the National Radio
Astronomy Observatory for the National Science Foundation and
is the North American Executive for the international Atacama
Large Millimeter Array under construction in northern Chile.
Our second witness is Dr. William S. Smith, Jr., President
of the Association of Universities for Research and Astronomy.
At the Association of Universities for Research and Astronomy,
Dr. Smith acts as the Chief Executive Officer and sets the
overall direction and policy for the Space Telescope Science
Institute, the International Gemini Program, the National
Optical Astronomy Observatory, and the National Solar
Observatory.
Our third witness is Dr. David Divins. He is the Vice
President and Director of the Ocean Drilling Programs at the
Consortium for Ocean Leadership, Inc. Dr. Divins serves as the
Program Director and Principal Investigator of the System
Integration Contract for the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program.
Our fourth witness is Dr. Gregory S. Boebinger, the
Director of the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory and
Professor of Physics at Florida State University and the
University of Florida. Dr. Boebinger is responsible for all
three campuses of the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory,
the headquarters at Florida State University, the Pulse Magnet
Laboratory at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Ultra Low
Temperature and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Laboratories at the
University of Florida.
Our final witness is Dr. Sol Michael Gruner, the Director
of the Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source and the John L.
Wetherill Professor of Physics at Cornell University. In 1997,
Dr. Gruner joined Cornell University as Director and Principal
Investigator of the Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source
Facility and as a Faculty Member in the physics department and
the Laboratory of Applied and Solid State Research.
As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes each after which the Members of the Committee
will have five minutes each to ask questions. Given our time
availability and our having at this point three Congressmen,
while we prefer that you limit yourself to five minutes, you
will be given a little bit of latitude as will the Congressmen
as they ask questions.
So with that, I now recognize our first witness, Dr. Ethan
Schreier. Dr. Schreier, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. ETHAN J. SCHREIER,
PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES, INC.
Dr. Schreier. Thank you, Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member
Lipinski and distinguished Members. Thank you for this
opportunity. I am Ethan Schreier, President of AUI, a nonprofit
research management corporation that operates the National
Radio Astronomy Observatory, NRAO, under cooperative agreement
with NSF.
AUI's stated mission is to promote education, discovery and
innovation by uniting resources of universities, research
organizations and the government, and building and operating
forefront multi-user scientific facilities. We have been in
operation since 1946.
NRAO provides transformational scientific capabilities in
radio astronomy that enable astronomers to answer fundamental
questions about the universe. Radio astronomy has opened new
vistas into the universe and uncovering the birthplace of stars
and planets, studying super-massive black holes, neutron stars,
gravitational waves and the remnant heat of the Big Bang.
AUI created NRAO over 50 years ago at the request of the
university research community. NRAO has been the world's
premier radio astronomy observatory ever since. Under AUI
stewardship, NRAO has built and operated the most advanced
radio telescopes in the world, developed state-of-the-art
technology, brought benefits to the public, promoting, science,
technology, engineering and math education.
NRAO currently operates four unique world-leading
telescopes: the iconic Very Large Array in New Mexico, the very
large Green Bank Telescope in West Virginia, the
transcontinental Very Long Baseline Array, which has ten dishes
spread over 5,000 miles across the United States from the
Virgin Islands to Hawaii, and of course, the new international
Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array, ALMA, in Chile at
an altitude of 16,000 feet for which AUI is the North American
lead.
AUI closely manages NRAO with very active goverance, with
continuing technical, programmatic, fiscal review and
oversight, and close communication with both NSF and with the
research community. Public support for fundamental research has
consistently resulted in very practical benefits as well for
the Nation. For example, NRAO pioneered technology that was
later adopted for medical imaging, and technology used in cell
phones. AUI and NRAO also actively leverage radio astronomy
investments to promote STEM education, as I mentioned, with
proven outreach and dissemination activities across the
country. For example, in the NSF-funded Pulse Search
Collaboratory, high school students and, for that matter, their
teachers, search for pulsars using NRAO data and then they can
publish their discoveries with active astronomers. Surveys have
shown that female students, in particular, gain substantial
confidence in math and science after participating. In programs
we have our student interns learn by working at NRAO in
engineering as well as science.
The current fiscal environment presents a unique challenge
to AUI in maintaining its status as the world's forefront radio
observatory. We may, for the first time in our history, be
forced to close a telescope that is still a forefront
observatory and one of the leading observatories of the world.
Previously, NRAO would retire telescopes only after they became
obsolete. This chart shows that we have retired seven. None of
NRAO's first-generation telescopes dating back to the 1950s,
1960s, 1970s are still in operation.
To protect the operation of our current world-leading
facilities, we are actively continuing to seek external
partners and leverage their contributions to maintain
leadership, U.S. leadership. U.S. leadership and our core
competence in radio astronomy, which we do have, is also
threatened by the potential spilt of domestic NRAO facilities
and ALMA.
The National Science Board issued a resolution urging
recompetition of ALMA separately from the rest of NRAO when the
cooperative agreement with NSF is competed next year.
Separating ALMA from NRAO would put the success of ALMA at
great risk, compromising three decades of work by experienced
and expert NRAO staff in the planning of ALMA, the design, the
construction, and the operation, working in close collaboration
with the astronomy community and our foreign partners. It would
result in an enormous loss of efficiency and expertise,
increase complexity and cost, and put U.S. scientists at a
disadvantage in the international ALMA partnership in using the
facility. AUI sees its role as ensuring that U.S. research has
reaped the benefits of the large U.S. investment in ALMA, the
world's newest and most transformational radio facility.
AUI's NRAO has been a pioneer in radio astronomy for 56
years now. The experience gained in building and operating the
world's leading radio facilities is guiding our way forward in
these rather difficult fiscal times. Our goal is to keep the
United States in the lead of this key scientific discipline and
to continue unlocking the secrets of the universe.
Again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify
today. I have provided additional details and recommendations
in my written testimony. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Schreier follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.105
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Dr. Schreier.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Smith for his five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM S. SMITH, JR.,
ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITIES
FOR RESEARCH IN ASTRONOMY
Dr. Smith. Thank you, Chairman Brooks, Mr. Lipinski and
other Members of the Committee. It is a privilege to be able to
testify to this Committee that plays such an important role in
looking at the balance of investments within the NSF, so this
is a very useful hearing for you to have called.
I will use acronyms if you permit. Association of
Universities for Research and Astronomy, or AURA, is a
consortium of universities, and we manage the optical
telescopes which are different from the radio telescopes. They
look different. They are placed in different locations. But
many of the things that Dr. Schreier said also apply to the
telescopes that we manage. Our facilities are open to all
researchers on a peer-review basis.
The NSF and AURA partnered in the late 1950s to provide an
alternative to what was then only privately operated
telescopes, and they did this to ensure broad community
participation and access. This decision was extremely important
and has been fundamental to the development of astronomy in the
United States since that time. Ours and I would also say Dr.
Schreier's are the publicly funded and publicly available
telescopes, and in the optical area, they are the only ones, so
they are extremely important in serving the role. The nurturing
of strong national organizations that can support the NSF
mission and that of the science community to fulfill its
potential is a mutual goal both of the NSF and the AURA, and we
work very closely together in partnership to do that.
So you are in this hearing paying attention to the
facilities that precede the future construction, that feed in,
in many cases, to future construction projects. We have really
worked with the NSF a very long time on trying to develop a
policy that works well to make that transition. Our
observatories, like many others in the NSF that are in this pot
of money called research infrastructure, have declined in
budget over the last couple of years. So I know today is not
one that you want to dwell on the budget but it is true that
the declining percentage of the NSF budget and research
infrastructure is a concern. Earlier this week, NOAO was forced
to terminate about ten percent of its workforce because of the
belt tightening, and we will have to do for Gemini in the
future. I expect other observatories will go through the same
issue.
But I do want to address some of the policy issues that you
mentioned. First, the issue of recompetition. I would start by
saying the primary goal that the NSF should have is building
strong, effective national organizations that work with the
community and fulfill the NSF mission. Recompetition is one
tool to effect that, but I wouldn't say it was the only tool or
even the most important one, but if you start from that first
premise, what we need to do to make AUI or AURA a very
effective leader in developing the community, recompetition
comes into play and so we do acknowledge the value of this but
there are many circumstances in which you would make a
different decision other than recompete the contract, and this
was certainly the issue that Dr. Schreier mentioned with ALMA
and NRAO. So there are other features of this overall goal that
I think should be examined before the decision to recompete is
actually made.
The second issue was one of decommissioning facilities, and
again, this is an extremely important issue for us. The NSF has
a very sound and well-developed policy for beginning
construction projects, operating projects. For decommissioning
facilities, there isn't a clear approach yet, and I illustrate
one such example in my testimony. We would like to shut down
our facilities in Sac Peak but just in terms of relative
budgets, it costs about a million dollars a year to operate but
it may take $7 million or $8 million to decommission. When you
sit in Indian tribal lands or Forest Service lands and have to
return those to their natural state, this can be a very
substantial cost. And so decommissioning doesn't come for free,
and my testimony recommends that some addressing of this be put
in the NSF budget just as construction projects were.
You asked about international collaborations. I am almost
out of time. It is very important for the U.S. community to
fulfill its goals through such collaborations, so they are very
important.
I will just end by acknowledging the second half of the
title of this hearing, ensuring fiscal responsibility and
accountability, and that is a prerequisite to everything else
we do. We all know that. We work very hard, take it very
seriously to get it right. I would say that it is a continuous
process. The NSF has a very robust way of looking at what we
do, our accounting processes. That is very appropriate. I would
say that our systems are in constant change as we engage in
this dialog with the NSF, but I think that we have a system
that fulfills your mandate to ensure this fiscal
responsibility.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.045
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Dr. Smith, for your insight.
At this time the Chair recognizes Dr. Divins for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR.DAVID DIVINS,
VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR,
OCEAN DRILLING PROGRAMS,
CONSORTIUM FOR OCEAN LEADER, INC.
Dr. Divins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
Members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify this
morning.
The Consortium for Ocean Leadership is a consortium of
academic institutions involved in ocean sciences. We have been
through our predecessor organization, Joint Oceanographic
Institutions, managing the drilling program, scientific
drilling programs for NSF for close to 40 years now. The U.S.-
support scientific drilling programs are probably one of the
earth sciences longest-running and most successful
international collaborations that we have and we are continuing
to open new doors, for example, with nonprofit organizations
such as the Moore Foundation to participate in the scientific
advancement for our program and for our community through
funding, observatory instrumentation and other areas to
supplement the NSF funding.
Ocean drilling has been very successful in itself in terms
of the science, contributing significantly to a broad range of
accomplishments within the earth science disciplines. It has
advanced our understanding of solid earth cycles, revealed the
flow of fluid in microbe ecosystems beneath the sea floor, and
has gathered extensive information on earth's climate history.
The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, or IODP, is the current
phase of scientific ocean drilling, and IODP builds on the
successes of earlier programs, the Deep Sea Drilling Project
and the Ocean Drilling Program, to expand our view of earth
history and global processes through ocean basin exploration,
and the ocean basins are the place to go and do this because
they are untouched by human interaction and so we have millions
of years of earth system changes that are recorded in the
sediments and the rocks below the sea floor, providing a unique
baseline that we can then measure past and future planetary
changes against.
IODP is different from the other two drilling programs that
have come before it in that it is a multi-platform program. It
is an international program. There are three drilling platforms
that are involved. The United States brings to the table the
JOIDES Resolution, which is again, that is our facility. The
Japanese contribute their ship, which is the Chikyu, and the
Europeans bring a mission-specific platform, which is a unique
platform tailored to a specific expedition. The JOIDES
Resolution, or the JR, is the riserless platform, which is the
technology used for the drilling, and it is the U.S.
contribution, as I said.
After 20 years of service in the ocean drilling program,
the JR was modernized and retrofitted with funds provided by
the MREFC account. The JR underwent a $150 million two-year
renovation and returned to service in 2009, and this
comprehensive refit, which extended the facility's life by 20
years, included a replacement of all structures forward of the
derrick, which is basically the front half of the ship. A new
multi-floor laboratory was incorporated into the structure of
the hull and incorporated into the ship itself with the
majority of the science systems either being renovated or
completely replaced. The ship now holds state-of-the-art
analytical equipment for on-board core descriptions and
equipment for a wide variety of microbiological, geotechnology
and analytical chemical investigations.
Now, the concern is, Dr. Smith was talking about the
changing availability of funding for these large facilities
becoming an increasing issue. When the JR came out of the
shipyard back in 2009, the prices of oil, as you can remember,
were skyrocketing and are still continuing to increase. That
has had a serious impact on the operation and maintenance
budget that we have available for the JR. The result was a
decrease in operational days from 12 months, basically 365 days
a year operations, to only 8 months of operations. This has a
serious effect, possibly jeopardizing our international
contributions to participate in future programs where the
facility is not operated at its peak level, and the reality
really is that for a small 20 percent increase, you could get
40 percent more science and deliver much more groundbreaking
and fundamental science.
The other thing I would like to say is the Ocean Drilling
Program is nearing its--its current contract ends at the end of
fiscal year 2013 and we will be--there is a program at the
National Science Board to extend the program for one more year
with a contract extension which then would be followed by a
five-year cooperative agreement with a complete recompete is
the process here, and for us, the recompetition--we don't own
the facility, NSF does not own the facility. It is a leased
facility. You put in jeopardy--by having these recompetitions,
you put in jeopardy that contract that is in place that the
costs may become prohibitive or out of reach for NSF, given the
funding levels that we have.
And so thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Divins follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.054
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Dr. Divins, for your testimony
and insight.
Dr. Boebinger, you now have five minutes.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY S. BOEBINGER, DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL HIGH MAGNETIC FIELD LABORATORY,
AND PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS,
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY AND UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Dr. Boebinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Greg Boebinger. I am the Director of
the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory and a Physics
Professor at Florida State University and the University of
Florida.
The MagLab is a multi-user research facility that is
supported by a partnership of the NSF and the State of Florida.
It is a fine example of the benefits of a federal-state
partnership. Since its founding in 1990, in fact, the MagLab
has received roughly $500 million from the NSF and $350 million
from the State of Florida. High magnetic fields play a critical
role in developing new materials that affect nearly every
modern technology. Our entire electricity-driven lifestyle,
motors, computers, high-speed transistors as well as important
biomedical tools such as MRI rely on the knowledge gained from
magnetic-field research.
The scope of work currently underway at the MagLab is vast.
It includes the study of new superconductors, batteries and
fuel cells with the potential to revolutionize energy delivery
and storage. It also includes the search for new medicines and
a crucial analysis of petroleum and biofuels that could lead to
better fuel production. The MagLab has campuses at Florida
State University, the University of Florida and Los Alamos
National Laboratory. Every year, MagLab facilities are used by
1,200 scientists from more than 100 institutions across the
United States. Access is through a peer review of proposals
submitted by users, whose work spans material physics, magnetic
engineering, chemistry, biology and biomedicine.
Funding for the MagLab comes in three competitive stages.
The first is a full recompetition such as occurred in 1990 for
the MagLab and per National Science Board policy is expected
again in 2016. A full recompetition is a winner-take-all
competition to win the right to establish and operate the
Nation's magnet lab.
The second stage of competition is our five-year renewal
proposal process. Each renewal proposal includes the
development of a new and updated scientific vision as well as a
new zero baseline budget for the facility. Renewal proposals
are peer reviewed by both anonymous referees and an expert NSF
site visit committee. It takes 2-1/2 years to complete each
five-year renewal proposal process.
The third stage of competition determines the MagLab's
funding on an annual basis when the NSF budget decisions are
made. These decisions weigh competing demands on limited
resources and take into account the annual evaluation of the
laboratory's performance by the MagLab's user committee and the
NSF site visit committee. Competitive review is therefore
already built into the NSF oversight of its multi-user research
facilities. As such, consideration of a full recompetition
should begin with a formal process to determine whether a
winner-take-all recompetition is in the best interest of the
Nation and the science. The process should analyze whether the
present facility is underperforming or failing to provide the
infrastructure and support needed for world-leading research.
The process should also assess the cost of a full recompetition
and the impact of a winner-take-all recompetition on future
funding by partners who have already invested significantly in
the facility. Future NSF recompetition policy must be flexible
because every multi-user research facility is different. Each
facility here today represents a unique funding portfolio, a
complex infrastructure and an equally complex relationship with
its user community and its managing institutions. Each of the
MagLab's three partner institutions contributes valuable
infrastructure and expertise including professors serving in
management roles and research scientists providing support for
user research. The MagLab's buildings, infrastructure and
equipment are not federally owned. As such, a full
recompetition of the MagLab is a decision whether to relocate
the Nation's high magnetic-field facility and build it
somewhere else.
As MagLab Director, I want to emphasize that I welcome the
ongoing challenge of competitive review by both our users and
our sponsors. It ensures its scarce resources are used to
support the best science and the best management of important
national assets. At the same time, given the complexity and
costs involved in a winner-take-all recompetition, a flexible
recompete policy is necessary.
I thank you very much for this opportunity to testify, and
I would be pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Boebinger follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.071
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Dr. Boebinger.
At this point the Chair recognizes Dr. Gruner for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. SOL MICHAEL GRUNER, DIRECTOR,
CORNELL HIGH ENERGY SYNCHROTRON SOURCE,
AND THE JOHN L. WETHERILL PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, CORNELL
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Gruner. Thank you, Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member
Lipinski and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Sol Gruner and I am the Director and Principal
Investigator of the Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source,
CHESS. CHESS provides X-ray resources essential to users
working in physics, chemistry, material science, geology,
biology, biomedicine, engineering, environmental science and
even art restoration archaeology. The X-ray beams are generated
by an accelerator machine a half mile in circumference in a
tunnel underneath the central Cornell University campus. The
machine uses both matter and antimatter particles passing
through magnets to generate X-ray beams millions of times more
brilliant than possible with conventional X-ray machines.
The NSF-funded facility was built in under two years and
started operations in 1979. It has since been repeatedly
upgraded during competing renewals, which occur roughly every
five years, to maintain world-class capabilities. These, by the
way, are existential competing. NSF annual support for CHESS is
about $20 million with an additional roughly $15 million from
Cornell, the National Institutes of Health and related grants.
The facility staff of about 150 people hosts between 600 and
1,000 user visits a year by students, scientists and engineers
from 38 states and territories and 24 countries who use the X-
ray beam for an extraordinary variety of purposes. The result
is about one scientific publication per day of X-ray
operations.
The American taxpayer supports CHESS to fulfill three
missions. The first one, of course, is world-class science, the
second one is new technology development, and the third one is
student training. Repeated NSF external reviews have confirmed
that CHESS is extremely successful at all three missions.
Examples of scientific results including fundamental work on
fluid jets underpinning fluid injection in engines, basic
pharmaceutical and biomedical science, discovery of new polymer
ceramic composite materials, studies of materials at center of
earth pressures, studies of famous paintings, etc. Our users
have won many awards including Nobel Prizes.
The facility is a world leader in developing synchrotron
technology. Synchrotrons are tools enabling much science and
industry, and for this reason, there is a fierce international
competition for technological supremacy in the field. Many of
the technologies that have enabled the field, many of those
which now are operating, for example, at DOE laboratories, were
developed at our facility. We are world leaders in
superconducting acceleration, X-ray detectors, optic simulators
and many more areas.
Perhaps our most important function, however, is student
training. Student training is closely linked to innovation. Our
graduate students develop new ideas from concept through to
implementation. They are in the control room and behind the
shielding wall, meaning that the build the facility and learn
how to make it better. This type of access is consistent with
the university mission and is essential to training the
innovators of tomorrow and the key to winning in the highly
competitive synchrotron radiation field. In addition to
receiving technological training, our students are immersed in
frontier science working with users from across the world and
across the country, thereby equipping them for future
leadership roles.
A cooperative agreement with the NSF details numerous
specific steps to ensure that government funds are spent
accountably and responsibly. These include metrics, regular
written reports, audits and external reviews.
I would like to close with the challenge that I believe
threatens the very existence of major NSF interdisciplinary
facilities, especially at universities. As you know, the NSF is
divided into divisions, each devoted to a discipline such as
chemistry or physics or biology. Now, consider the work of one
of our users, Dr. Rod MacKinnon from Rockefeller University,
who used our accelerator, which was designed for physics, and
the CHESS facility, which is funded by the material science
division. His work depended on apparatus we custom-built using
methods from astronomy and engineering, allowing Dr. MacKinnon
to resolve a seminal biological problem of biomedical
importance, for which he won the Nobel Prize in chemistry. Now,
I ask you, what division owns that research? It is a quandary.
And perhaps it won't surprise you that each NSF division seems
to feel that some other division should steward the costs. The
path of least resistance, the path that I fear the agency is
on, is to simply terminate broadly interdisciplinary
facilities, especially at universities where student
involvement mixes the disciplines. The temptation to do this is
especially pronounced during tight fiscal times when the
easiest way to increase the number of grants that a division
can offer is to decrease large-facility obligations. I
respectfully submit that this issue deserves your attention.
Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gruner follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.084
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Dr. Gruner.
I thank the witnesses, each of them, for their valuable
testimony and the Members for their upcoming questions. At this
point I recognize myself for questioning for five minutes. The
Chair will then recognize other Members for five minutes.
The first question I have is for all witnesses. What
perceived or anticipated benefits, detriments or
vulnerabilities could the research conducted at your facilities
or the communities you serve face by regular recompetition of
multi-user facility operating awards? Whoever wishes to go
first. If not, I will start on the right with Dr. Gruner, but
if someone else wants to go first, jump at it.
Dr. Gruner. We have been recompeted every five years for as
far back as I can remember. Because the facility is physically
embedded in Cornell University, because all the equipment is
owned by Cornell University, there doesn't seem to be too much
in the way of choices. So we deal with every recompetition as
existential. Either they are going to fund us and we will
continue, or they will not fund us and we will simply go out of
business. This is considerably different than a freestanding
facility where you can recompete the operators and the staff
stays. In our case, if we fail the recompetition, not only do
the operators leave but, of course, the staff are dismissed.
This helps focus the mind.
Chairman Brooks. Dr. Boebinger?
Dr. Boebinger. Yeah, I agree with everything my colleague,
Dr. Gruner, said. In addition, for the magnet lab at least,
because we have such a large involvement from the State of
Florida, it is difficult to see how and why the State of
Florida would be putting up 35 percent of the funding if they
felt that every five years there was a winner-take-all
competition. Of course, it is a double-edged sword. It could be
that it gets everyone's attention. The primary point that I
would make is that as my colleague said, every five years these
renewal proposals are not a case of showing up and asking for
one's allowance. It starts with a zero-balance budget and it
ends up with a decision that really does determine the
existence of the user facility at the university for the next 5
years.
Chairman Brooks. Dr. Divins?
Dr. Divins. Again, I would like to agree with what has been
said. Our case is a little different than the rest of the panel
in that the facility in question is not actually owned by the
National Science Foundation or by Ocean Leadership, for
example. It is a contracted vessel that we receive. We work
out, in this case, a ten-year contract with the owner of that
vessel. Having regular competition could have a pros and cons
in that model. If the economic situation is such that the
vessels are not in demand, we could negotiate a nice lower rate
on the facility. If the economic conditions are such that, you
know, oil is booming, they want to use the ship for other
purposes, then we risk losing the facility due to making the
cost of having the contract might be prohibitively expensive.
So there is a balance there in terms of doing that as an annual
competition, but the other part, in addition to the actual ship
is that we do have facilities that are contributed to IODP
through our academic partners. For example, Texas A&M
University and Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia,
they provide in kind buildings and overhead and other
activities that if you were to do this as a constant winner-
take-all procedure, you know, you could potentially be having
to either build new buildings, hire new staff on a regular
basis. So it really is a delicate balance between where are the
pros and where are the cons to make an annual recompete
process.
Chairman Brooks. Dr. Smith?
Dr. Smith. Thank you. You asked the question from the
community standpoint, which is appropriate, and I think really
the community should be heard when the agency is making a
decision to recompete. I will go back to something that I said
earlier, and that is, if the first question is, is this
organization serving the community in the best possible way,
you start from that and then ask how can it be better, and I
think there is one issue that I illustrate in my testimony, and
that is, if recompetition precludes organizations from
consolidating, which can certainly offer cost benefits and
efficiencies to the community, then the recompetition is not in
the best interests of the community, and that certainly can
be--that is an issue that we face. Dr. Schreier mentioned the
same one from his standpoint. It is a common issue. And so in
our case, we are willing to compete. I think we will compete
strongly. But there ought to be other avenues to allow us to
restructure to be more effective, and when recompetition
impedes those, then there should be some process for looking at
the alternatives.
The other issue I wanted to point out is that in many
cases, for example, with our work with the National Solar
Observatory, we are in the process of heading into the
advanced--a major facility advanced technology solar telescope,
which means that I am signing very large contracts and making
very large commitments. It is inconceivable to me that you
would have a process where I am unplugged and somebody else
steps in to sign the same contracts. I don't know how that
process will work. Again, we will compete strongly but there is
a large uncertainty just in pure legal and logistical terms how
you make that transition, and I have to say, it is very, very
daunting.
Chairman Brooks. Dr. Schreier?
Dr. Schreier. Thank you. I agree with many of the previous
comments, especially Dr. Smith's. One point I could add is that
in the case I was discussing, there are many complex
international agreements involved in running these facilities.
Some are government-to-government but many are the legal
responsibility of the parties who do the work like my
organization. We have agreements with Chile. We are subject to
Chilean labor laws. For example, if ALMA is recompeted, if a
new organization takes over ALMA, all the 300 staff in Chile
have to be fired, given severance pay and rehired by a new
organization. The labor laws are very strict there. There are
relationships with our foreign partners in terms of ALMA being
a joint project. It is a very expensive project. We pay less
money because other countries are participating but we also
have to negotiate from a position of strength with, for
example, Europe and with Japan in terms of how we support our
scientific communities. The European organization is extremely
strong. It represents 13 European countries. We have developed
relations with them through the years, and we know how to
maneuver this situation. A new organization will have to start
from scratch, figure out how to negotiate, how to work
together. These are very important factors that can't be
ignored in a recompetition.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Dr. Schreier and the other
witnesses.
At this point the Chair recognizes Mr. Lipinski of Illinois
for five minutes.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciated the witnesses' comments on the recompetition.
One thing I just want to follow up, hopefully very quickly, Dr.
Smith. I think you had mentioned a couple times when we were
talking about recompetition that there would be alternatives.
Is there anything more that you can say on that? What are you
talking about?
Dr. Smith. Yeah. I thank you for asking me to be specific.
There was something on my mind. The Astronomy and Astrophysics
Decadal Survey a couple of years ago recommended that the NSF
consider ways of consolidating the National Optical Astronomy
Observatory, NOAO, and Gemini. They sit on similar sites. They
serve the same community but they are separate programs now. We
thought that was a serious recommendation and we certainly
wanted to examine all aspects of that, but the National Science
Board's decision was that when you take two organizations that
are under separate cooperative agreements and somehow entangle
them or merge them, then that impedes recompetition because of
the coupling and so we're not now considering consolidating
those two organizations, notwithstanding the recommendation of
the decadal survey. There may be or may not be, we just haven't
had a chance to examine it, a tremendous cost savings. There
certainly would be advantages for the U.S. community. It would
be very difficult, of course, to accommodate all the
international partners but it is a situation which because the
recompetition itself became the highest principle, the more
important matters of just building a stronger, more responsive
organization are things that are off the table. We can't
examine that.
Mr. Lipinski. Dr. Schreier?
Dr. Schreier. I would like to add to that. I think that is
a very important point that Dr. Smith made. I can tell you from
the mirror image standpoint, we are currently operating ALMA
and NRAO together. We have been asked by NSF because of the
National Science Board's recommendation to assess the cost of
splitting them, and we have done that. We submitted this
information to NSF and they are analyzing it. But the first
year of the spilt would cost approximately $27 million more to
separate these facilities, you know, firing people, rehiring
them, creating new infrastructure, and there would be a steady
state increase of about $6 million a year. So we are talking
about a steady state increase in cost of maybe five percent or
so with the budget and a first-time cost that is much higher.
The second point that Dr. Smith made, which I would like to
emphasize, is that by being associated, by having the forefront
facilities like Gemini and the National Optical Astronomy
Observatory, and ALMA and the radio facilities is one way we
maintain our technology expertise, by working on the forefront
instrumentation, and that is essential. If you are relegated to
separating these facilities and just maintaining things at the
odd facilities and not the new facilities, then you lose your
expertise. It goes somewhere else, and that is something I
think the United States wouldn't want to do.
Mr. Lipinski. I want to move on to the issue of
decommissioning plans and costs, and Dr. Smith has recommended
that NSF considering allowing for decommissioning costs within
the MREFC budget, and I just want to open up to the rest of the
panel, do you agree with this recommendation? Do you have any
additional suggestions regarding de commissioning that we
should consider?
Dr. Smith. Can I just maybe offer one clarification?
Mr. Lipinski. Yes.
Dr. Smith. I would really like to see decommissioning
because it is a large one-time cost relative to your operating
budget be handled in some agency-wide budget like MREFC, if not
MREFC, but there could be some other agency-wide pool of money
that you could use to address that.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you for that clarification.
Does anyone else have any comments? Dr. Boebinger?
Dr. Boebinger. Yes. For the magnet lab, the issue of
decommissioning I think is very different than for some of my
colleagues on the panel. We have a sufficiently large suite of
magnets that typically for us decommissioning is getting
funding for the next higher performing magnet, and so then we
take the old one offline. It was similar to the graph that was
shown for telescopes but it is a much smaller financial scale,
and so I don't see a need at least for us to have a formal
process for decommissioning. In fact, this upgrading of
equipment is one way that we get involvement by NIH and
Department of Energy as we propose new magnets. So at least for
the magnet lab, I don't think it is a budgetary issue.
Mr. Lipinski. Anyone else? Dr. Schreier?
Dr. Schreier. I can add an example to what was just said.
The Very Large Array in New Mexico, which is 27 antennas spread
across the plains of San Agustin, was the forefront facility
dedicated in 1980. It was the best radio telescope in the
world. In the 1990s, the National Science Board approved an
upgrade and for something less than, significantly less than
$100 million, that same telescope was just rededicated two
weeks ago as the Jansky Very Large Array and is between ten and
1,000 times more powerful just by virtue of replacing the
electronics. So this has become a brand-new telescope that is
now a half-billion-dollar-class telescope developed not by
decommissioning, but by just replacing 1970s vintage
electronics and correlators and receivers with 2000 vintage
equipment. This is a very powerful way to proceed and it
doesn't happen automatically, but it is a very cost-effective
way to get new capabilities.
Mr. Lipinski. Dr. Divins?
Dr. Divins. I would like to second that. I mean, that is
exactly what has happened with our facility over the years,
that as the existing infrastructure becomes dated, the MREFC
program was the way to--you know, we didn't have to
decommission, we just reinstituted a new program and a new
facility and we got the latest state-of-the-art technology. It
didn't have to be the same ship in our case. It was an open
competition for any vessel but it would have given us a new
facility, and what we ended up with was much better than what
we had and we didn't have to actually shut down any facility.
We just transitioned to the new one. It was, I think, a very
cost-effective way to handle it.
Mr. Lipinski. Dr. Gruner?
Dr. Gruner. I would like to add to that. There doesn't seem
to be a very effective process to consider the costs of
decommissioning versus the costs of upgrading or replacing the
facility if the need for that facility continues to exist. It
would be very helpful in fact if that were to occur.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Obviously, each situation, each
facility is very different in these considerations, and that
has to be taken into account, so I appreciate hearing all the
different perspectives, and I yield back.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
The Chair next recognizes Mr. Tonko of New York.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Gruner, from your testimony, it appears clear that
there is a high demand for the use of the Cornell facility.
Does the concept of recompeting this facility really apply in
this case?
Dr. Gruner. I don't think it applies in the same sense that
it would apply to recompeting the operation of a standalone
facility. And, as I had mentioned, because demand continues to
be high and because we either continue or go out of existence
as a facility, the decision really is not whether we want to
transfer operations to another operator but whether there is
enough service going on to the Nation to justify the continued
expenditure. So in that sense, a competing renewal makes a
great deal of sense. A recompetition of the operation of the
facility does not.
Mr. Tonko. And I think you are responding to that in that
hypothetically if Cornell were to lose, you would lose too.
There is probably no other facility that would show interest
or----
Dr. Gruner. I am not quite sure. It is worth noting that
the history of the Cornell facility has been complex because it
started out actually as two facilities, one of which dealt with
high-energy physics. It was arguably the most productive high-
energy physics experiment in the world. It went on for 30
years. And eventually that physics played out and the NSF and
Cornell University terminated that activity. We then looked at
what can be done with the physical apparatus because ultimately
that represents a huge taxpayer investment, and it was clear
that there is a tremendous demand, continued demand, for the X-
ray resources which also been going on over that entire period
of time. That is what we would like to leverage on, where we
feel we can best serve the American taxpayer.
Mr. Tonko. And in your testimony, you described the process
for reapplying to NSF for the operating support, I believe?
Dr. Gruner. Yes.
Mr. Tonko. Is this a rigorous review?
Dr. Gruner. Oh, absolutely. The review typically consists
of a proposal which encompasses what you want to do in the way
of upgrading the facility, what the new research focuses will
be, why it is justified to continue in a unique fashion certain
activities or to create new activities that uniquely serve the
country. These reviews are then sent out, or rather this
proposal is sent out for written reviews. The written reviews
come back and a national panel is assembled by the NSF to do a
site review. They address both the concerns that might have
occurred with the written review and things that they might
have seen at the site review, and make a recommendation to the
NSF as to whether the facility should be renewed at all.
Mr. Tonko. So I am hearing that this type of review ensures
that NSF funds are well spent on their given facilities based
on information that they gather through the review?
Dr. Gruner. I believe that is the case.
Mr. Tonko. Can you think of any other interaction that NSF
could do to strengthen the outcomes of the effectiveness or the
efficiency of the funds?
Dr. Gruner. Well, I think at this point the NSF has been
struggling with the issue of what recompetition means for its
broad portfolio of different kinds of facilities. I think it is
very clear from where we sit at this table that no one size is
going to fit all. The portfolio of facilities NSF operates are
sufficiently diverse in terms of their ownership, the way they
are run, who they serve, and the collaborations that they have,
that some flexibility and common sense has to be applied in
order to make the system work.
Mr. Tonko. And if that facility at Cornell were to close,
are there alternate sites for doing the work?
Dr. Gruner. There are facilities operated by the Department
of Energy, which of course are also light sources. But the
system that has evolved in the United States is that our
facility serves a very particular function. It complements what
goes on in the DOE laboratories. If you go to every single one
of the DOE laboratories, you will find that many of the people
who lead those facilities or operate the accelerator or run
their beam lines were trained at ours, because that is our
function. We are an educational institution. We are able to
train people by taking them behind the shielding wall where
they can learn how to make these things work. It is not
something that you can learn in a classroom. You actually have
to have hands-on operation. That is largely incompatible with
the mission of a facility that has to be operating all the time
to get the maximum number of users through.
Mr. Tonko. And you mentioned a wide array of disciplines
that the facility is applying--is offering. Can you give us a
few examples of research outside of high-energy physics that
are being pursued?
Dr. Gruner. Right now, high-energy physics is not being
done on the machine. All the disciplines that I mentioned,
chemistry, biology and so on are being done on the machine. So
we have a very large base of people who are doing work on
protein structure. These are the proteins that are basis of
much of modern biotechnology. We have a very large contingent
of people who are doing materials research on new kinds of
polymeric materials. We are now engaged with the Air Force in
trying to build a capability to help them understand how metals
fail when they are repeatedly stressed. As you know, you have
to change the skin of aircraft regularly because there really
isn't a good understanding of the failure mechanisms. We have a
very vibrant community that uses diamond anvil cells. These are
diamonds where you crush materials to try to make new kinds of
materials that would then be metastable; the ultimate goal is
to make something stronger than diamond. The list goes on. It
is very diverse. We had a group of people who are analyzing
paintings. In the last few years we have discovered a new
Brueghel the Younger painting. We revealed a painting that was
covered over by N.C. Wyeth. It is just a very vibrant place in
that regard.
Mr. Tonko. I understand that. It is in upstate New York. So
we thank you for the contributions you make to the country.
Dr. Gruner. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
At this point the Chair recognizes Ms. Bonamici of Oregon
for questions.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to ask each of you a bit about what your
facilities do to inspire students with regard to STEM
education. I know, Dr. Schreier, you gave an example about
pulsars and that you have interns, and you talked about AUI
promoting STEM education but I would like to hear a little bit
from each of you about whether you have outreach efforts and to
any particular groups and how you bring students in and inspire
them to pursue careers or to further their efforts in STEM
education. Thank you.
Dr. Smith. Yes. Thank you. This is an extremely high
priority for us, and I think that AURA facilities, as the
others here, offer a research experience for students, and so
as they progress through their careers, whether they enter into
the sciences or a STEM field or not, it is still extremely
important that they see the working environment in which
science gets done and that they see how scientists work and
they learn to think critically. Again, it matters less whether
they become scientists but they certainly need to understand,
you know, how the STEM--how the sciences work and so we do have
a very active program of bringing in students. There is a
program, research experience for undergraduates. We are very
active participants in that, which is an NSF program. It is
very successful, and I would say that although it is very
competitive, the diversity of the students coming in is
absolutely impressive. I think we all know that the future
challenge in the sciences is to make them more diverse, to
bring in more women and minorities because that--we don't look
very diverse today but we know that we have to achieve a much
higher level of diversity in the future. So we are all working
on that pipeline. Our facilities, I have some numbers in here
but I will just tell you that we take it very seriously. It is
a major--one of our major priorities.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
And others? Yes, Doctor.
Dr. Boebinger. Yes, I agree with what Dr. Smith said. The
magnet lab has a Center for Integrating Research and Learning,
so this is a team of professional educators who bring together
the scientists at the magnet lab with the K-12 programs and the
undergraduate research programs. So that group makes face-to-
face contact with 10,000 K-12 students every year. We also have
an open house annually at the magnet lab. We get 5,000 people
from the general public coming through. We have about 100
hands-on exhibits. So there are programs that reach out to a
broad audience. We also have programs where we are seeking to
identify individuals to, if you will, get them networked and
get that leg up. Among those programs is the Research
Opportunities for Undergraduates program that brings
undergraduates in for the summer to work in a laboratory. We
also have a Research Experience for Teachers program for K-12
teachers, and in particular we try to attract teachers and the
majority of those teachers come from Title I schools. We also
have a workforce initiative program where our scientists go out
to HBCUs, women's institutes, and they give lectures. They talk
about the research at the magnet lab. They have some funding
that is made available that they can invite students to the
summer programs and we found that that is a way to really form
relationships that bring undergraduates and grad students into
the larger network of research in the United States.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. Any others?
Dr. Schreier. I wouldn't mind adding to what I said before.
I gave you only one example. We have several--we also
participate in the Research Opportunities for Undergraduates.
It is an interesting thing. One of the members of my board, who
happens to be a professor at Cornell University and a member of
the National Academy of Sciences, was a summer student at Green
Bank in West Virginia in the 1970s while she was a student, and
she became a scientist. We have visitor centers at both New
Mexico and West Virginia. The Green Bank Telescope in West
Virginia is in one of the poorest counties east of the
Mississippi and has a very advanced science center courtesy of
our existence there. We have programs for high school students
there. We have been expanding this to Chile. We have had a
sister cities program between San Pedro de Atacama in Chile and
Magdalena, New Mexico. We have two interesting indigenous, not
very advanced towns next to world-leading telescopes, and we
set up a program whereby teachers and students were exchanged
between the two. So people learn how these different cultures
work, and also get interested in science, which they do. We
have recently been--I have recently been personally talking
with the University of Colorado, which has one of the better
STEM education programs in the country teaching current
teachers and first-year college students how to get more
involved with science and mathematics to see how we can
leverage the local programs we have in radio astronomy to a
national level to improve STEM education.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. My time is expired.
Thank you.
Chairman Brooks. The Chair is willing to entertain a second
round of questions from the Members if any so desire. Seeing
none, I would like to thank our witnesses for their valuable
testimony and the Members for their questions. The Members of
the Subcommittee may have additional questions for the
witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
comments from Members.
The witnesses are excused and this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Ethan J. Schreier
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.088
Responses by Dr. William S. Smith
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.092
Responses by Dr. David Divins
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.094
Responses by Dr. Gregory S. Boebinger
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.103
Responses by Dr. Sol Michael Gruner
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74056.098