[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2014
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Chairman
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
JO BONNER, Alabama MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
TOM GRAVES, Georgia JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Mike Ringler, Jeff Ashford, Leslie Albright,
Diana Simpson, and Colin Samples,
Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 7
Page
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Budget Request..... 1
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Inspector General
Budget Request.................................................... 119
National Science Foundation Budget Request....................... 167
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-907 WASHINGTON : 2013
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2014
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Chairman
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
JO BONNER, Alabama MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
TOM GRAVES, Georgia JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Mike Ringler, Jeff Ashford, Leslie Albright,
Diana Simpson, and Colin Samples,
Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 7
Page
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Budget Request..... 1
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Inspector General
Budget Request.................................................... 119
National Science Foundation Budget Request....................... 167
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-907 WASHINGTON : 2013
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida \1\ NITA M. LOWEY, New York
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
TOM LATHAM, Iowa ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
KAY GRANGER, Texas ED PASTOR, Arizona
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida SAM FARR, California
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
KEN CALVERT, California BARBARA LEE, California
JO BONNER, Alabama ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania TIM RYAN, Ohio
TOM GRAVES, Georgia DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEVIN YODER, Kansas HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
DAVID G. VALADAO, California
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
----------
\1\ Chairman Emeritus
WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2014
----------
Wednesday, March 13, 2013.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
WITNESS
HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Chairman's Opening Remarks
Mr. Wolf. The hearing will come to order. Good morning. I
would like to welcome everyone to today's hearing on the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Our witness is
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.
We appreciate your being here.
We are going to have a vote about 2:25, and then we will
come right back. And then I think the next vote is at 4:30 or
so, and I think hopefully we will finish by then.
As I mentioned in the subcommittee's first agency budget
hearing yesterday, we are operating in an unusual environment
this year due to the lateness of the President's budget request
and the uncertainty about when the request will finally be
submitted by OMB. As a result, we will spend less time today
discussing NASA's specific budget proposal for next year and
more time talking about general priorities and about issues
that reflect on how NASA is managing the money that it has.
Some of those issues, such as the regular occurrence of
cost and schedule overruns on major NASA programs, are
longstanding concerns. Others, like NASA's management strategy
for assisting commercial partners in the development of new
systems for crew transportation to the International Space
Station, are relatively new. For a large and broad agency such
as NASA, there is a nearly endless supply of these type of
issues that we could focus on as part of the discussion about
how to make NASA the most effective manager of its funds.
One issue, in particular, I want to spend some time on
today is the quality of enforcement within NASA's internal
security regime. It is critically important for us to have
confidence in NASA's ability to protect sensitive technologies
and information from exploitation by entities that are looking
to gain an advantage over the United States economically or
militarily.
The subcommittee has worked very hard over the past few
years to protect our research and development programs from the
full impact of recent budget reductions. But we cannot continue
to do this if NASA cannot assure us that those investments will
be adequately protected from entities and countries that have
been designated as potential threats.
One of the designated countries of greatest concern is
China. We know that China is an active, aggressive espionage
threat and that, according to a recent White House report, the
technologies that NASA works on, aerospace and aeronautics
technology, are those that the Chinese have most heavily
targeted. I suspect that this focus on stealing space- and
flight-based technology explains at least some of the major
advances that the Chinese space program has made over the past
few years.
Those advances challenge both our preeminent position in
human space flight, but also international security, as China's
space program is run exclusively by its military, the People's
Liberation Army. For all these reasons, I am particularly
attuned to any allegation that a lapse in security has provided
China or any other designated country access to sensitive
information that is supposed to be protected under our export
control laws and other relevant statutes.
As you know, several allegations involving both the Ames
and Langley Research Centers have recently been brought to my
office by NASA career civil servants. These are all career
people who have had a long history of service; no one is of a
political nature. These allegations have raised concerns about
NASA's ability to control sensitive information at events or on
the Internet, its ability to appropriately screen and supervise
foreign nationals working on NASA's programs or with access to
NASA's information, and its ability to respond to possible
security violations in a timely and comprehensive manner.
One of these allegations, centered on the access of Chinese
national Bo Jiang to a sensitive technology at Langley,
culminated this past weekend with Jiang's arrest at Dulles
Airport, where he was attempting to return to China in
possession of a large amount of information technology that he
may not have been entitled to possess.
So this is not a theoretical discussion. We are talking
about real people and real allegations of substantive
violations, some of which are currently being investigated by
law enforcement authorities, which we will not get into.
I would like to discuss the problems facing NASA's security
enforcement regime, as well as some of the potential solutions.
I hope we can get you to improve upon security. And I asked my
staff to call over there because this can be a hearing on NASA
espionage, or it can be a hearing on the space program. And so,
that is why I am waiting to hear your comments. I have yet to
hear any formal reaction from NASA to those recommendations,
and I hope that the silence is not an indication of disinterest
or a lack of commitment.
I plan on staying with the issue, and I assume the whole
committee will help me. But even if they don't, I will be there
because I feel very, very, very, very strongly about these
issues. I believe that those specified reforms are necessary
steps and we have to do these things. So there is more that I
could say about that, but we'll have some questions as we
begin. Hopefully you can help us early on on that. That means
we'd spend less time on these issues. If not, we'll spend more
time.
But pursuant to the authority granted--oh, I want to
recognize Mr. Fattah for his opening statement.
Mr. Fattah.
Ranking Member's Opening Remarks
Mr. Fattah. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And to Administrator Bolden, it is an honor to have you
before the committee again. And I want to say at the outset I
share the chairman's concern that we do--and I know that as
someone who has worn the uniform of the country and who has
done just an extraordinary--has had an extraordinary life of
public service, that you, too, share any concern around dealing
with protecting our national security and intellectual
property.
But I want to make some more general remarks. One is I had
the honor to be at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Congressman
Schiff's neck of the woods for the occasion of the Curiosity
rover landing, after 8\1/2\ months' travel, landing perfectly
on the surface of Mars.
I think that NASA's team, in pulling off this extraordinary
feat, really puts and positions NASA well in terms of the
President's goal of seeing a human flight to Mars in the not-
too-distant future. And I know about the work that is being
done to put together the most powerful engine ever and the
other work that is critically important for this effort. But
the Mars rover and its landing, I think, really suggested to
the Nation in a way that even late President John F. Kennedy
would have been proud of, I think, really that NASA was really
at the very forefront.
And I know you have dozens of missions, you have lots
going--a lot going on. Sometimes it is hard to get the Congress
and the country to focus on how successful NASA truly is. But I
think this particular event really did galvanize the Nation.
And I got a chance, while I was in that area, to also visit
and see the progress on the James Webb Telescope and a number
of other activities, including SpaceX, which has become one of
the two commercial carriers who successfully now--as was
envisioned when the President and NASA made this decision to
move aggressively in terms of commercial crew and commercial
cargo.
And so there's a lot that we can look and see in terms of
your life and work. We appreciate your presence before the
committee today. And I know these are some difficult times,
trying to imagine what your budget may be. And, as you
mentioned to us the last time you testified, you know, this is
rocket science, and there are risks involved, there are
challenges. But you have helped navigate this agency at a very
difficult time in terms of mission and in terms of some of the
challenges in terms of fiscal uncertainty.
So welcome again, and look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
Administrator's Opening Remarks
Pursuant to the authority granted in Section 191 of Title 2
of the United States Code and clause 2(m)(2) of House Rule XI,
today's witness will be sworn in before testifying.
Please rise and raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Wolf. Let the record reflect that the witness answered
in the affirmative.
Administrator Bolden, your written statement will be made
part of the record. You may proceed and summarize as you see
appropriate.
Mr. Bolden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I welcome
this opportunity to discuss NASA's continued progress in
implementing the bipartisan program for NASA agreed to by the
President and the Congress, which will ensure the United States
continues to lead the world in space exploration, technology,
innovation, and scientific discovery.
NASA is developing space flight capabilities to send humans
to an asteroid in 2025 and onto Mars in the 2030s. We're
building the world's most powerful rocket, the Space Launch
System (SLS), and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV)
for deep space exploration. In 2014, a little more than a year
from now, we'll have the first test flight on Orion. Its first
uncrewed test with an uncrewed flight of Orion and the SLS
together is planned for 2017. The first crewed mission of the
two vehicles is scheduled for 2021.
The knowledge we're gaining from the American astronauts
living and conducting research on the International Space
Station is critical to our future in deep space. In the coming
year, we will prepare a year-long stay by a U.S. astronaut to
explore human adaptation to space. We've begun commercial
resupply of the station from American soil. SpaceX conducted
its first resupply mission to the ISS in 2012 and is currently
berthed to the ISS on its second resupply mission. Orbital
Sciences Corporation is preparing for the maiden flight of its
Antares rocket and plans its first mission to the Station later
this year.
NASA is on track to send our astronauts to space from
American shores using American companies by 2017. In critical
support of the broader mission, we're developing and testing
future technologies that will enable us to move and operate
faster and more efficiently in space, land more mass accurately
on another planet, and enable new destinations. Our ambitious
aeronautics research agenda will reduce fuel consumption,
emissions, and noise to make the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen) a reality.
With 60 missions observing the Earth, the Sun, the planets,
and the universe, NASA remains the world's premier space
science organization and the critical source of information on
the home planet. Building on the brilliant success of our
Curiosity rover on Mars, NASA plans a robust multi-year Mars
program, including a new robotic science rover based on the
Curiosity design, set to launch in 2020. NASA is on track for
the 2018 launch of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the
most powerful telescope in history.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to address an issue of
particular concern to you and me. That's securing sensitive
export-controlled information at our NASA facilities. As you
know, earlier this month, NASA completed a review of a
potential security breach at our Langley Research Facility
involving a Chinese national who worked for a contractor there.
We referred this matter to appropriate law enforcement
officials, and the person in question no longer works at
Langley. We continue to fully cooperate with law enforcement
officials investigating this current matter and stand ready to
assist in any way we can.
I also want to report on several additional steps that I
have taken to address concerns you have raised and which I
share.
First, I've ordered a complete review of the access which
foreign nationals from designated countries are granted at NASA
facilities, as well as our security procedures with regard to
these individuals more broadly. This is in addition to reviews
being conducted by the NASA IG and others. My intention is to
assess the need for an independent review, which you called for
in your press conference, once these steps of internal review,
are complete. Second, I've closed down the NASA technical
reports database while we review whether there is a risk of
export-controlled documents being made available on this Web
site. Third, I have ordered a moratorium on granting any new
access to NASA facilities to individuals from specific
designated countries, specifically China, Burma, Eritrea, Iran,
North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan. Fourth, while
this review is ongoing, I have also ordered that any remote-
computer access to NASA resources be terminated for those from
the same specific designated countries. Fifth, NASA has also
been working very closely with law enforcement agencies on
security and counter intelligence issues and will continue to
do so. Sixth, the review I have directed is also being
accompanied by a renewed emphasis to our supervisors and the
workforce on the importance of our security protocols,
including assessments of new training that may be needed.
Mr. Chairman, just before coming over here, I had the
privilege of doing a video teleconference with all of our
export control officers at each of the NASA centers who are
having a meeting at the Stennis Space Center this week, and we
reemphasized the issues that are of concern to you and me.
Finally, I want this committee to know that I placed a
priority on protecting security, export control, and safety
compliance funding from any budgetary impacts from
sequestration, and my team will continue working under that
guidance. NASA takes all your allegations of security
violations, and those from anyone, very seriously and follows a
long-established procedure to investigate them quickly and
thoroughly. These investigations are handled by our security
and counter-intelligence professionals in cooperation with the
NASA Inspector General and other appropriate law enforcement
officials. The Agency is focused and committed to preventing
and prosecuting all security violations. Mr. Chairman, I just
want to add, this is about national security, not about NASA
security. And I take that personally. I'm responsible, and I
will hold myself accountable once our reviews are completed.
With that, I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you, Mr. Administrator. I appreciate
that.
FOREIGN ESPIONAGE THREAT
And I want the record to show that there was a whole series
of questions, and I will still ask a handful, but not to the
degree that we were planning. I do appreciate your response. I
think that's very important.
And let me just reiterate what Mr. Fattah said of your
record in service to our country and the military--and also
your son's service to our country and the military--in addition
to your time in the space program. So I know that you're
concerned. And so I appreciate you acting quickly.
In light of the arrest of NASA's contractor Bo Jiang over
the weekend, I had asked yesterday--and Mr. Fattah was here--
the FBI Director, Director Mueller, in our hearing whether
NASA's centers are significant targets of foreign espionage.
Director Mueller responded, ``Certainly, they are targets, yes.
And it is a significant threat. We recognize that it has a
significant threat.''
He went on to say, ``If anything, I would say that the
threat is more substantial than perhaps it was 10 to 15 years
ago.'' Again, the FBI Director believes that foreign espionage
is a significant threat to NASA centers and is, ``more
substantial than it was a decade ago.''
So I think both NASA and the Congress have to work together
to heed his words carefully.
There were a number of questions that I was going to ask
you which I will just submit, now, many of them for the record.
INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL SECURITY REVIEW
The one question, though, that I think you did not cover
directly was, will you appoint an independent, outside panel
led by someone like former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh or
someone of similar stature to comprehensively review and audit
security protocols and enforcement, including foreign national
access and export controls at every NASA center and
headquarters? And will this panel have unrestricted access to
center personnel and records and report back to the
Administrator and Congress within 6 months on its findings and
recommendations?
I want to just clarify, Director Mueller used this same
approach for the FBI. When 9/11 took place and Director Mueller
was appointed, there was a transition. And he embraced the
National Academy of Public Administration; we had a former
Attorney General, Dick Thornburgh, do a review. It was very,
very successful. Other committees have used NAPA.
So the question is, would you comment on this outside
panel?
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. You sort of directly said it, but----
Mr. Bolden. I did, Mr. Chairman. When I read the actions
that we were taking, and the first one that I said was I had
ordered a complete review, that review is being done by the
Associate Administrator, Robert Lightfoot. I gave him specific
written directions as to what I want done.
I have talked with the head of my Office of Protective
Services, Mr. Joe Mahaley. Joe has actually said he feels that
it may be that an review of the type that you mentioned would,
in fact, be very helpful. So since he is doing an internal
review of the Office of Protective Services, our security and
export control; Robert is doing an internal review of all the
centers. We've requested data. We just want to make sure that
we get all that in and know what the depth of our problem is.
As I told the export-control officials this morning, they
should probably expect that within a week or so I probably will
direct that we go out and ask NAPA--specifically NAPA, since
that was who you suggested--to do an external review.
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
Mr. Bolden. I didn't make that commitment----
Mr. Wolf. No, I think that's very fair.
Mr. Bolden [continuing]. Specifically, but that is my
probable intent.
Mr. Wolf. No, I think that's very, very fair--and that
that's appropriate.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS ON CHINA COOPERATION
Mr. Wolf. We have a vote on, and then we'll leave with 5
minutes left. But just to kind of narrow down a couple things,
for more than 2 fiscal years, NASA has had a statutory
restriction on its cooperative activities with China.
When the subcommittee wrote the restriction, we intended to
prevent all access by official Chinese visitors to NASA
facilities unless advanced notification and certification are
provided. Are you interpreting these restrictions in this way?
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Chairman, as we discussed in your office, I
still believe that our staffs have a difference in legal
interpretation on the law as it's written. And we interpret it
to be a restriction with relation to bilateral activities with
China. What I have pledged to do is that, since I don't
interpret it to include multilateral operations, such as the
International Space University, when we made a call to the
staff----
Mr. Wolf. I agree.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir, I think we agree, but I just want to
make sure. What I have said I will do from here on out is, as a
courtesy, even if it's multilateral, we'll let you know that we
have something that's coming. But we don't anticipate having a
Chinese visitor to a NASA center here anytime soon.
SECURITY CONTROLS AT NASA CENTERS
Mr. Wolf. Good.
In a letter dated June 20th, you had answered a question.
You said, as described more fully in the cover letter, there
were 156 Chinese nationals that were working at NASA
facilities. I've heard the figure is now up to 200.
Can you comment on how many there are and, also, how many
Americans are working in PLA facilities in China?
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, we have now done a
thorough, we hope, search. We have 281 foreign nationals from
designated countries who have physical access to NASA
facilities, and, of those, 192 are foreign nationals from
China.
Mr. Wolf. One-ninety-two.
Mr. Bolden. So the number is 192 Chinese foreign nationals.
Now, that number includes people with green cards and with
visas. So, that 192 are the ones who have been impacted by the
actions that I took with reference to access to different
things that NASA does.
Mr. Wolf. Because in June of 2012, it was only 156. So the
trend is really going up, rather than down.
Now, how many Americans work in Chinese facilities, PLA
facilities----
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I will get back to you for the
record, but we have checked, and, to my knowledge, we have no
NASA personnel or personnel who are under a NASA contract, NASA
grants, or anything else who are working in the People's
Republic of China. There are probably many Americans who are
working in the People's Republic of China----
Mr. Wolf. Right, but I meant in the People's Liberation
Army, the space facilities.
Mr. Bolden. We have none from NASA who are working there.
The issue that we still owe you is, do we have anyone who is
working on a NASA grant or who may be affiliated with an
organization that's working on a NASA grant but their work also
takes them to a PLA facility? That is what I have to get back
to you for the record.
[The information follows:]
Foreign Nationals
Answer: No NASA employees work in Chinese facilities. The Agency
does not have insight into the work location of non-NASA employees.
Mr. Bolden. As an example, there may be an engineer who is
working on a NASA grant but his real job requires him, working
for Boeing or someone else, to be at a PLA activity, not doing
anything NASA related, but doing their primary work. I don't
have that information right now, but we are trying to get that.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Are you aware of any incidents in which NASA has encouraged
an external entity, as they did down at NASA Langley, to
undertake with its own funds a cooperative activity with China
that would be prohibited using NASA funding?
And are you going to be clarifying that with the
contractors? Because there was almost a workaround to get
around the subcommittee language. Will that be part of what
you're looking at, too?
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Chairman, because you complimented Lesa
Roe, the Director of Langley, the other day in the hearing, I
respectfully disagree with the implication of what you just
said. I don't know whether you meant to say it or not. But Lesa
and her people are not attempting to use contractors as a
workaround to the rules. We would not do that. As a matter of
fact, we really feel that we have been fully complying with the
law, that our processes are strong.
What I have determined is that, as any organization of our
size, we may have some gaps in compliance with those processes.
I think that's what probably happened down at Langley. But we
were not attempting to work around the law or the system or
anything. Lesa Roe is one of the best center directors I have,
and she would not attempt to use a contractor to work around
the law.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well, NIA did. I'm not going to go into the
specifics because of the investigation. But we saw something
where one NASA person says, ``you know, there are times that we
should follow the regulations, but then there are times that we
should ignore the regulations.'' And----
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, that's what I'm saying. That is an
allegation that I have been unable to substantiate. We're the
best place to work in government. I don't say that lightly.
We're the best place to work in government based on an Employee
Viewpoint Survey. I went back and looked at that survey to find
out if there were people who had indicated in the survey that
they were afraid to come forward with violations of the law or
export control violations. We rank among the top in the
government as to people who say they trust their leadership,
they have no qualms about coming forward with a violation of
any kind. What our employees have told us in the Employee
Viewpoint Survey that made us number one in government is
incongruous with what the person or persons told you when they
came in and brought you the report from Langley.
Mr. Wolf. Well, we had people from Ames and we had people
from Langley----
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir, I understand.
Mr. Wolf. We had a total of five.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. All career people. And you can think about this
for a moment, but, if you like, we could contact them. They
were all concerned about their jobs.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. But we could--and I would trust you implicitly,
if you would want--I would contact them and set up a meeting
where just you came, no one else, to meet with them.
But they were very, very concerned. And, also, they had
lost confidence. And I'm going to end this because I told you
that we're not going to keep driving this.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. But they were not really very pleased with the
IG. And I, frankly, have not been pleased with the IG. I have
not been pleased with the IG at the local level, nor have I
been pleased with the IG at the national level.
So the whistleblowers were intimidated, they were fearful.
I will give you the quotes, and I can----
Mr. Bolden. No.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. Go through some of these things. If
you want, you let me know.
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, that's really not necessary. As I
told you when we met before, no one was more bothered and
concerned about these allegations than I. As I said in my
opening statement, I hold myself personally responsible. So I
have tried to assure every single member of the 18,000 members
of the NASA family that if they have a problem they can come
into my office. I reemphasize that frequently. I am bothered at
the effectiveness of my leadership if I have five people who
say they don't trust me to come forward and tell me that they
think there's an export violation. I don't need to know who
they are. Even 5 out of 18,000 bothers me, as a leader, that
they don't trust me and they don't trust their center director
to come forward and say, We know of an export violation.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Mr. Bolden. That's what they're saying.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well, I was just--we're down to 5 minutes.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. If I were an employee, I would trust you to come
in. I may not trust some other people----
Mr. Bolden. That's my point, sir. You don't even----
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. And so you think about it.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. We're going to end because we're down to 5
minutes on this.
If you want, you give me a call, and I'll ask them to come
on in.
And, secondly, I appreciate your willingness to do all
these things. If you could contact the committee when you make
the decision with regard to NAPA, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir, we will do that.
Mr. Wolf. With regard to that, we'll be in recess until
this--I think there are two votes.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
[Recess.]
Mr. Wolf. Before we go to Mr. Fattah, Mr. Aderholt is part
of the delegation that went to Rome for the installation of the
Pope. He wanted to--would you agree to meet with them and talk
with him?
Mr. Bolden. Sure. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Okay, good.
Mr. Bolden. I'd be glad to.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And let me thank the Administrator.
And before I go forward, I do want to just put into the
record a little bit more about your military service. You flew
over 100 combat----
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Missions. And you served as a
deputy commanding general for the First Marine Expeditionary
Force in the Pacific. And you were also in Kuwait during
Operation Desert Storm. Is that correct?
Mr. Bolden. Desert Thunder.
Mr. Fattah. Desert Thunder.
Mr. Bolden. That was between the big ones.
Mr. Fattah. All right. I want the record to reflect your
tremendous service----
Mr. Bolden. I didn't want to take credit for something I
didn't do.
CENTER FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE IN SPACE (CASIS)
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. To our country.
And now let's move to your--the work that you are engaged
in now.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah. For more than a decade, for every single day
we've had a human being--human beings on the space station
doing important scientific work. NASA has been engaged in a
transition that has been very successful, to create the space
station now, after building it and constructing it, into our
newest Federal laboratory.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah. National laboratory. And the engagement between
NASA and CASIS has worked out well. And I met with the board
here when they were in Washington and was very energized about
the great research effort that is going on.
So if you wanted to just spend a minute and talk about how
that has proceeded.
Mr. Bolden. I sure would. I would love to, sir. Thanks very
much for the opportunity. CASIS is a private entity. NASA
wanted to get out of the business of having to be responsible
for recruiting and managing experiments and researchers in the
U.S. Segment of the International Space Station for a number of
reasons.
When I used to be in NASA, people used to always complain
that NASA was guilty of doing junk science. I never believed
that, but one of the things that we felt we could do is if we
handed it off to another independent organization outside of
NASA, it would bring credibility to the work that was being
done on the Station. The members of the board, they are pretty
influential people and pretty prominent and well-known in the
science and technology community.
So CASIS was stood up. It is a part of Space Florida.
Again, Space Florida has been an incredible entity. It is the
business-development arm, if you will, for space for the State
of Florida. We've learned how to work very well with them. As a
result of CASIS, we are having more and more non-NASA people
that don't even have anything to do with NASA who are now
wanting to fly on the International Space Station.
We are about to put up some Earth science instruments on
the Station. That was not done before. I was led to believe
that Station was not a good platform for Earth science. That's
not true. We're about to put up a cosmic ray instrument on the
Station. The Station was not good for cosmic ray science;
that's not true. So as a result of having an outside entity
that helps us evaluate people that want to fly, we're able to
put additional assets to enhance the utilization.
What we hope that it will prove, it will be a model for the
other partners. Because the U.S. Segment is only one part of
it. All of our other partners, the Russians, the Japanese, the
Europeans, they are all evaluating how CASIS works for us and
thinking about a way that they could do a similar thing.
Because everybody is faced with ways to cut down on the
operating costs, the daily cost of running the International
Space Station, And it's proving to help us.
COLLABORATION ACROSS AGENCIES
Mr. Fattah. Well, I'm quite impressed with the work that is
being done there, and I know it could not happen without NASA's
full partnership in it.
Now, we just had the head of the National Science
Foundation in yesterday. And, in part, he was talking about
his--the great work that they are doing. But he mentioned his
and the agency's involvement in the standup of this new
observatory in Chile.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah. And, of course, you know, we have other
observatories, like in Hawaii and the like. And we have the
Hubble. And now as the Webb Telescope starts to come into view,
can you help the committee understand how all of this interacts
one to another and gives us a better sense of----
Mr. Bolden. Sir, the big thing is collaboration across
agencies. The new observatory in Chile is one that we will
utilize. I had a hearing yesterday with the Science Committee
on asteroids and NEOs, near-Earth objects. The observatory in
Chile will give us another instrument that we can use for
identification and tracking.
We have a number of different places around the world. A
number of them are National Science Foundation-sponsored, if
not -funded, facilities. So we take advantage of the
collaboration with the National Science Foundation to get
information that helps us determine identification and
characterization of asteroids, as one example.
We fly out of Punta Arenas, Chile, every year. We go down
into the Antarctic. We actually do some work that is in
collaboration with the National Science Foundation again. It's
our Earth science efforts, from airborne Earth science. When we
go north, it's called IceBridge. I think we call it the same
thing in the south, but I don't want to say that because the
ice guys will tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. But
we fly toward both poles to do ice research. A lot of that is
done in collaboration with the National Science Foundation
also.
NASA'S EDUCATION PROGRAM
Mr. Fattah. And the last point I'll make in this round is,
I had an occasion to go speak at a conference on severe weather
events. You know, obviously, we've had the most, in terms of
aggregate number, one after another, the most severe weather
we've ever seen.
But it was fascinating because a number of the experts at
NOAA, which is also under our committee's jurisdiction, who
operate the National Hurricane Center, actually, some of them
were educated through NASA's education program. And I had a
chance to meet with your education team. And the hundreds and
hundreds of scholarships and fellowships that NASA has
provided, you know, have an impact far beyond.
So, for instance, when we had Hurricane Sandy, the fact
that they were able to pinpoint exactly the location that it
was going to hit actually saved lives, saved----
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah. So, you know, NASA's benefit is far beyond
space exploration, and it helps right here on Earth in so many
different ways. So I want to thank you.
And if you--if you could talk a little bit about the
education work, because I know you've made this an important
part of your leadership. That will be my last question for this
round.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir. I try to be a good follower, and when
I interviewed with the President, one of the things he told me
that he wanted to be done was he wants to increase the number
of engineers in STEM fields that come out of this country.
Since the days when we would bring people in from other
countries, educate them, train them, and they would choose to
stay here and become citizens, it doesn't happen that much
anymore. They tend to go back home now, for a variety of
reasons. So we've now got to train our own, because we don't
compete right now with other nations in terms of producing
engineers.
Many times it's because we just don't have the number of
people. I'm not excited when people cite the number of how many
more engineers China creates than we do. Well, how many more
people do they have? So, if you say a percentage of the
population, we're probably as good as they are, but we're not
good enough.
So NASA really focuses on STEM education, and it's STEM
education K-12. This committee and the Appropriations Committee
from the Senate have been very good through the years to make
sure that we have adequate funding for a number of programs--
the NASA Space Grant program, MUREP, and others that allow us
to focus our efforts into underserved communities, where we can
try to enhance the numbers of young people, who get interested
in STEM curricula. So it's a passion for me. It's a passion for
Leland Melvin, who is the Associate Administrator for
Education, and we're trying to help Secretary Duncan to have
the best Education Department in the world.
Mr. Fattah. All right. Well, thank you.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Culberson.
FY 2013 APPROPRIATIONS CONCERNS
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Bolden, thank you for your service to the country
and all that you do at NASA. You know how strongly we all
support you and how passionate this subcommittee is. And the
Congress has been really arm-in-arm in working together to
support NASA and do everything we can to keep America's space
program the best in the world.
And looking forward to the day in the near future when
anytime the NASA Administrator appears, the room is packed, you
know, you've got as much excitement out there in the country as
there was when I was a kid growing up in Houston and remember
vividly the Apollo program and the tremendous excitement that
the whole country felt. Those days are coming again, but I
think it's not for lack of effort on your part or the part of
the Congress.
I personally think NASA is spread too thin. There's too
much interference politically with what you do. And how do you
plan any big, complicated, expensive rocket or spacecraft with
the pillar-to-post, year-to-year budgeting/appropriations cycle
you've got to deal with?
So Chairman Wolf and I are working, as you know, on
legislation that we would look forward to your help and support
on to try to give NASA some more stability and predictability,
let you buy rockets and spacecraft the same way the Navy buys
aircraft carriers and submarines with multiyear procurement, to
give you and your successor. As I think Chairman Wolf has told
you, we'd be delighted to see even you be, once our bill
passes, you be the first new director of NASA would be just
fine. But give you more stability, like the FBI Director,
overlapping administrations. We look forward to working with
you on that.
And in terms of looking to the future and what lies ahead
for NASA and the manned program and the planetary program,
could you talk to the committee a little bit about the effect
of the--the Senate is--looks like they're going to act today or
maybe later today and pass the five appropriations bills, with
a CR for the others, that will include the CJS bill, which is
a--contains language that Chairman Wolf and Senator Mikulski
have worked out that's got strong support both in the House and
the Senate.
Talk to us about that appropriations bill for 2013 that
you're going to see for the remainder of the year and what that
means for a heavy-lift rocket, which I did not see in your
opening statement, and also for the planetary program.
Mr. Bolden. Sir, as the NASA Administrator, I'm always
happy to get whatever the Congress chooses to appropriate.
Though the mark is what I would consider to be close to what we
asked for, it has some shortcomings that will cause us problems
down the road. Those shortcomings are exacerbated by the fact
that sequestration was allowed to take effect. On top of any
reductions, there's another 5 percent across-the-board
reduction.
Two areas that have me significantly concerned right now
are commercial crew, because, I tell people all the time, we
have an interdependence in our exploration program right now.
And so those who remember back in 1972, when the original Space
Transportation System was proposed, it was a three-prong
program that had routine access to space, an orbiting space
station, and what was called an orbital maneuvering vehicle
that was going to allow us to go back to the Moon, go from
space station to space station, and then allow us to go to
distant planets. That was a long time ago, that was long before
I came to NASA, but that was the vision.
We didn't do right back then. We decided that we could only
afford one. when you take a triangle and you take a leg away,
the triangle falls. That's exactly what happened to any hope of
exploration beyond low Earth orbit for NASA for the period of
time between 1970, when the Space Transportation System was
originally approved, and when we phased out the Shuttle in July
of 2011.
We have an opportunity now again to put the triangle back
together. If you don't have all three legs, if you don't have a
heavy lift launch vehicle and Multipurpose Crew Vehicle, the
International Space Station, which is our toehold on the
universe today and commercial crew and cargo to get us in and
out of low Earth orbit, then you take away a leg and the
triangle won't work.
HEAVY LIFT ROCKET AND MULTI-PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE
Mr. Culberson. Yes, but the heavy-lift rocket, talk to us
about that, and the planetary program.
Mr. Bolden. The heavy-lift rocket----
Mr. Culberson. And you have gotten good support for----
Mr. Bolden [continuing]. As I mentioned. We have support
for it. If I were king for a day, and I think I've talked to
the chairman about this a little bit. Flexibility within the
top line would be absolutely superb for us. We are in the
development program business. The heavy-lift rocket, the Multi
Purpose Crew Vehicle--we have a flat-line budget. I can live
with that if we're allowed flexibility inside that flat-line
budget.
What that means is we can't have winners and losers. I need
to be able to move money in the exploration program when I need
a chunk of money for the heavy-lift rocket or construction of a
test facility or something. I need to be able to move it there
to keep everything going sequentially so that we don't have to
stop a manufacturer or an industrial partner. We don't have
that flexibility right now.
Mr. Culberson. Right. But I know----
Mr. Bolden. The top line is good.
Mr. Culberson. And that's, in this environment, a blessing.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. That's an indication of the support of
Congress, the chairman, and Chairman Mikulski for NASA.
Mr. Bolden. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. Because everybody else is really getting
cut. And we admire you, support the agency. So that's a good
thing.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir. I told the chairman I will talk to
Congressman Aderholt. Congressman Aderholt, he's going to want
me to agree that we should put even more money into the heavy-
lift launch vehicle, and I would not agree with that. I'm a
person who tries to be honest. I don't need a lot of extra
money in the heavy-lift launch vehicle right now.
I do need additional money to shore up commercial crew.
Otherwise, that leg of the triangle is going to fall away and
we're going to be back to 1970s again, where we had this grand
vision of exploration and going to an asteroid and going to
Mars and we can't get there because we can't complete the
technology development and the understanding of what happens to
the human body, the lessons we're learning on the International
Space Station right now, because I can't get people to the
International Space Station. Because I do not want to pay the
Russians beyond 2016.
Mr. Culberson. Sure. But, of course, the----
Mr. Bolden. And that's what I will have to do.
Mr. Culberson. Of course, the law, the money, the funding
you see from Congress is an indication of our support for a
heavy-lift rocket to get beyond low Earth orbit.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Could you also talk to us--I know my friend,
Mr. Schiff, will follow up on this, as well--about the effect--
first of all, if you could, very quickly, a time frame on the
heavy-lift rocket and Orion.
And then, secondly, the effect of the work the chairman's
done with Chairman Mikulski on funding the planetary program
and how important that is, both for Mars and for Europa.
Mr. Bolden. Yes. The Orion will fly its first flight a
little bit more than a year from now. I know that's hard for
people to believe, but we have the first test flight on Orion,
without an environmental control system. If you want to call it
a prototype, it's sort of like a prototype. Very heavily
instrumented. It will launch in the fall of 2014. It will buy
down a lot of risk on the ultimate vehicle, because it will
tell us whether or not that vehicle is appropriate to withstand
the intense pressures and temperatures of reentry from places
like lunar orbit or Mars or an asteroid. So we need that. It
will also help us understand whether it's oversized,
undersized, or what, because what you see on Orion today is not
the final Orion that we'll have.
The heavy-lift launch vehicle should be available in 2017.
Then we'll put Orion with the heavy-lift launch vehicle, fly
its first unmanned, uncrewed flight in 2017. Then we should be
ready to come back and fly the first manned mission in 2021.
PLANETARY SCIENCE
Our science program--I don't like using the word
``robust,'' because ``robust'' means you've got a lot of money.
Our science program is aggressive and ambitious and highly
successful.
I told people yesterday, it's interesting because we were
being blasted for how much money had been taken from the
planetary program and how we had decimated the Mars program.
And yet, today, we have the most sophisticated rover in the
history of humanity on the surface of Mars, getting ready to
climb a mountain and help us understand the geologic history of
that planet, which relates to Earth. It will help us here
understand more about our own planet.
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Mr. Bolden. Between now and the 2030s, when we take humans,
we have Insight, which is a smaller lander that will actually
core meters into the Martian surface. That's scheduled for
2016. In fact, MAVEN, which is an atmospheric studies mission,
is next year, then Insight in 2016. We are a partner again with
the Europeans on their ExoMars program, not to the extent that
we wanted to be, because we couldn't afford it. We got
criticized when we said we've got to step back for a moment and
find out what we can afford. The chairman said, I can't do
everything, I agree, so we told the Europeans, We can't provide
a launch vehicle. We can't provide this. But we're giving them
an orbiting communications package for 2016 and actually
contributing to the 2018 lander with our expertise, which keeps
work going at the Jet Propulsion Lab, because that's entry,
descent, and landing.
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Mr. Bolden. So that gives us an opportunity to keep that
going. Then in 2020 we have a Curiosity-like rover that we're
going to put on the surface of Mars again. Use the same design
to save money. The science definition team has already begun
their work and will probably come in with a report to us----
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Mr. Bolden [continuing]. Late summer, early fall, and we'll
know what we're going to do there.
Mr. Culberson. And then if I could, in conclusion, very
quickly, if you could also comment on the fact--obviously, the
committee has protected funding for planetary, thanks to
Chairman Wolf and Chairman Mikulski, but also because of the
language--I'd also, if I could, ask you to reiterate your
commitment to ensuring that NASA will carry out the decadal
surveys, plan for a mission to Europa.
Mr. Bolden. Congressman Culberson, you always put me in
this position. I am trying to carry out the NRC's decadal
survey direction that their number-one priority is Mars and a
sample return. That's number one. What we're trying to do is
make sure that the 2020 lander, that the science definition
teams make sure that if we don't bring a sample back then,
because we aren't able to reach an agreement with the Congress
and the Administration on funding that we will not preclude
that lander from being able to be the beginning of a sample
return mission. If I can't do that, the science committee of my
own advisory committee and the National Research Counsel is
going to say, Forget it. If you're not going to do a sample
return, then forget about Mars, and let's go to Europa. So we
think that we are complying with the direction of the decadal
survey right now in really focusing on their number-one
priority, which was Mars sample return, and then Europa is
the----
Mr. Culberson. And you've got the support from the Congress
to continue on both those tracks because we don't know yet
about----
Mr. Bolden. We can't do both.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. The funding----
Mr. Bolden. Because of the funding we have, we will
continue the work on a Europa mission, as we have briefed you.
Mr. Culberson. Uh-huh.
Mr. Bolden. We're looking for innovative ways to fly a
mission to Europa that is affordable. All estimates that I have
been given on a mission to Europa right now are not affordable
in our budget or in the foreseeable budget, not if we're flying
to Mars. So we cannot do both, but we continue our
developmental efforts at a lower level, not a full development
program yet, but----
Mr. Culberson. Yeah. That's why the Congress has got
language in the bill to make sure that----
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir. We are doing that.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. We preserve that ability to do
that mission.
Mr. Bolden. We continue to do that.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I just want to join my colleague at outset in thanking
you, Mr. Chairman, and also Ranking Member Fattah for your
strong support of planetary science and the Mars program and
Europa, which are in a far better position now than they
started out a year and a half ago and would be nowhere without
your good work.
And, Mr. Administrator, it's good to see you.
You know, just--I do want to set the record straight on one
thing. We have been very critical of the administration on
Mars, not because we don't acknowledge the incredible success
of Curiosity, but rather because Curiosity--the development of
Curiosity occurred in prior years, and while we're funding the
current operation of Curiosity, none of us are content that
Curiosity be our last great achievement. So it was very
important to us to continue in the tradition of Curiosity with
other great planetary science missions. And I'm very grateful
that NASA has moved forward with another Curiosity-like mission
as part of sample return.
And I share my colleague, Mr. Culberson's deep interest and
commitment to Europa, which I think we also think is a fabulous
mission and of great scientific interest and something I think
we're all committed to. And we need to work on the resources,
we need to work on the sequencing and the timing, and we need
to work on bringing costs down.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Schiff. But I think we all have a deep interest in both
those missions.
I wanted to ask you about the Mars budget. I understand
it's very important to launch in 2020, given the technical
challenges and uncertainties surrounding planetary orbits with
launching at a later date.
Can you tell us how NASA plans to ensure that adequate
resources are devoted to preformulation of the Mars 2020
mission to minimize risk and to enable a successful launch on
schedule?
My main concern with respect to the 2020 mission is that
I'm concerned that if NASA backloads the funding too much,
we'll lose critical expertise that we've gained from developing
and launching Curiosity. So if you could address that.
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, as we briefed, as we mentioned
before in conversation with people, when we brought the 2020
proposal forward, we showed where we could fund 2020 in the
2013 budget and the projection forward for the outyears. It
will be tough due to sequestration. That word keeps coming up
because that changes everything that we told you. As long as we
can manage our funds the way that we are doing currently, then
Mars 2020 will be okay. If we have to live under sequestration
for the next 10 years, as it is set out, it's a whole new
ballgame, because NASA is no longer a $17.7 billion agency,
NASA is a $16.8 billion agency.
I don't do magic, I will have to find a way to delete
either a billion dollars worth of content or a billion dollars
worth of people, and I don't think we want to do the people. So
I will have to eliminate a billion dollars worth of content or,
as I mentioned to Mr. Culberson, become very innovative in
finding new ways, different ways that we can do the projects.
What was so great about Mars 2020 is it's a carbon copy of
Curiosity, and that's why I'm relatively confident when I tell
you that I think we can, we should not have problems with Mars
2020. We have got pieces and parts. We have got all the
expertise. The only thing we have to do with Mars 2020 is put
the results from the Science Definition Team together and then
determine whether or not we can do all the science that they
want to do, but the mission itself, minus whatever the final
science turns out to be. As I mentioned before, if it turns out
that we can't figure out how to get a Mars sample return, at
least the precursor for it on the mission, we are liable to be
abandoned by the science community. So that's a challenge.
Mr. Schiff. Well, it's certainly my hope that we don't live
in a sequestered environment for too long and that we could
come together on an agreement that----
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Schiff [continuing]. Makes a more sensible approach to
our deficit and debt problem. And we will continue to work with
you on making sure that, whether we have a sequester or don't,
that we don't so backload the Mars funding that we lose our
talent pool at places like JPL.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Schiff. I want to follow up, too, on my colleague's
interest in Europa, and the Senate budget has money for Europa
in it. And if you could share with us a little of your thoughts
on the early priorities in Europa. Is it in doing some of the
scientific analyses to determine how this can be done in a more
cost-effective way, is that where you would make an early
investment in Europa, or where would you employ those early
resources on Europa?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, I will get back to you. I will
take it for the record to get you the details of what's being
done right now, but as I understand it, we are taking whatever
funds we have for Europa, not for science definition, but for
the definition of the mission itself. What type of vehicle can
we afford that will enable us to get the scientists to the
planet, to the moon such that we get good science from it,
doing analysis that helps us understand how we get more than a
month of life out of the vehicle.
[The information follows:]
Europa
The FY 2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act
(P.L. 113-6) stipulates, ``Provided That $75,000,000 shall be for pre-
formulation and/or formulation activities for a mission that meets the
science goals outlined for the Jupiter Europa mission in the most
recent planetary science decadal survey.'' Given the harsh radiation
environment around Europa, and our current understanding of the
technologies needed to carry out this type of mission, NASA could use
these FY 2013 funds for a variety of early activities related to a
future mission to Europa including:
Initiating an instrument technology development
program to reduce one of the key identified risks for a Europa
mission;
Studying design impacts to spacecraft and concept of
operations (launch environment, Europa multiple flyby mission
concept propulsion module) and the launch vehicle trade space;
Studying and testing planetary protection
sterilization procedures and their associated impacts to
science instruments and spacecraft; and
Conducting preliminary design work on the planned
reconnaissance instrument(s).
NASA's goal for these instrument technology development activities
would be to identify key risks and associated risk reduction plan,
complete some of those risk reduction activities, and mature the
instrument system designs. There are five instruments in the model
payload for the Europa multiple flyby mission concept (Ice Penetrating
Radar, Shortwave Infrared Spectrometer, Topographical Imager, Mass
Spectrometer, and magnetometer), and we expect that the first four will
require additional technology development work. NASA would
competitively award multiple proposals for each instrument in order
test various radiation mitigation techniques and approaches.
Mr. Bolden. Europa is an incredibly hostile environment
from a radiation standpoint. We can't go and orbit Europa the
way that we would do our own moon or the way that we do Vesta
or other things. The vehicle will last a few months, if that
long. It's just the radiation environment is too harsh. So we
have got to be innovative in finding ways to--some of the
concepts involve actually flying around Jupiter, and you don't
get as much data as you would normally, but at least you keep
the satellite alive, because it minimizes the exposure to the
just devastating radiation environment of Europa. That's what I
am told. Now, I have already gotten myself in trouble, and I
have got science people all over the world who are now saying,
who told the NASA administrator that? But that's what I have
been told. So I probably shouldn't have told you----
Mr. Schiff. Well, I am sure you will be hearing from them
and we will as well.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
FLIGHT OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM
Mr. Schiff. One last question, Mr. Administrator. The
Flight Opportunities Program is a small program in the Space
Technology Mission Directorate that purchases reusable
suborbital flights for technology development on commercial
vehicles on a fixed-price basis. It's a program that costs very
little comparatively but has an outsized impact leveraging
private investment in a rapidly growing high-tech industry.
NASA doesn't pay to develop the vehicles, which are built with
private funds to meet a market, but NASA serves as a key anchor
customer. The funding for the Space Technology Mission
Directorate did not meet the President's request last year and
may not this year as well. How will those reductions impact the
Flight Opportunities Program?
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Chairman--Congressman Schiff, I will get
back to you on the exact implications for the Flight
Opportunities Program.
[The information follows:]
Flight Opportunities Program
At this time, the Space Technology Mission Directorate expects to
maintain funding equivalent to the FY 2012 level of Flight
Opportunities. At this level, the Flight Opportunities Program should
be able to support a modest number of funded technologies for
development. These technologies will utilize suborbital reusable launch
vehicles (sRLV) to validate and demonstrate their technology
development objectives. The solicitation has been released and we
expect to make selections by the end of fiscal year 2013. In addition,
the Program will continue to invest in the commercial suborbital
vehicle industry fostering a new, U.S. capability.
Mr. Bolden. But as I understand it----
Mr. Schiff. And I don't mind you calling me that, but I
think Mr. Wolf might.
Mr. Bolden. I will get back to you. But as I remember, the
programs that the Space Technology Mission Directorate has
already notified centers and partners that we won't be able to
start, I don't remember Flight Opportunities being one of them.
We do have already working with, for example, Virgin Galactic
and some other companies that we are going to try to utilize
the capability that they give us. But I will get back to you
with the details on any impacts to the Flight Opportunity
Program.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Administrator.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Mr. Bonner.
HEAVY LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE AND MULTI PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Administrator, good afternoon. It is unfortunate, and
we certainly don't blame you for this, but it is unfortunate
that as we have had this discussion, a good discussion, that we
are doing so in the absence of a budget submission, because it
is hard to talk dollars when we don't even know what the
administration is going to be bringing to Congress. We are
actually debating the budget over on the House floor today, and
so there will be several different proposals offered, and
hopefully we will come up with a budget in the House. The
Senate is committed to doing the same.
I have a question that's consistent with my prior visits
with you about NASA's future, but before I go there, I know you
had indicated to the chairman and also in a response to Mr.
Culberson that you would be talking directly with Mr. Aderholt,
but since he is not here today and he is my colleague from
Alabama, he asked me to put a few questions on the record.
MULTI-YEAR BUDGET
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bonner. You have already talked about some of this, but
I want to get his questions on the record for your
consideration.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bonner. Many of us believe that the Space Launch System
adds an important national capability to our space program as a
vehicle able to launch both astronauts and deep space science
missions. And it is our understanding that the SLS has met
several early milestones, but some of us are concerned that OMB
has apparently imposed a multiyear budget of $1.1 billion per
year for the rocket development portion of the work. Every
rocket development engineering plan has peaks and valleys, so
some might say that this flatline budget is artificial.
What do you anticipate your budget doing in both 2014 and
2015 to ensure that SLS receives the modest increases in those
2 years which are necessary in order to continue to stay on
schedule and to serve the country's space needs in a timely
way? And then I will have a follow-up to that question.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir. Congressman Bonner, when we reached
an agreement, we, the administration with the Congress in 2010
in the Authorization Act, with the insistence actually of
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison that NASA needed to establish what
its priorities were, at that time among those priorities were
SLS and MPCV, enhancement and expansion of the International
Space Station by utilization of a commercial crew and cargo
capability, the James Webb Space Telescope. So those were the
big three, and we have committed that when we have to take
money, we will not go to the big three. If you look at the
budget submission for 2013, even when we have gone through 5
percent cut exercises and everything else, we've blocked those
off. I recently added safety and security and export control to
that, that we won't effect across-the-board cuts to those areas
just like we do everything else.
Again, I hate to keep going back to it, but the one thing
that could impact SLS and MPCV but doesn't right now is
sequestration. But, again, we're looking at 1 year. It's a 10-
year plan. So 10 years of sequestration, if the Congress and
the administration are not able to resolve that. Again, I don't
want to hype things, because we hype stuff too much, but that
could have devastating effects on all of our programs. But
right now schedule-wise, we don't see any impact to MPCV. In
fact, actually, the vehicle itself will probably be ready
before its 2014 launch date, but it's getting time on the
range, getting a launch vehicle made available, because we're
going to launch it on a Delta IV. So that is a great
indication, especially when you consider that MPCV has
recovered from a crack during testing, but those kinds of
things we expected. That's the peak and valley that you talked
about in funding.
In our development program, things can be blowing along
just as smoothly as you want, and then all of a sudden
something unexpected happens. Unless something unexpected
happens, we don't see that we won't make the 2017 launch date
for the first flight of MPCV on SLS and then a 2021. I would
love to be able to pull the 2021 date forward, but I need to
talk with people who are much smarter than I am in the agency
to find out whether that is a technical challenge or whether
it's a fiscal challenge. The 2017 date is not a technical
challenge at all, it's a fiscal challenge--I'm sorry, it's not
a fiscal challenge, it's a technical challenge. We just cannot
have the vehicle ready before 2017; 2021, I don't know.
Mr. Bonner. Well, you make a compelling argument. I don't
think you'd have anyone at this table disagree with you about
the impact of sequestration. I hope you've had a chance to
convey that message to the President, because, as you know,
when we studied history, or civics and how a bill becomes a
law, it passes the House, it passes the Senate, we reconcile
the two, and it takes the President to enact it. And so
sequestration, we all have our hands on that whether we voted
for it or not, and the President, the administration has a
responsibility as well. But I don't know any person up here,
Democrat or Republican, that is celebrating sequestration, and
especially if it goes in terms of its longer term.
Follow-up question from Congressman Aderholt would be that
based on your response there, it's our understanding that our
current biggest rockets would take approximately 7 years, for
example, to reach the moons around Jupiter or Saturn. The SLS
rocket could carry a larger payload than the recent Mars lander
missions and could reach Jupiter or Saturn in roughly 3-1/2
years.
And I think you've already addressed this with Mr.
Culberson, but just to make sure it's all on the record. That
would seem to some that it would be a good return on the
investment. What is NASA doing to encourage coordination and
planning between SLS and the planetary science projects?
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Bonner, we are finally making headway in
helping the science community understand that we are no longer
in a stovepiped organization. We are really trying to fuse
human exploration and science, because, again, they're
interdependent. What you said, I've heard the same story. I
have been told that if we launched a Europa mission to Jupiter
today with an Atlas V and then we finished the development of
SLS and launch in 2019 or 2017, I guess, it would catch up with
and pass the Europa vehicle that we launch today. It's just
physics, And if you can get something going really fast, really
quick, once it's in space, it doesn't lose speed. The heavy
lift launch vehicle, particularly with its upper stage, with a
J-2X, we get things going really fast, really quick. And they
will----
Mr. Fattah [presiding]. Is that on a Delta IV?
Mr. Bolden. Oh, no, no, no. This is the combination SLS
and----
Mr. Fattah. This is the one that----
Mr. Bolden. This is the real SLS and MPCV. I'm going to
have the experts come in and brief you all, because I'm giving
you concepts. I don't ever claim to give you real numbers, so
mine is an anecdotal story about launching today and being
caught on the way to Jupiter. But I have heard that over and
over and over again. The other thing is it will revolutionize
the way that we do interplanetary missions, to be quite honest.
What would be even better would be the type of propulsion
that Mike Gazarik and the folks in the Space Technology Mission
Directorate are trying to develop, which is game-changing
propulsion that cuts the time of transit from here to Mars from
8 months to something less, because the limiting factor for us
there is the ability of the human, the central nervous system
to sustain 8 months in a hostile radiation environment. The
reason we're confused is because we don't know what the effect
will be. That's why the International Space Station is so
critical, that's why commercial crew and cargo is so critical,
because we lose one of those legs of the triangle and we can't
finish the race.
Mr. Fattah. All right. We're going to go to Representative
Serrano so that he can get some questions in before the----
Mr. Culberson. Sure. And Frank has stepped out to go vote.
He will be right back.
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Administrator Bolden, thank you for
being here.
Mr. Fattah. We have a vote on. The chairman went over to
vote. When he comes back, I'm going to go vote and come back.
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Mr. Fattah. We're going to keep going.
Mr. Bolden. Can I go vote?
Mr. Fattah. Sure.
ARECIBO OBSERVATORY
Mr. Serrano. But then you have to face the voters and
that's--you think this is tough?
Mr. Bolden. I like this job.
Mr. Serrano. This is easy.
Mr. Administrator, throughout the years, the last few years
for certain, there were two questions I asked concerning the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. One always was, do you think there
will be someone from that community, our community that will go
up in space as an astronaut. And Joe Acaba did, and he is a
superstar now. No one remembers I asked that question a lot of
times, so I'd like to take some credit for it. But anyway, I
couldn't do what he did, and he's really done a wonderful job
of going around talking to schools and other places and it's
wonderful. And I understand he's going up again.
And the other one is the Arecibo Observatory, which for a
while was in danger of being done away with, and yet there were
people in the scientific community who continued to tell us
that that's a very important place. And for the commonwealth,
for the island, it's not just the work that it does and the
service that this observatory brings to our scientific
research, but also the fact that it's an icon, if a thing can
be an icon, in the community.
What's the future, what is happening, and what can we do?
You know how I feel about it, but----
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir. I will just have to kind of go by
what I've heard from Dr. John Holdren, who's the President's
science advisor and knows much more about Arecibo than I did,
but we have been talking about Arecibo, the new telescope that
will be in Chile, anything that helps us identify and track
Near Earth Objects, and that is a critical need for Arecibo to
do that. If you take any telescope out of the mix, we'll still
be able to do the kinds of things we're doing, but not as well,
because we need lots of data and we need lots of information on
asteroids. The question was asked yesterday about its funding,
because I think it receives a lot of funding from the National
Science Foundation.
Mr. Serrano. Exactly.
Mr. Bolden. Dr. Holdren, I think he actually took an action
to go get some information on that. But my understanding is
that NSF intends to continue to fund it, but I can't answer
that for NSF.
Mr. Serrano. Right. I understand that. But you should know
or remember that this committee has been strongly in the past,
under both party leaderships, have been very strong in
supporting it.
Quickly, the whole issue of STEM, you know, the lack of
engineers, if you will, it can't be that people are not capable
of teaching it, so it may be that we don't have folks who are
interested. And yet we live in a society where young people are
involved in technology day and night. Is there a relationship
between the society we have now and going into these fields,
and if not, how can we resolve that?
Mr. Bolden. The person who could answer that question
brilliantly is Joe Acaba. Joe Acaba is a school teacher. He was
a middle school math teacher and selected to be an astronaut in
a class that NASA made the conscious decision that we wanted to
bring people who knew how to teach, who had an education
background into the Astronaut Corps, not as payload
specialists, not as anything, but as full-term astronauts, and
Joe is one of the incredible ones. I think what we have to do,
and I think he would tell you the same thing, or if you get a
chance to see Suni Williams, who will be here on the Hill
tonight for a reception, I think they would tell you we have
two challenges. We always talk about inspiration, but you can't
inspire a young person if they don't know what's available. So
we've got to inform them of what's available. People like Joe
Acaba, Suni Williams, Don Pettit, who is the modern day Mr.
Wizard, we have to continue to get them in front of school
kids, remotely most of the time, downlink from the
International Space Station, visiting a school every once in a
while when they can to say, look, I'm no different than you. I
started out just like you did.
Mr. Serrano. Right.
Mr. Bolden. You've got to study really hard and work hard,
and you can do the same thing I've done.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. On a lighter note and in closing,
one of the advantages of being bilingual, obviously, is that
you see words you recognize. So when I saw Europa for the first
time before I did my homework, I realized that that's Spanish
for Europe. And I was wondering what the heck were you making
such a big fuss--not today, but in the past--about going to
Europe. I said you can do that with no sweat. Then I did a
little homework and realized that it may be the only moment
where speaking Spanish created a little problem for me.
Mr. Bolden. Sure.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Bolden. Thank you very much.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you. And the chairman's returned, so I'm
going to take a few minutes and then I'm going to go vote. But
let me--and I'm glad Mr. Culberson is still here because he's
my good friend and nobody is more serious about this science
business than him, and I am a full supporter of his work on
planetary science. But I do want to make sure that we just
correct the record a little bit. You said that the
administrator didn't mention this, the Space Launch System, in
his statement. It is in the first paragraph. I got to make sure
that we get the record just, you know.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you for----
Mr. Fattah. I don't want him to think I'm picking on him in
his absence.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Mr. Fattah. But this--all of the dollars that you are
spending in NASA are to some degree very significantly
micromanaged by the Congress. And----
Mr. Bolden. You said that, sir.
Mr. Fattah. I said that.
Mr. Bolden. I agree.
Mr. Fattah. And my friend in his statement said that he was
working on some legislation to give you more flexibility. And
then in between all that, he went back to saying, well, this is
what we want you to do. And this is the problem here, and I
want to make sure that we're straightforward----
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. And that we all understand each
other, and that you are basically doing what the Congress has
laid out. So in this launch system deal, the Congress has even
spelled out almost to the degree of how much cargo it's got to
carry and so on and so on. So this is not--this is policymakers
in the Congress kind of laying onto NASA a very specific
requirement that then you have to figure out the science and
the technical capability of carrying out things that may not--
that in some cases might even work at cross-purposes, like get
there as fast as you can, but carry all this stuff with you, or
get there as fast as you can, but we want to send humans too. I
mean, these things may get a little more challenging.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah. And then to constrain the budget on top of
that. But I think it's important to note that there was an
agreement with the administration that said, okay, we're going
to do this long-distance run to Mars, we're going to believe in
the American private sector and believe that they can do
something that the government's been doing for decades in terms
of low Earth orbit, we're going to commercialize that. And
we've seen the success of that. That's going to save money in
the long-term. And that this was part of a package of
agreements----
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. That you have been carrying out.
And really it was probably more challenging to fly combat
missions over enemy territory than deal with some of the
challenges up here on the Hill in the various committees that
have jurisdiction, because we have funding jurisdiction.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah. But there are committees that have authorizing
jurisdictions. And then, of course, there's the Holy Grail,
there's the U.S. Senate, which is just in charge, right. So
these are issues that you have to manage. So I want to thank
you for the work that you're doing. I wanted to set the record
straight.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Fattah. And while I'm doing that, Mr. Schiff said that
Chairman Wolf might be concerned if he was called Chairman. I
would be concerned if he was called Chairman since he'd have to
get past my chair to get to the chairmanship. So thank you very
much.
Mr. Bolden. Sir, thank you very much for your very eloquent
presentation of the facts.
NASA SPACE ACT AGREEMENTS
Mr. Wolf [presiding]. I thank you. Yeah, I don't care who
he calls Chairman, but I understand from your point of view.
The reason I left is so we can keep this going. And when we
have the next vote, I think we're going to end, because I don't
want you to have to spend the whole day here. So I'm going to
go through these relatively fast.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. There's a wealth of information available online
and in other public sources, about unclassified Federal
contracts, including who has received those contracts, their
dollar values and the purposes. As far as I know, there's no
comparable source of public information about NASA's Space Act
Agreements. Why shouldn't this information be available to
public scrutiny?
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Chairman, are you asking why shouldn't
Space Act Agreement information on classified programs be
available for public scrutiny?
Mr. Wolf. No, the unclassified.
Mr. Bolden. As a matter of fact, we're working to provide
for the Congress and the American public, it would be more like
a spreadsheet that would list the Space Act agreements that we
have in force. And I actually think----
Mr. Wolf. It was very tough for the committee to get this.
Mr. Bolden. I think we provided that to the committee.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah, but I meant for the public, though. Why
shouldn't it be available for public scrutiny? It's public
money and----
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I will take it for action.
[The information follows:]
Space Act Agreements
NASA is prepared to post summary information regarding NASA current
domestic and international Space Act Agreements at the level of detail
previously provided to the Committee.
Mr. Bolden. I thought once we provided it to you, it was in
the public domain. I think it's in the public domain anyway.
Mr. Chairman, let me go back and find out. I thought once we
gave it to you, it's gone.
Mr. Wolf. Well, no, we didn't do that, and you authorized--
--
Mr. Bolden. No, sir. I meant once we provide it to you,
then it is no longer privileged information between the
administration and the Congress. Unless we put something on it
that says Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU)? If I put an SBU on
it, it means that one of the companies has asked us not to
divulge some technical information because it's proprietary,
but we very seldom have that. I think I sent you something
recently on the security issue, but usually when we send it
over in a regular document, you can have it and you can put it
up----
Mr. Wolf. Well, I think the authorizers----
Mr. Bolden. We'll put it up on a Website.
Mr. Wolf. I think the authorizers had a problem.
NASA's process for entering into Space Act Agreements is
extremely decentralized. The individual centers control much of
the process and even have authority to enter into some
agreements without headquarters notification or review.
How do you ensure consistency in the application of
standards and controls when the centers have so much autonomy?
And shouldn't it be centralized? Shouldn't you have the final
sign-off?
Mr. Bolden. No, sir. I don't. I shouldn't if we want to get
things done. The purpose of a Space Act agreement, as I
understand it, as directed by the Congress, is to enhance the
transfer of technology, enhance NASA's ability to help grow the
economy and make us stronger. If everything's got to come to
headquarters, we're in trouble. We slow things down. We try not
to.
Major Space Act agreements that involve utilization of big
facilities or something that may have dual use for a national
security need or something, I probably need to be involved,
but, there are some things that the centers do where we have
asked them to find ways to better, more efficiently utilize
their facilities that we know we're going to need down the
road, there's no reason to excess it, but we're not using it.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well----
Mr. Bolden. An example would be the Johnson Space Center
with the Neutral Buoyancy Lab, the NBL. We are still training
astronauts to do space walks, but there's a lot of free time in
there, and so they now work to enter into Space Act agreements.
They're almost always reimbursable, where the company pays for
the utilization of a facility.
Mr. Wolf. Maybe they should all be made public, then,
because the committee had a hard time----
Mr. Bolden. That is what I thought----
Mr. Wolf. The committee had a hard time and the authorizers
had a hard time.
Mr. Bolden. I will get back to you.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Mr. Bolden. But we talked about what I think you're telling
me. I agree with you that Space Act agreements should be
available in the public domain somehow, whether it's online or
something. We actually talked about this the other day, because
in the small business realm, anybody can go on the NASA
Website, go to the small business drop-down and they can see
every single small business contract that NASA has, whether
it's at a center or anywhere, and when that's going to expire
and what it is so they can they can plan ahead as to whether or
not they want to bid on it. We won't have anything like that
with a Space Act Agreement, because Space Acts are generally
unique to the--a person----
Mr. Wolf. Right.
Mr. Bolden. But I'll get back to you, sir. I think we can
do this easy.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. My understanding is that Space Act
agreements with foreign entities are reviewed by the State
Department when those agreements are considered significant and
are intended to be binding under international law.
Does that mean that some foreign Space Act Agreements, such
as those, quote, not deemed significant, do not receive State
Department review?
Mr. Bolden. Sir, I will verify what I'm about to say.
My understanding, since everything I do with an
international is considered a treaty, something that I treat
very seriously, and I include Space Act Agreements, I think
anything that we do with a foreign entity, any agreement that
we make with them goes through the--I can't remember what the
number of the process is, but it goes through the State
Department review process. We have an example of a Space Act
Agreement that's waiting to be signed now and considered to be
small and insignificant, but it went through State Department
review. Frequently they go through the entire interagency
process to make sure that we're not stepping on DOD's toes or
anything else.
Mr. Wolf. If you can share that with the committee.
Mr. Bolden. But I will get back to you on that, yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
Space Act Agreements
NASA agreements with foreign entities under international law must
be procedurally consistent with the Case-Zablocki Act, (1 U.S.C.
Sec. 112(b)), and its implementing regulations, (22 C.F.R. Sec. 181).
Before negotiating and executing an agreement under international law,
NASA submits the draft agreement to the State Department Bureau of
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, which
coordinates with the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser to
determine whether the ``Circular 175 process,'' as described in 22
C.F.R. Sec. 181, is a required step prior to the negotiation of the
agreement. If the C-175 process is required, the State Department and
other agencies review the draft agreement and may provide comments.
Such comments are typically incorporated before NASA is given
authorization to negotiate and conclude the agreement.
For NASA agreements with foreign entities concluded under U.S.
Federal law, NASA advises State about such agreements when they are
sensitive, e.g. for foreign policy reasons, and seeks the State
Department's views.
COST AND SCHEDULE CONTROL
Mr. Wolf. Cost control. GAO recently found evidence of
improvements in NASA's adherence to cost and schedule goals
among all current projects other than James Webb. To what do
you attribute this improvement, and do you believe it's
sustainable?
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I disagree with that statement.
That statement is not accurate in its entirety. The James Webb
Space Telescope for the last 2 years has been under control
both in schedule and cost. In fact, they're a little bit ahead
in schedule. I'm not certain what is meant by other than the
James Webb Space Telescope. We have instituted processes like
joint confidence level----
Mr. Wolf. Well, it was actually a congratulatory,
complimentary question.
Mr. Bolden. I know it's intended to be, sir, but it's not a
compliment----
Mr. Wolf. I know GAO is looking at----
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir. It is not a complimentary comment
about the James Webb Space Telescope. That is a very, very
complex project that is going to revolutionize everything.
Mr. Wolf. I understand. That's why we on the committee
support it.
Mr. Bolden. We all work very hard, and I promised you and
Senator Mikulski that we were going to get that program in
order. It has new management. Northrop Grumman put new
management in place. We submitted a revised cost and schedule
profile, and we're living up to that. So when somebody says
other than James Webb, I just have to say, what do you mean
it's not living up to what it was supposed to do.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I'll give you the telephone number of the
people----
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. That wrote the question and we can
talk about it.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Last year NASA requested a significant budget
increase for the James Webb program despite the fact that it is
literally billions of dollars over budget. At the same time,
NASA cancelled the GEMS astrophysics project because it was at
risk of going over budget by $45 million or $50 million. I
think this highlights a significant difference in the way that
large and small projects are treated by NASA, with the larger,
riskier, more expensive projects being given more flexibility
on cost and schedule issues than smaller projects. Do you
agree?
Mr. Bolden. I understand the question now. It's sort of
like is James Webb too big to fail? That's not the case. I made
a promise to this Congress, both House and Senate, that we
would keep James Webb on cost and on schedule, and if it
violated that, there is a limit beyond which it will not go.
Mr. Wolf. But we really can't cancel James Webb. I mean, it
would be tough to cancel James Webb now. It would be----
Mr. Bolden. For me? If something went wrong with James Webb
that caused it right now to have a dramatic change in meeting
its cost or schedule--that means we have met a significant
technical challenge that we didn't anticipate. So it may be
something that evaluation says we cannot possibly overcome. So
nothing's too big to fail. I would not waste the taxpayers'
money if I found out that there was something unknown. This is
like the 1,000-year asteroid hitting Earth that I tell you
don't worry about.
If we reach a point where James Webb begins to overrun
again and it gets significantly over or it gets significantly
delayed, it means we have met a technical challenge that we did
not anticipate, and that would be something that we would have
to evaluate and say, is this worth trying to salvage? I don't
anticipate that. I don't want to panic anybody. I don't
anticipate that happening.
Mr. Wolf. The press, they're all writing back there.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir. Well, they need to understand what
I'm--I know they like to write that stuff, but I'm not talking
doom and gloom. I'm saying James Webb is an incredible story. I
have 2 years now of data that says the program has been on cost
and on schedule and we're buying down risk all the time. So if
something changes, it means we've had something happen that we
really didn't anticipate.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Mr. Bolden. And that's always possible in a development
program.
Mr. Wolf. Sure. I understand.
Mr. Bolden. GEMS, the other example, GEMS had a very
defined cost ceiling. It's a small project. So I don't put that
in the same category as the James Webb Space Telescope. GEMS
was not something that was going to have a dramatic impact on
humanity. It was a very good project, but technically it had
some challenges that we just figured it cannot overcome those
technical challenges within the funding guidelines that we
agreed. I didn't make the call, but was a good call and I
thought it was a pretty easy call.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Mr. Bolden. Yeah.
SEQUESTRATION IMPLEMENTATION
Mr. Wolf. Fiscal year 2013 funding implementation. In
discussions following the submission of the Sequestration
Transparency Act report, NASA told us that it would apply
sequestration equally to each appropriated amount, but not
necessarily to each program and project contained within those
amounts. That approach looks inconsistent, however, with the
statutory requirement to apply sequestration to each program,
project, and activity. How does your sequestration
implementation plan address the statutory requirement?
Mr. Bolden. I think we're in compliance with the statutory
requirement to apply the 5 percent cut across the board in each
directorate or program. I'm not going to guess what they're
talking about, but I don't--I think we are complying with the
statutory requirement reference to sequestration. If I can get
an example of something----
Mr. Wolf. Yeah. Basically the next question is that you
could be using this to go after--and let me ask the question--
some congressional priorities that we were talking about
earlier.
Mr. Bolden. Oh.
Mr. Wolf. So can Congress and the Administration have
different views about the appropriate funding levels for
several major NASA programs, including planetary science,
Orion, SLS? Can you assure the committee that the
Administration will not use sequestration as an opportunity to
implement selected cuts to congressional priorities? How will
you incorporate congressional input into your decision making
about where and when to reallocate funds as a result of
sequestration? So that's the----
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir, because maybe I'm naive. I don't view
anything as a congressional priority or an administration
priority. When the Authorization Act was signed by the
President in 2010, that established what I mentioned were three
big priorities. It's actually more than three, but I lump the
International Space Station, commercial crew and cargo, and
technology development together.
So I think in that particular time, we agreed that those
five things were priorities for the Agency. What we have done
is we've tried to wall them off such that whenever a cut had to
come, whenever the administration asked me for a 5 percent cut
or a 2 percent cut, I don't go and look at SLS or MPCV or
commercial crew or the International Space Station. It has to
come from somewhere else.
Now, purists, people in the science community will say,
yeah, but you're putting programs at jeopardy because you won't
take a cut from James Webb. Well, James Webb is a joint
national priority established by the FY 2010 Authorization Act.
So they're absolutely right. I am not going to go in and take
money from James Webb to make something else whole, because I
promised the President, and the Congress made an agreement that
we would not do that, and so we're not doing that.
WEATHER SATELLITES
Mr. Wolf. Weather satellites. Although NOAA is responsible
for the procurement and operation of the Nation's civil weather
satellites, they pay NASA on a reimbursable basis to manage the
design and development of these satellites through a Joint
Agency Satellite Division.
Do you believe this basic division of funding and
responsibility between the two agencies is successful? And as
you know, the Senate had language in----
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. That they pretty much took from NOAA
and----
Mr. Bolden. I understand. The answer to the question, I
think it is highly successful, as demonstrated by almost
everything that we have managed for NOAA, whether it's GOES or
whether it's NPP or JPSS. We're always challenged financially.
I think the arrangement that we have with NOAA--and I'll take
this opportunity to compliment the former NOAA administrator,
Dr. Jane Lubchenco. She was awesome to work with.
Mr. Wolf. She's gone.
Mr. Bolden. She's now gone back to academia, but it was
great to have a fellow administrator pick up the phone and say,
hey, there's some confusion, we're not in sync. We still are
able to do that, because we attend each other's programmatic
reviews, we, in the case of a lot of the weather satellites,
the JPSS program, we sometimes co-chair each other's reviews so
that we make sure that we stay in sync.
Mr. Wolf. Now there's no one home at Commerce. They have no
secretary, the acting secretary is leaving, they have no Census
Bureau director, they have no PTO director, they have no NOAA
administrator. I mean, they have--really it's like the boy in
the movie ``Home Alone.'' Remember that movie?
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Wolf. There's no one over there.
Mr. Bolden. ``Home Alone 2,'' also.
Mr. Wolf. I didn't see that one.
Mr. Bolden. I really liked it. It was good. I forget which
one's Christmas.
Mr. Wolf. I think 1 was Christmas.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. But, okay, do you want to comment?
Mr. Bolden. About the Senate's----
Mr. Wolf. About the Senate language. Did you like that or
dislike that?
Mr. Bolden. I haven't had a chance to sit down face to face
with Senator Mikulski, but if the Senate decides and you all
agree that we should take weather satellites, we will do that
and we'll do a great job.
The point that everyone should understand is the
coordination that goes on right now in terms of getting that
satellite or that system turned over to NOAA for the
operational phase will not change. They are the weather people
and the Weather Service, and they do an incredible job.
Mr. Wolf. But would there be savings if you--because, in
essence, one becomes a little bit of a middleman. Would there
be savings?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, if that were the direction of the
Congress that NASA take acquisition of weather satellites from
NOAA, and we take it all the way through development and
delivery, we would do that. I'm a middle of the road guy. I do
what you all tell me to do. But I would make it very clear to
people that I think it would be a mistake for NASA to try to
take on the job of becoming the Weather Service. We don't do
that. We could learn, but we don't do that.
My concern about any movement of responsibility from one
agency to the other is who defines the requirements for the new
system. If NOAA is defining the requirements and I'm
responsible for developing it, we're probably going to have a
problem. So I would like to have very clear lines of
distinction. If a decision is made to change the way we do
business today, it would just require us to get together with
NOAA and all of you in the Congress and at least understand how
you want us to implement this change. We can make anything
happen. I'm not lobbying for anything.
EXCESS PROPERTY
Mr. Wolf. Excess property. Two weeks ago NASA released a
notice of intent to have an external party lease renovate and
reuse Hangar One and potentially the rest of Moffett Airfield
at the Ames Research Center. It's become a little
controversial. Both of these properties have previously been
identified as having no current or future NASA purpose. So why
is it acceptable to lease them instead of reporting them as
excess?
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Chairman, what I did was, after years of
deliberation and trying to reach an agreement, I asked the GSA,
the government's landlord, if they would come in and take over
the evaluation of this process for us and run it. I was advised
by GSA that the most expeditious way to get NASA out of the
business of running an airfield and paying all of its costs is
to let them go out and see if there is a private entity or
another government entity that would be willing to take that
responsibility off our hands. It is a multiyear process to
excess something, and so I did not want to have to wait for
that multiyear process and continue to pay for something that
I'm not using right now.
So, GSA recommended that we go through, what is called a
notice of intent to let everybody in the communities know what
it is we want to do, that we want to open the book and say
anybody who wants to use this facility and for something that
we can relate to stuff that NASA does, and in the process wants
to resize the hangar because it is such a historical landmark
to the community out there, we'll offer it. Then I will go out
and meet with the community, tell them how we intend to effect
this process, and tell them that, as a taxpayer, they're going
to actually benefit, because NASA will no longer be paying for
the operation of the airfield or for the maintenance of the
hangar or other things. So that's the way that I was able to do
that.
Mr. Wolf. There was some controversy, and I gave the IG a
letter with regard to that.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. And I don't know if he shared it with you.
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Chairman, as you know, if you're talking
about land and facilities, there is always controversy. I am
almost there. I'm glad that Mr. Culberson came back. I am so
close to having the Arc-Jet facility from the Johnson Space
Center delivered to the Ames Research Center, because that's
where it should be as we look for more efficient, effective
ways to do our job. I just wanted to make sure that he was here
when I said that in case he wants to shoot me.
Mr. Wolf. Make sure the spies are not involved out there,
though, with it.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir. I got you.
Mr. Wolf. There are some questions on the Space Launch
System and Orion that I think you covered. We will submit them
for the record.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. I'm going to come back to you if you have some
more.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
COMMERCIAL CREW
Mr. Wolf. Commercial crew. NASA's current round of
commercial crew development is being executed via Space Act
Agreements, with the base period lasting through the middle of
next fiscal year and optional milestones leading all the way to
a crewed flight demonstration.
Is it still NASA's intention to award FAR-based contracts
for development and certification work beyond the base period?
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir, it is. In fact, we have actually
already entered the FAR process--we have a contract, and it
just so happens we were very lucky that the three companies
that are the Space Act Agreement companies in developing the
capability to take crews to orbit are the three companies that
also now are bidding for the contract to put together a plan
that will show us how they intend to meet our requirements,
that will give us all of their hazard reports. And so each of
them is now working under contract to do that.
That buys down the risk that we--because I extended the
period of utilization of Space Act Agreements. This is not what
we were supposed to originally do. You were very gracious and
the committee was very gracious in allowing us to keep three
competitors when you really wanted to go down to one. So I'm
appreciative of that. But we have to have a competition where
we go down to one and a half or two or whatever.
Mr. Wolf. When do you see it going to two?
Mr. Bolden. When do I see us going to two? We intend to put
a request for proposal on the street this summer and you will
probably get a down select, and that will either be to two or
to one or to one and a half. It is budget dependent.
Mr. Wolf. By the end of this year, then?
Mr. Bolden. You won't see the selection announced before
the middle of next year, 2014. That's what we see it. That's
when we get to phase two. I'll go back and double-check, but I
think that's right. I didn't see your staff frown, so I think
that's right.
Mr. Wolf. In previous conversations about the program's
outyear funding needs, and you referenced it earlier, NASA has
indicated that an appropriation of more than $800 million
annually will be necessary.
Given the overarching funding constraints that the Congress
is likely to be operating under and the need to make continued
investments in other high priority programs, like James Webb,
Orion, SLS, it seems improbable that the program's budget can
be increased. Can the program achieve its goals with an annual
funding rate closer to the currently authorized level?
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Chairman, it can achieve part of its goals.
Its goal to facilitate the success of a commercial space
capability to get astronauts to the International Space Station
can be achieved if that's what the Congress decides to do. The
goal of flying in 2017 cannot be met at a funding level of $500
million. That is consistent with what we've said since I've
been the NASA administrator.
It's really hard to go from an estimate of a billion
dollars a year for developing a program down to 300, then 400,
and then up to 500. We have managed to hold the line on 2017,
but if we aren't able to get up to the $800 million level, then
I will have to come back and officially notify the Congress
that we cannot make 2017 for availability of commercial crew,
and that puts the triangle in jeopardy.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Let me go to Mr. Culberson.
ARC-JET FACILITY
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for bringing up the Arc-Jet. That's, of course, a
real concern in Houston. The Arc-Jet facility at Johnson was
supported by the fees paid by the users, and they had
reimbursement contracts, so the cost was near zero, obviously,
and had NASA personnel working on it. But the facility----
Mr. Bolden. That's not zero, sir.
Mr. Culberson. It's a lot less expensive than the Ames
facility, which I understood was funded--NASA funded up to 45
percent of the cost to that facility. Now, you've already moved
the Arc-Jet components?
Mr. Bolden. We are trying to finalize the arrangements for
the transfer of the Arc-Jet facility. We are still negotiating,
we're still trying to reach consensus, I guess is the right
word, with the Congress that every time we get another question
that says don't do anything until we get this question
answered, that is the right thing to do, and it is something I
intend to do, and, if it's the last thing I do as the NASA
administrator, which it may be.
We cannot continue to have duplicate facilities. I fully
understand what the people at Johnson Space Center say. They
like doing that. They're really good at it. We don't need two
Arc-Jet facilities.
Mr. Culberson. Right. But that one was supported by fees
paid by the users.
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, I can get back to you on a
comparative cost for maintaining two Arc-Jet facilities even
when one is at Johnson Space Center and then show you what it
would cost to have it out at Ames Research Center, one
facility.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Mr. Bolden. And I think you'll find that there is a
savings.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. I would be interested in seeing it.
Mr. Bolden. The folk at Johnson Space Center, we have other
programs and projects for which we need the bodies. If the body
is maintaining an Arc-Jet facility that I could transfer out to
the Ames Research Center and get it done, then there are more
things that we can do at Johnson that they would really like to
do.
Mr. Culberson. And obviously all of us on the committee
support making best use of our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. And I look forward to seeing the analysis.
Mr. Bolden. We'll get that.
DESTINATION OF RETIRED ORBITERS
Mr. Culberson. And it's hard not to be a little skeptical
as a Texan when the Obama administration--I know that wasn't
necessarily you--but the Obama administration would not send
one of the space shuttles to Houston, Texas, the Johnson Space
Center, the home of the manned space program, and sends it
instead to New York City or California. I mean, that's deeply
offensive. And there's a pattern of behavior, it's not you,
sir, I'm not picking on you necessarily.
Mr. Bolden. No, no.
Mr. Culberson. But let me tell you, there's a pattern with
the Obama administration, we vote wrong, and all sorts of
things get moved out of Texas.
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Culberson, I am a person, I think the
chairman will tell you, I want to make sure that everybody
understands who's responsible for what. The President didn't
have a clue where shuttles were going until I delivered the
word that I'm going to have a press conference and we're going
to announce this. He didn't--he did not intervene in that. That
was my decision. I'm criticized for it, and I appreciate that.
I am a Houstonian by adoption.
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Mr. Bolden. We had a process, and in that process the city
of Houston did not come out one, two, or three, and we can
review that with you again. I would like to put that to bed, to
be perfectly honest.
Mr. Culberson. Sure. I do, too. And I know--and the
chairman knows this from my history. I really do my best not to
be parochial, you know, because the space program is a
strategic asset to the entire country. And I've also always
done my best not to look at it as a jobs program, because it's
for the good of the entire Nation. And I've always felt and
have told all my friends in the space program in Houston that
it's always better if we don't think of the space program as a
jobs program; look at it from the perspective of the country as
a strategic asset, as a way to protect the high ground, as a
way to preserve our innovation, our ability as a Nation to
innovate and pursue scientific excellence and lift up the human
heart. All those things are vitally important--and, oh, by the
way, it's a great job program. But I'm with you.
But let me tell you, it is a sensitive subject in Texas. It
does cause a lot of hurt. And then when something like the Arc-
Jet gets moved out, it just adds to it.
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, one thing I would say is there is
no threat to the Johnson Space Center by seeking efficiencies.
As you said, JSC is the home of human space flight, and mission
control is there. That's not going to change, at least not in
the foreseeable future. I mean, if you mandated that I have to
reduce centers, you told me that you were going to institute a
NASA BRAC, then everything's on the table.
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Mr. Bolden. But we're not doing that right now.
WORKING WITH A FLAT FUNDING PROFILE
Mr. Culberson. Talk to us a little bit about, if I could,
the effect of--because we are in a really tough budget
environment, looking out forward here, and obviously you have
the support of this committee and the Senate committee.
Chairman Wolf has been just--there's no one fought harder to
protect NASA or the sciences than the chairman, and Senator
Mikulski's been terrific.
In a flat funding environment for the future--because we
really didn't get a chance to tie this up on the Heavy Lift
Launch rocket system and Orion--what does that flat funding
profile for the future mean for the--NASA's ability to get a
heavy-lift rocket and the Orion capsule operational?
Mr. Bolden. As I mentioned before, for the foreseeable
future, unless sequestration goes for 10 years, we have planned
the priority programs, the SLS, MPCV, International Space
Station, commercial crew and technology development, along with
the James Webb Space Telescope to fit a flat funding profile.
What I would love to be allowed to do inside that flat
funding profile is give the teams the opportunity to move funds
around as they need to keep the phasing of availability of
things going. An example would be, because we are under a flat
funding profile and there was more money than we needed for the
development of MPCV, MPCV will probably be ready before it's
ready to fly, because we had to spend money when we had it.
It's a little bit ahead even in spite of the fact that we had a
crack and we had to deal with that.
But there is a launch schedule, a launch availability due
to everybody else using Cape Canaveral and we're using a Delta
IV. So the availability of the launch vehicle and the pad, if
we had had flexibility, we could have shifted the funding from
MPCV maybe to construction of the B-2 Test Stand to facilitate
the SLS staying on schedule. That's all I'm talking about when
I talk about----
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Mr. Bolden [continuing]. Funding flexibility inside the
programs. We're not talking about taking money from a program.
The calculus is, in the end, the area under the curve will
be the same. We will spend the same amount of money on SLS, the
same amount of money on MPCV. It's just that we are phasing it
such that we deliver things when they're needed, not when the
money's available. That's not an efficient way to do things.
Mr. Culberson. So you anticipate that the heavy-lift launch
rocket will be available to--you'll do your first test flight
and then have it available to launch operational when?
Mr. Bolden. It will be available for the first flight in
2017.
Mr. Culberson. Test.
Mr. Bolden. For its first test.
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Mr. Bolden. That was a technical constraint. You could have
given me tons of money. I just don't think we could have
accelerated that 2017 date. The human flight will be 2021 or
so. That's if we're allowed to be flexible, we----
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Mr. Bolden [continuing]. We might be able to do so. I don't
know.
Mr. Culberson. It's a spectacular vehicle for the Europa
mission. And I'm going to give you this----
Mr. Bolden. It is. We talked about that earlier.
Mr. Culberson. And I'm going to give you this. This is why
Europa is so important, in one graphic. It's got 40 percent
more water than the Earth.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Heat. It's probably saltwater. And it's been
oxygenated for billions of years. Almost certainly that's where
we're going to discover life. That's why it's been such a top
priority of the decadal survey.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Administrator Bolden.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON COOPERATION WITH CHINA
Mr. Wolf. We're going to kind of end because I think we're
coming up to another vote. Just to wrap up, based on the June,
2012 letter, in less than a year you went from 156 Chinese
nationals to 192. If you would furnish the committee what
centers they are in.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir, we'll do that. And, in fact--I will
do that, sir. I think in the packet that we delivered we break
it down by center. But I will go back and verify that.
[The information follows:]
Material in response to this question was provided previously to
the Subcommittee and designated as Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU)
information and not for public release.
INSPECTOR GENERAL (IG)
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Mr. Bolden. And we just delivered that last night.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Firstly, and I want to make this very
clear, part of your problem at NASA, I believe, was the IG's
office. And if the IG can't do a better job, NASA ought to get
a different IG. This is a real test.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Because the IG sort of blew these things off. In
the Ames case, the IG gets an F, he's failed. And in the
Langley case, he gets an F. He's failed. Because we talked to
career people. They went in to the IG. So this is a test, and
you might tell the IG this, or he will probably hear it. If
this doesn't work out, this is really a failure of the
Inspector General to do his job or the Inspector General's
staff to do their jobs. It is reflected upon you and in some
respects the IG. So this is a test. And if the test is not
passed--we're going to ask for a new IG there because we're
going to make sure.
COOPERATION WITH CHINA
Secondly, Mr. Administrator, you have heard me talk about
China. In China today, there are roughly 25--the number flexes
up and down--Catholic bishops that are under house arrest.
Congressman Chris Smith took holy communion from Bishop Su.
Chris led the delegation in Rome for the new Pope, Francis. And
that bishop who gave holy communion to Chris Smith has never
been seen since. He's been taken away. The Bishop of Hong Kong
was by to see me, telling me about the persecution of the
Catholic Church. After the Pope was appointed, the Chinese
government just said pretty tough things with regard to the
Catholic Church, within the last 2 weeks.
Thirdly, there are several hundred Protestant pastors that
are in jail, house church people that are in jail. More Chinese
people come through my office than probably any other office up
here on Capitol Hill. All of the dissidents. The Chinese people
are wonderful people. The blind activist, Chen, who is up at
NYU, was by to see me a week and a half ago. We're having a
hearing with Chen in 2 to 2\1/2\ weeks. All the dissidents come
through my office. They are wonderful people. They want
freedom.
There have been 101 Tibetan monks that have set themselves
on fire. They poured kerosene and gasoline on themselves, set
themselves on fire and have died by the hands of the Chinese
government. We know that they are spying. They run the program
whereby they are selling organs, kidneys for well over $50,000,
to people that come from the West.
I was in Beijing Prison Number One, where they have
Tiananmen Square demonstrators--you remember Tiananmen Square.
It was the People's Liberation Army--the same people that run
the space program--that fired on the crowd and killed all the
people in Tiananmen. When I was in Beijing Prison Number One,
we saw Tiananmen Square demonstrators who were making socks for
export to the West. They were still in prison in the late
1990s.
Just so you have a better understanding, I'd like some time
when the blind activist Chen comes into town, and Bob Fu, the
leading dissident, somebody from the Cardinal Kung Foundation
of the Catholic Church, somebody who worked for the Dalai Lama,
to really come over and take a half an hour and sit down with
you so that you understand. We did this with Secretary
Gutierrez in the previous administration. So can I get
agreement that you'll sit down with these people so they can
understand----
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to sit down with
them. I would only ask one thing, and that is that I be allowed
to ask them----
Mr. Wolf. You can ask them any question you want.
Mr. Bolden [continuing]. What they feel our inability to--
--
Mr. Wolf. You can ask them anything.
Mr. Bolden [continuing]. Help with their space program.
Mr. Wolf. You can ask them anything.
Mr. Bolden. I mean, that would be fair.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah. Keep in mind----
Mr. Bolden. And I would be more than happy.
Mr. Wolf. I guarantee you.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. And I'll come over with them.
Mr. Bolden. You and I have a healthy--we respectfully
disagree on this, and I think that's good. I applaud you for
your devotion to human rights, and I am--I equally--I agree. I
just----
Mr. Wolf. I will.
Mr. Bolden. Like we said, I grew up saying, you keep your
friends close and your enemies closer.
Mr. Wolf. But not to have 192 so close that they can spy.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
COMMERICAL CREW
Mr. Wolf. So, okay, I will arrange for them to come over
and see you.
Then the last question was, if we're having these budgetary
problems on commercial crew, why have two partners rather than
one----
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Chairman, that was what I meant. When I
said when we get to the down select, I think it would be
unfortunate if we ended up with one because then we're in the
situation that if that one goes, we're back to the Russians
again. But if the budget only supports one when we go into the
competition phase, that's what we're going to go with. I would
not like to extend the period of Space Act Agreements again.
That's the one thing that I----
Mr. Wolf. Right. No, I understand. But the numbers in the
House bill were higher than the Senate bill.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. And so I think you have to factor that in, if it
comes to that. And so----
Mr. Bolden. And, sir, I did not say we could not accomplish
the goal of commercial space flight. I said that the goal of
flying in 2017 cannot be met at a level of $525 million.
Mr. Wolf. No, I understand. No, you were very clear.
I'm going to go to Mr. Culberson for a second. The last
thing is that I do appreciate your accepting those other
recommendations at the outset, and if you could let us know
when you make the decision on that independent review, I would
appreciate it.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON COOPERATION WITH CHINA
With that, I'll go for Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. I just want to very briefly, Mr. Chairman
and Administrator Bolden, because other committee members had
conflicts and couldn't be here, but Chairman Wolf has the
united support of the entire subcommittee, and, frankly, the
Congress, in the language that he's included in the bill on
China.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. And his work to prevent NASA from
cooperating with the Chinese space agency. We are--everyone in
Congress--Frank Wolf was a pioneer in opening the eyes of the
Congress and the country to the espionage that China's been
engaged in for so many years. He was the first one out of the
gate to talk about this. He opened my eyes to it. And the
entire--I can guarantee the House of Representatives supports
this good man and his work.
And I just want to be certain that you and everyone at NASA
understands how deadly serious this problem is and how
important it is, that it's not just Frank Wolf, it's the entire
Congress, and this subcommittee is behind him. He speaks for
all of us. And we're going to back him up 110 percent on making
sure the Chinese do not penetrate our space program. There's
theft. The Inspector General should know, and I hope he's
listening, that we stand behind our chairman on this effort in
making sure that there is aggressive investigation and
prosecution of not only the Chinese agents that are involved,
but anyone at NASA that has helped them penetrate and be able
to steal this technology.
And please stop trying to find ways, please, not just you
but the entire agency, stop trying to find ways around the
language that's Federal law that Chairman Wolf put in. You
can't just look--it doesn't just limit this to bilateral. I
mean, you can't--it's not--I heard you say earlier that you
felt like NASA's in full compliance with this law and that
maybe multilateral agreements might be okay. That's not the way
the law reads. You want to read the law in its entirety. And,
clearly, the purpose of the law is to prevent the Chinese from
getting access to our space program because it's run by the
People's Liberation Army.
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, I understand that.
Mr. Culberson. I want to reiterate we're behind this good
man 110 percent.
Mr. Bolden. I understand that fully. No one was as
concerned as I was when we had the alleged breaches of security
anywhere in NASA, and I intend to make sure that it doesn't
happen. But I would be derelict in my duty if I did not give
you my position. And that is that I think we can work with
countries and keep them from stealing our technology or doing
whatever it is. We work with the Russians today, we're not
perfect, but we do a pretty good job of keeping them from
getting----
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir. But this is an absolute
prohibition.
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, I said I agree 100 percent. And I
think we are complying. And if we're not, then it is my intent
to make sure that our staffs get together again, because you
just said there is obviously something that I am not
understanding correctly. I did not think the prohibition
inhibited or prohibited participation in multilateral
activities. For example, going to a forum where there are
multiple countries present there. I know I cannot enter into
any agreement with the Chinese.
Mr. Culberson. Or hire contractors that employ Chinese and
bring them in and put them over an F-20----
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Congressman, we are not doing that. If we
find that we are doing that, then that is why the investigation
is underway right now.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. Well, Chairman Wolf speaks for all of
us on this.
Mr. Bolden. I understand that. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much for your
testimony.
Mr. Bolden. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. The hearing is adjourned.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 13, 2013.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION OVERSIGHT OF THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL
WITNESS
PAUL K. MARTIN, INSPECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
Opening Remarks of Chairman Wolf
Mr. Wolf. The hearing will come to order.
The reason we postponed it for an hour was because there
was a group of us testifying on the FBI relocation at the T&I
Committee.
I want to welcome everyone to today's oversight hearing on
management challenges at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
Our witness is Mr. Paul Martin, the NASA Inspector General.
NASA is facing a uniquely challenging moment in its
history. The agency's strategic direction is poorly defined.
Its budget is severely constrained, and its leaders confront a
host of intractable management issues, including cost and
schedule overruns, a surplus of unnecessary infrastructure, and
difficulties with financial management.
Even more concerning, there is a growing body of evidence
to suggest that NASA is confronting an agency-wide problem with
protecting the security of its sensitive technologies.
The governments of China and other countries of concern are
waging a sustained attack on NASA using multiple means and
capitalizing on NASA's relatively weak internal enforcement of
export controls.
In fact, in a report I just saw this morning, cyber attacks
are a leading threat to the U.S., intelligence leaders said for
the first time on Tuesday. Cyber attacks and cyber espionage
have supplanted terrorism as the top security threat facing the
United States.
That stark assessment came from an annual world-wide threat
brief that cover concerns like North Korea's belligerent
serious civil war and was reinforced with remarks by the spy
chiefs before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
We are talking to a large extent about China and, yet, at
times it looks like NASA is on a different page than the White
House and all the top intelligence people.
I believe this is an area that NASA's management at all
levels, including the IG--and I have been disappointed with the
IG at times in some of these cases--should address more
aggressively, and we tend to press our witness on that.
In a moment, we are going to begin with some brief opening
remarks from Mr. Martin, who will then have questions from the
subcommittee. But first I would like to recognize Mr. Fattah,
the ranking member.
Opening Remarks of Ranking Member Fattah
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First and foremost, let me welcome the witness and thank
the chairman for holding this hearing. I think it is a very
important hearing and timely.
I share the chairman's concerns around the cyber security
and the national security issues related to the attacks on the
computer systems at NASA and some of the other security issues
that I am sure will be delved into.
I separate myself from the chairman in the sense that I
think that this is an extraordinary period in NASA's
distinguished history.
I was at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on the occasion of
the Curiosity landing on Mars after an eight and a half month
trip. It was an extraordinary fete.
And the work that has been done to integrate the commercial
crew efforts along with continuing the work on an eventual Mars
mission in terms of human flight, none of which would have been
possible without the chairman's very significant efforts to
make sure that even in tight budget years, that NASA is
adequately funded.
So I welcome you today. I know you have a difficult job in
terms of oversight and we share in that responsibility of
oversight. And so we will be able to learn from you about the
challenges and issues that you have been dealing with.
And I thank the chairman, and I will add any other comments
for the record.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
Pursuant to the authority granted in Section 191 of Title 2
of the United States Code and clause 2(m)(2) of House Rule XI,
today's witness will be sworn in before testifying.
Please rise and raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Wolf. Let the record reflect the witness answered in
the affirmative.
Mr. Martin, your written statement will be made part of the
record. You may proceed and summarize as you see appropriate.
Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Fattah.
Testimony of Inspector General Martin
The successful landing of the Curiosity Rover on the
surface of Mars in August energized the public about NASA's
activities in a way not seen since the final Space Shuttle
flight.
Similarly, two successful commercial resupply missions to
the International Space Station by SpaceX are major steps
forward and one of the agency's most high-profile, high-stakes
initiatives.
However, NASA continues to face significant challenges
including the need to reprogram funds to address cost overruns
in the James Webb Space Telescope. This shift contributed to
delays in several ongoing projects and the cancellation of
others including one with the European Space Agency for planned
science missions to Mars.
At the same time, NASA is busy developing a new rocket,
capsule, and related launch infrastructure to enable crewed
missions to an asteroid or Mars, expensive and technically
complex undertakings in an increasingly austere budget
environment.
Indeed, from our perspective, declining budgets and fiscal
uncertainties present one of the most significant external
challenges to NASA.
My written statement discusses our complete list of
management and performance challenges. This morning, I plan to
briefly highlight three.
First, project management. Over its 50-year history, NASA
has been at the forefront of science and space exploration.
However, in addition to their many achievements, many NASA
projects share another less positive trait. They cost
significantly more to complete and take much longer to launch
than originally planned.
Last September, the OIG issued a report that identified
four primary challenges facing NASA as it seeks to achieve
project cost, schedule, and performance goals. These include
the agency's culture of optimism, underestimating technical
complexity, funding instability, and limited opportunities for
project managers' development.
Second, IT security. One year ago, I testified before the
House Subcommittee on Investigations about the state of NASA's
IT security. Among other things, I mentioned at the time that
only one percent of NASA's laptop computers were fully
encrypted compared to a government-wide average at the time of
54 percent.
Eight months after that hearing, an unencrypted NASA laptop
containing personally identifiable information on more than
40,000 individuals was stolen from the vehicle of a NASA
employee. Agency officials estimate that credit monitoring and
other expenses related to the theft could cost NASA up to
$850,000.
Following that incident, the NASA administrator accelerated
the time table for encrypting the hard drives of all agency
laptops. And as of this week, they reported an encryption rate
of 99 percent.
More broadly, however, our audits and investigations
continue to identify recurring weaknesses in NASA's IT security
program, including an inability to deter particularly
sophisticated cyber attacks known as advanced persistent
threats.
And, finally, NASA's aging infrastructure. Eighty percent
of NASA's 4,900 buildings are more than 40 years old and beyond
their design life. However, NASA has not been able to fully
fund required upkeep and maintenance costs and estimates its
deferred maintenance expenses at $2.3 billion.
One way NASA could reduce these costs is to reduce the
amount of unneeded infrastructure in its inventory. To be
successful, NASA must move beyond its historic ``keep it in
case we need it'' mind set.
In an audit we issued earlier this month, the OIG
identified 33 facilities, including wind tunnels, test stands,
airfields, and launch-related infrastructure, that NASA was not
fully utilizing or for which NASA could not identify a future
mission use. These facilities cost the agency more than $43
million in upkeep costs in fiscal year 2011 alone.
In closing, the National Research Council concluded in its
December report that there is, and I quote, ``A significant
mismatch between the programs to which NASA is committed and
the budgets that have been provided or anticipated.''
In other words, too many programs are chasing too few
dollars. I hope that the NRC's report together with the ongoing
work of the OIG and the GAO will contribute to a dialogue about
NASA's future priorities and lead to enactment of a realistic
budget that will enable the agency to accomplish its
multifaceted mission.
Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you.
The NRC report came out of the committee. And, secondly, I
do agree with Mr. Fattah. And, thirdly, if you look at the
numbers from the CR that will be voted on, the numbers that
came out of the House are higher than the numbers that came out
of the Senate.
THREAT TO NASA FROM CHINESE ESPIONAGE
And so if we are going to fund these programs, which I
believe in deeply, we are not going to stand by and allow the
Chinese and others to steal information from those programs.
And I should tell the members--and maybe I should have a
briefing with the members--the number of career federal
employees that are contacting my office is incredible.
I just got another one last night which I am not going to
read into the record here. But I think maybe what I might do at
an appropriate time is bring these career federal employees in
to lay this on the record.
This is not something that I read about one day in a
newspaper report. These people are coming into my office, some
fearful, time after time. And when the one story broke, now
more are calling from more centers.
So it is a problem, and I am not going to stand by. I am
going to pursue this thing. And we are not going to fund these
things if problems are not addressed.
I agree with the Administration. I appreciate the statement
that Donilon, the National Security Advisor made in a speech up
in New York yesterday or the day before. We are not just going
to pretend it is not taking place.
You have a tremendous responsibility to aggressively pursue
this and not blow it off. And some of the reports that we are
getting from some of the career people is that when they are
coming to some of your IG people at different centers, they
just kind of blow them off.
So if this is not pursued, we are going to have a hearing
and bring these people in. Some are willing to risk their jobs,
others are afraid but they will come, to kind of lay it out. We
are not going to argue to bring up these budget levels and make
them as high as we possibly can while cutting other programs we
may not want to cut, and then have the Chinese steal the
information. They are not only stealing the technology, which
is a threat to our national security, but they are stealing
jobs.
To the Administration's credit, they laid it out finally,
something that should have been done long ago by a previous
administration. We are not going to stand for this.
This committee hopefully, though I can only speak for
myself, will not stand for it or allow it to be taking place in
any of the programs that are funded through the committee.
Some of this could lead to the death of Americans. So it is
not just the technology and national security threat and a job
issue, but the technology going into the wrong hands could lead
to the death of Americans.
Maybe we should sit down with all the members and let them
see what is coming in. The Chinese government currently
presents the most aggressive espionage and cyber threat to the
United States, as we seen what Director Mueller, Director
Brennan, and Director Clapper said yesterday.
As just one example of their level of activity, eighty-five
percent of all trade secret espionage cases brought by the
Department of Justice against foreign nationals since 2009 have
involved Chinese nationals spying for Chinese institutions.
Although this spying takes place across many different
technology disciplines, a White House report recently
identified aerospace and aeronautics technology as a primary
target of Chinese espionage.
This is unsurprising given the rapid pace of development in
China's space program which may rival the U.S. for human
spaceflight dominance in the 21st century. China's space
program is controlled by its military, the Peoples Liberation
Army. It is the same group that is doing all the cyber attacks
and has demonstrated hostile intentions in the past including a
2007 anti satellite missile resulting in the creation of a
large debris field that continues to threaten our space-based
assets today.
Do you agree with this characterization of the threat posed
by China to the U.S. generally and to NASA specifically?
Mr. Martin. I do.
Mr. Wolf. Despite the significance of the threat and the
very insular nature of China's own technology programs, NASA
continues to allow access by Chinese nationals to a number of
its own activities.
For example, career federal employees gave us the names of
29 Chinese nationals without U.S. citizenship currently working
as contractors at Langley alone.
How many Chinese nationals are working as contractors
across the agency?
Mr. Martin. We have not researched that, but I believe in
correspondence to Mr. Rohrabacher, a copy of which was provided
to you and your staff, I believe there are over 200 Chinese
nationals with access to various NASA facilities.
Mr. Wolf. Have we seen that? Has the committee seen that?
Mr. Martin. Your committee staff has, yes.
Mr. Wolf. And that was from?
Mr. Martin. I believe that was from the NASA
Administrator's office or the Office of Legislative Affairs at
NASA to Mr. Rohrabacher in response to his questions along the
same avenue.
Mr. Wolf. China is one of eight countries designated by the
State Department as countries of particular concern. The others
are Burma, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan,
where the genocide continues. China has one of the closest
relationships to the genocidal government of Sudan.
I was the first Member of the House to go to Darfur to see
with my own eyes the genocide. The genocide in Darfur
continues. Two point one million people died in a north/south
effort and, yet, China invites Bashir, who is an indicted war
criminal, to come. So they are a country of particular concern
that is also aiding countries like Sudan.
How many foreign nationals from these others countries of
concern are working as contractors across the agency?
Mr. Martin. I do not know that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Can you look into that?
Mr. Martin. We could look into that, sure.
[The information follows:]
According to NASA's Office of International and Interagency
Relations, 192 Chinese nationals currently work at NASA Centers. We
have requested that NASA gather the figures for the other listed
countries and provide them to the Subcommittee directly.
Mr. Wolf. My office has heard allegations from a number of
NASA facilities, all career people, about poor security
practices, including dissemination of information without
proper export control reviews, inadequate security procedures
for reviewing foreign nationals seeking NASA credentials, and a
failure to appropriately supervise and regulate the access of
approved foreign nationals to sensitive information.
At best, these allegations are indicators of a systemic
lack of attention to security requirements. At worst, they are
something more insidious.
Do you believe NASA, taken as a whole, has the appropriate
agency culture of security?
Mr. Martin. I believe they do. They have very detailed
procedures, export control procedures, security background
procedures both at the Center level and at the Headquarters
level. The problem is in the adherence and execution of these
by the hundreds of people across NASA.
So I think the structure is there and there are a lot of
different responsibilities from a lot of different groups, from
the Office of Security at the Centers to the export control
officers. There is a counterintelligence function at NASA and
then there is a NASA Office of Inspector General. Each of us
have our lanes and we work together on these issues.
While I think the apparatus and the policies are there, the
question is how well they are executed on a day-to-day basis.
Mr. Wolf. The career people who have brought security
related allegations to their local OIG office report to us that
their claims were not adequately dealt with.
How do you respond to that assertion?
Mr. Martin. I respectfully disagree with that. If you are
referring to the specific case at Langley that was brought to
our attention by your staff last week, I think that was being
handled appropriately.
There was consultation between the Inspector General's
Office and the Office of Security at Langley beginning in
December. And they sat down in a meeting in early January and
decided that, for the present at least, that this would be
handled as a security matter. And that is the way it proceeded.
NASA counterintelligence also was of that opinion. NASA
counterintelligence does not work for me.
Mr. Wolf. That runs counter to what these people said. And
I think we may have to bring them in and have a public hearing.
Mr. Martin. I would be pleased to have that conversation.
ALLEGATIONS OF SECURITY VIOLATIONS AT THE AMES RESEARCH CENTER
Mr. Wolf. We want to ask you about a particular set of
security-related allegations from the Ames Research Center that
your office investigated between 2009 and 2012. These were
serious allegations that, if true, represent a violation of
national security.
Why did it take so long to complete your investigation at
Ames?
Mr. Martin. It was a very complicated investigation
involving multiple agencies working with the U.S. Attorney's
Office. I pushed as hard as I could. We were one participant in
this multi-agency effort. There is also some coordination with
the Department of State which is the agency that opines on IT--
excuse me--ITAR related matters, some slowdowns over there as
well. So it was frustratingly slow.
Mr. Wolf. We have been told that your office, as well as
the prosecutor's office, changed personnel in the middle of the
investigation.
Why did you switch investigators and do you believe that
change could have affected the quality of the case?
Mr. Martin. Let me answer the second question first. No, I
don't think it affected the quality of the case. In fact, I
think it improved the quality of the case and the focus.
We changed supervisors out in that west coast office. And
when the new supervisor came in, she took stock of her staff
and switched agents on the case to bring better focus to the
case.
I can't speak to why the U.S. Attorney's Office switched
out their prosecutor. You would have to ask them.
Mr. Wolf. It has come to our attention that a computer
being held as evidence in this case was damaged beyond repair
and that all of your electronic copies of that computer's hard
drive were also either damaged or lost.
Is that accurate?
Mr. Martin. Partly. We had access to this computer. We did
not have physical control of the computer, but we had a copy of
all the information on the computer. And we conducted our
investigation based on all the information on that computer.
When we eventually went back to get the computer, the best
evidence as they call it in the criminal world, we found out
the agency that had the computer, it had been damaged.
Mr. Wolf. Did the loss of the evidence harm your case?
Mr. Martin. It did not.
Mr. Wolf. I am going to go to Mr. Fattah in a minute or
two, but just to cover one or two issues on this line.
ALLEGATIONS OF SECURITY VIOLATIONS AT THE LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER
As you know, I am extremely concerned about a specific
incident from Langley which took place late last year. A
Chinese national, Bo Jiang, was hired as a NASA contractor
despite his ties to an organization designated as a
counterintelligence entity of concern. He then violated
multiple terms of his service agreement, including provisions
requiring him to be escorted at all times, to be restricted
only to publicly available information, and to receive no
direct funds from NASA. This culminated in his return to China
in possession of NASA hardware and data.
When did the IG's Office at Langley first become aware of
the security concerns about Bo Jiang?
Mr. Martin. Before I answer that, I am not sure all your
facts are absolutely correct.
Mr. Wolf. Why don't you correct them then?
Mr. Martin. I would be happy to. There is an email--well,
let me answer the question as far as when we first became aware
of this. I think in mid-December, we first became aware of
this.
And in consultation with the Office of Security who has, at
Langley, who has the responsibility for clearing individuals'
access working with export, and so we started a discussion
there, had a meeting in early January. The take-away decision--
--
Mr. Wolf. How long had Bo Jiang been on the job?
Mr. Martin. I believe he had been--had access to Langley
over a year.
Mr. Wolf. Over a year?
Mr. Martin. He had been cleared by the Office of Security
at Langley for access, unescorted access according to emails
that I reviewed provided by your--in a report that was provided
first by your staff to me last week.
Mr. Wolf. Go ahead.
Mr. Martin. So he had unescorted access at Langley
according to the Office of Security for nine months to a year.
Mr. Wolf. And was that appropriate?
Mr. Martin. I don't know. Determining whether or not a
foreign national should have access to a NASA center and what
restrictions should be on that access is up to the Office of
Export Control and the Office of Security, not the Office of
Inspector General.
Mr. Wolf. The Langley Office of Security Services wrote a
full investigative report outlining the case against Bo Jiang.
When did your agent at Langley receive a copy of this
report?
Mr. Martin. About two days after your staff gave me a copy
of it. That is when we received a copy.
Mr. Wolf. He never had any indication?
Mr. Martin. He had conversations.
Mr. Wolf. You are under oath.
Mr. Martin. I am under oath.
Mr. Wolf. He had conversation. What does a conversation
mean with respect to when he knew about this?
Mr. Martin. You are saying when do we receive a copy of the
report?
Mr. Wolf. Well, when did he know about it and receive a
copy of the report?
Mr. Martin. They discussed the concerns that the Office of
Security had in early January and the decision was made for the
Office of Security to pursue the review, the investigation. And
if they came across anything that the Inspector General's
Office would be in a better position to handle, they should get
back in touch with us.
Mr. Wolf. Where is Bo Jiang currently located?
Mr. Martin. I don't know that. I would ask the Office of
Security.
Mr. Wolf. It is my understanding, this is the last
question, we are going to go to Mr. Fattah, that co-workers of
Bo Jiang advocated for an exception to be made allowing him to
continue working with NASA in spite of his repeated violations
of the security provisions of his employment agreement.
Do you believe this attitude reflects an appropriate
concern for agency security?
Mr. Martin. I don't know that the underlying statement is
accurate. We just received the report a matter of days ago and
we are going through the report ourselves.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Well, first of all, let me reiterate that I
share the chairman's concern about that we do a full review of
where we are with these security issues.
And I generally have the perspective that, you know, if we
are going to give foreign nationals opportunities to work in
and around these NASA facilities that, you know, that should be
done on a reciprocal basis where American scientists and
engineers have the same kind of access in these other
countries. And if they do not, I do not see why we----
Mr. Wolf. Would the gentleman yield?
I agree completely with my friend from Philadelphia.
How many NASA employees are on China facilities today?
Mr. Martin. I have no idea.
Mr. Fattah. Yeah. Well, you know, generally the
relationship should be reciprocal and have some benefit on both
sides.
But from a security standpoint, I am very supportive of the
chairman's concerns and appreciate the documentation that will
be forwarded.
NASA STRATEGY FOR IMPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT
Let me move to this infrastructure issue because you have
got an infrastructure that is valued at about $30 billion. You
have this mind set that has been prevalent to, as you say, keep
it in case you may need it which is prudent, I mean to some
degree. But there is obviously opportunities where some of this
infrastructure that has built up since, you know, over the last
five decades may not be in NASA's future and some thought
should be given.
And I know that the Congress asked that a plan be developed
in terms of this and so this is--I mean, one of the issues
during the fiscal challenges that the country is facing is--you
know, I am a big supporter of making the investments we need to
make, but we also need to shed whatever unneeded costs we can.
So, you know, I would be interested if you could talk about
your review of this infrastructure issue and where you think we
are at this point.
Mr. Martin. Right. I think this is an issue that has
bedeviled NASA for years and years and years as these major
programs like the Space Shuttle program, you are left with
infrastructure that was necessary during the conduct of that
mission, what do you do with it.
And NASA has been--they have had--they have gotten
creative. They have done some leasing, but NASA is still
saddled with vastly more infrastructure and facilities than it
frankly can maintain in a safe way.
And so unfortunately over the years, we have seen also a
deterioration in the cross-agency support budget that primarily
funds these facilities. And so we--that is what leads to the
$2.3 billion in deferred maintenance.
And so I think NASA needs to be smarter. They need to do,
as the Chairman indicates, be clear on their strategic mission
and their focus and then ensure they have the facilities to
meet that mission and focus.
And then they need to make the difficult call perhaps to
either demolish or to lease or to give up some of these
facilities that have no current mission need or no future
mission need. And this is difficult.
Mr. Fattah. Let me ask you this question. Do you believe
that the strategy in place now or that is being put in place is
an effective way to make some of these--to get to the decision
package you would need to make decisions about what you need
and what you do not need?
Mr. Martin. The process appears--the folks at NASA appear
committed. They have a couple different initiatives ongoing
now. It is going to take the concerted effort of the senior
levels at NASA, the Administrator, and it is going to frankly
take--there is a good bit of political push-back when you are
talking about an arc jet or a wind tunnel or an airfield at
someone's district being potentially excessed. And so there has
to be that political will. These are very difficult decisions.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson.
ALLEGATIONS OF SECURITY VIOLATIONS AT LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Martin, as the Inspector General obviously you are
interested in auditing the agency to make sure that our tax
dollars are being spent wisely, to make sure that the agency
complies with federal law and is carrying out the policies that
the Congress sets out for it.
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Another essential part of your
responsibility is in pursuing investigations of potential
criminal violations.
Mr. Martin. That's correct.
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir. And because that is the scope of
your jurisdiction I believe, of any Inspector General, if a
federal employee within the scope of your jurisdiction lies to
you or misrepresents a fact or conceals evidence in the course
of an official investigation conducted by your office, that is
a violation of federal law that can be prosecuted by the U.S.
Attorney.
It is subject to essentially the same thing as lying to an
FBI agent, right?
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. That is your experience----
Mr. Martin. Yes, it could be.
Mr. Culberson. I am particularly interested in the fact
that you said that, in your opinion, the policies and
procedures that NASA had in place were adequate to protect the
agency against----
Mr. Martin. If fully executed, and if correctly executed.
Mr. Culberson. The problem was with individuals at NASA. In
particular, in referring back to the Chairman's question.
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
Mr. Culberson. I want to ask follow-up on the--on the
incident at Langley.
I heard you say that the first time that the Office of
Inspector General became aware of this problem at Langley was
in mid December and that the first meeting that you had took
place in mid January.
Mr. Martin. Early January.
Mr. Culberson. Early January.
Mr. Martin. The 8th of January is my understanding.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. And there was apparently a report, if
I may, sir, forgive me, there was apparently an investigative
report outlining the case against this Chinese national and
that you did not became aware of that report--
Mr. Martin. That we didn't receive the report until last
week.
Mr. Culberson. Until last week.
Mr. Martin. That is correct.
Mr. Culberson. But how did you become first aware of this
Chinese national working at Langley?
Mr. Martin. Well, again, my understanding, and my facts are
not--I wasn't involved obviously hands-on in the case, that
this individual was working for an organization that NASA
contracted with and had been working or had access to the
Center for close to a year working on a software or a coding
project.
Mr. Culberson. And how did your office become aware of that
in mid December?
Mr. Martin. I think--believe we got a call or--either
directly or indirectly from some export control officials.
Mr. Culberson. Who were concerned because?
Mr. Martin. That is what I don't know.
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Mr. Martin. Yes, that is one of the many questions that I
have about these activities.
Mr. Culberson. Who in your office did the Office of Export
Control contact?
Mr. Martin. Someone in our Investigations Division, I
believe.
Mr. Culberson. And so when your office, because you do
criminal investigations as well, becomes aware of a potential
criminal violation, you open up a formal investigation?
Mr. Martin. We review the matter, that is right.
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Mr. Martin. We may open a preliminary investigation. We may
open a full investigation. I believe in this matter, the
Headquarters investigative folks contacted our agents at the
Langley Center.
Mr. Culberson. In mid December?
Mr. Martin. In mid-December. And then they coordinated with
the Office of Security.
Mr. Culberson. At that point, an investigation is opened.
Any other criminal investigation?
Mr. Martin. No, not until you have more facts.
Mr. Culberson. Yeah. But, I mean, you basically pursue it
like any other law enforcement agency because essentially that
is what you are is a law enforcement agency.
Mr. Martin. We are a law enforcement agency, correct----
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Mr. Martin [continuing]. With 1811s.
Mr. Culberson. For example, one of the many things that
concern me about this, as the Chairman, I know every Member of
the committee is concerned about it, is that obviously you have
got a pretty good case like of espionage.
And there is also language in the statute that Congress has
enacted now several times that prohibits NASA from sharing
information with, from cooperating with the Communist Chinese.
But I think it is important that we not have any illusions
about who they are. They are Communist Chinese. Whatever they
do is aimed at extracting as much information as they can from
the United States for their own benefit.
Particularly when it comes to space exploration, the
information that they steal from NASA is going to be used to
help better target their intercontinental ballistic missiles on
the United States. This is a really serious matter.
So, you become aware of a Chinese national that the Export
Control Office is concerned enough to contact you about in mid
December and the time, several weeks since the chairman's
office has contacted you about this. Certainly you know more
about what your office did in pursuit of what is obviously a
very serious breach of security, a violation of federal law,
and a probable criminal conduct.
Mr. Martin. Well, I think we----
Mr. Culberson. Tell us more detail. I mean, I am----
Mr. Martin. Sure.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Not getting a lot of detail
here.
Mr. Martin. Okay.
Mr. Culberson. And you have known about this for some time.
Mr. Martin. No, we didn't know about this for some time.
Let me back this up. First off----
Mr. Culberson. You personally knew for several weeks. The
chairman's office told you.
Mr. Martin. Last week.
Mr. Culberson. Let me try to get, if I could, a better----
Mr. Martin. Sure.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Picture.
Mr. Martin. Last week, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Mr. Martin. Last week. And let me back up. Your statement,
there is a lot in that statement which I think was a question
about a confirmed case of espionage.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. But it looks like----
Mr. Fattah. Can we let the witness respond, please?
Mr. Culberson. Sure. Yes, sir.
Mr. Martin. I don't know that to be true. And, in fact, the
people closest to the ground, the people who are charged with
espionage cases within the NASA structure, there is a
counterintelligence, they don't believe it is--my understanding
is they don't believe it is an espionage case. They believe
this is most appropriately--has been most appropriately handled
as a security matter which is why the Office of Security is the
group that did the investigation down at Langley.
Now, we are looking at their report as is the CI component
of NASA, as is the FBI. We are all going to take a look at this
report and drill down into it. And if there is anything for us,
for the Office of Inspector General, within our lane, within
our jurisdiction to aggressively investigate, we sure as heck
will.
I don't want to give any illusions that the Office of
Inspector General is in any way not stepping up to the plate
and enforcing the conduct of NASA employees or the--in any way,
shape, or form looking the other way while NASA's important
information is going out the front door or the back door.
Mr. Culberson. Sure. I understand that. And I am trying to
get an idea of the scope of your lane, the responsibility. One
of our greatest frustrations in Congress is trying to make sure
the laws that we pass are enforced.
Mr. Martin. Sure.
Mr. Culberson. There are a lot of agencies out there to do
that. When it comes to a criminal violation, obviously that is
the first responsibility of the arms of the federal law
enforcement agencies, whether it be DEA, ATF, the Marshal
Service, whoever they are, ultimately do an investigation,
passing the information on if they think there is probable
cause to the U.S. Attorney's Office. My good friend, Mr.
Schiff, was a U.S. Attorney. It is a lot of complicated moving
pieces.
I am just trying to get a handle on the scope of your
lane----
Mr. Martin. Sure.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. And responsibility. You have
got a statute that says no interaction with China, no
information exchanged, we are going to keep the Chinese out.
The NASA Security Office is, therefore, obviously in part
responsible for this.
I mean, it sounds like you all are sort of taking a passive
role in this. I just do not understand.
Mr. Martin. No, absolutely not taking a passive role.
Again, I think we need to unpack your question if, again, if it
is a question.
Mr. Culberson. Sure. Just so we understand your lane.
Mr. Martin. When you say a law was passed to allow no
Chinese, that is not what the law says. The law prohibits
bilateral agreements, contracts with Chinese companies and
Chinese government.
There is no law that I am aware of, and please, Mr.
Chairman, correct me if I am wrong.
Mr. Wolf. Yes, but it also calls for notification and NASA
did not notify when they should have notified, particularly on
Langley. So there is a violation there, and a violation of the
spirit, too.
Mr. Martin. Sure.
Mr. Wolf. And I would like you to ask, if the gentleman
would yield further----
Mr. Culberson. Please.
Mr. Wolf. Basically I agree with my good friend, Mr.
Fattah. If you could find for the record and call us today and
we will put it in the record, how many NASA employees are now
in Chinese facilities? Because you told us how many Chinese
nationals are in NASA facilities, so how many Americans are in
Chinese facilities? Can you find that out and call us by the
end of the day?
Mr. Martin. I can try. Again, this is--he is talking about
being outside my lane. This is sort of a big NASA question.
Mr. Wolf. Well, if you can find out, you can call.
Mr. Martin. I am going to ask.
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
Mr. Martin. Right. I will ask the Administrator.
[The information follows:]
According to NASA's Office of International and Interagency
Relations, no NASA employees are working at China's space-related
facilities.
Mr. Wolf. Yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Yes and you have been generous with the
time, Mr. Chairman, and I will pass.
But talk to us, if you could, about how this investigation
proceeded, talk to us about, if you could, what your office has
done, and also I really would love to know what happened to the
computer and to this individual. Talk to us about the
investigation. What is your office doing and have you done
since you first became aware of this?
Mr. Martin. Right. Again, I am happy to speak about this,
what I know about this. I am not sure this is the appropriate
forum because this is an ongoing matter that several different
agencies including our own continue to look at in light of
receipt of the investigative report from the Office of
Security. So I would be hesitant to go into a good bit of
details at this point.
Mr. Culberson. Maybe you can do it in writing.
Mr. Martin. I would be happy to chat with your staff. I
would be happy to chat with you.
Mr. Wolf. Why don't you do that?
Mr. Culberson. If you would do that in writing.
Mr. Wolf. And if you would be in touch with Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Martin. I would be happy to.
Mr. Culberson. I will submit questions to you as well to be
submitted in writing.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Good.
With that, Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LAPTOP ENCRYPTION AT NASA CENTERS
Mr. Martin, I wanted to talk with you about a couple
issues, the first of which is of deep interest to many of my
constituents out at JPL and that involve the loss of a NASA
laptop that was stolen from an employee's locked vehicle. The
laptop contained records of sensitive personally identifiable
information for a large number of NASA employees. Evidently the
number of individuals whose data may have been compromised has
been growing.
Has NASA completed the assessment of the extent of the
disclosures? Is there any indication that the personally
identifiable information on the laptop has been utilized by
anyone? Has there been any identity theft or any other result
of the theft?
Mr. Martin. Mr. Schiff, my understanding is they--NASA has
completed its examination, forensic examination of this laptop
and, no, I think the answer is there has been no reported
misuse or use at all in any way of the information, the PII on
that laptop.
Mr. Schiff. Is there----
Mr. Martin. NASA is in a--excuse me--is in a cautionary
mode with the credit monitoring service for the 30 or 40
thousand individuals.
Mr. Schiff. Is there any indication that whoever stole this
laptop knew what was on it? Was it stolen because of the data
on it or was it stolen because it was a laptop?
Mr. Martin. We don't know that. My assumption having been
in this business for the last 15 or 20 years is that it was
stolen because it was a laptop and because it was unfortunately
mishandled by the employee.
Mr. Schiff. One of the things it revealed was how little
data on laptops had been encrypted.
What steps have been taken and do you know to what extent
that problem has been addressed?
Mr. Martin. Yes, I think it has. We raised the red flag on
the issue a year ago when we testified. As I indicated in my
opening remarks, one year ago at this point, only one percent
of NASA's laptops have been encrypted compared to a government-
wide average of 54 percent. I frankly find that shocking.
After the theft, it was on Halloween that particular theft
of the laptop that you are speaking to, Mr. Schiff, the
administrator accelerated the time table. And as we sit here
today, I believe 99.4 percent of all NASA laptops are
encrypted.
Now, there are--there is a subset of approximately 4,000
laptops that have received what are called waivers for
particular reasons, either they don't have data on them or they
are stationary or--and the biggest chunk of those are actually
at JSC and they are configured to mirror the configuration that
is on the International Space Station.
So they don't want to put the encryption software here
because I don't believe they are encrypted up on the ISS.
Mr. Schiff. The theft of a laptop is a fairly low tech way
to steal data.
What other steps is NASA taking to safeguard the personal
information it collects from employees, contractors, and
others?
As you might know, this is an issue that has been raised in
the context of a lawsuit by several JPL employees over the
government's collection of personal information pursuant to
HSPD 12.
What can you tell us in terms of what other steps they are
taking to protect personal information?
Mr. Martin. Well, it would be personal information and NASA
generated information. I think--I couldn't agree more with the
Chairman's remarks about what various people have been saying
about the cyber security threat to the country, and I will say
in particular, because I happen to sit here, in particular to
NASA.
NASA has probably a quarter of all the public facing Web
sites of any civilian agency, over 3,000 Web sites given its
mandate under the Space Act to share information. And while you
are achieving that mandate of sharing information, you are also
providing a pretty huge attack surface for folks who want to
attempt to penetrate and steal data.
And NASA has been the subject, a victim, rather, of many
attacks over the years at JPL and at other Centers. I am proud,
and I inherited this when I came three years, but the Office of
Inspector General at NASA has one of the, I would say the most
sophisticated and aggressive cyber security, we call it our
Computer Crimes Division, units in all the Federal Government.
So NASA has taken a series of steps including creation of
what they call a SOC, a security operations center, where they
attempt to centralize all the information on cyber threats,
according to NASA, but as we have pointed out in probably 20 or
30 audits and investigations over the last handful of years,
NASA has a long way to go.
JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE
Mr. Schiff. Let me turn your attention to James Webb, if I
could. I do not know how much you have been involved in the
analysis of the cost overruns at Webb. I am a big believer in
the science that will come out of Webb, but I am just
incredibly distressed over the multiple cost overruns and the
degree to which James Webb has sucked not only the oxygen but
the money out of so many other important planetary science
projects.
Can you give us a little sense of what you think led to
such an extraordinary series of overruns, whether NASA has in
place sufficient protections in the future to guard against
this, and do you have any idea whether we have seen the end of
the overruns at Webb because I continue to hear that we are not
done yet in terms of the increasing fiscal toll of Webb?
Mr. Martin. Right. I wish I could give you a detailed
response to that.
The Government Accounting Office--that shows how old I am--
the GAO has been auditing Webb and they are mandated by
Congress I think once or twice a year to report on Webb. And so
to avoid duplication our office hasn't.
But from my perspective inside the building it goes to what
I talked about in the opening statement just about NASA's
historic inability, particularly with large projects to handle
these project management challenges.
We had, you know, cutting edge technology and this sort of
culture of optimism. Now, you need a culture of optimism to go
beyond the stars at NASA and that should be encouraged, but
when you are talking about schedule and budget you can't--you
shouldn't be that optimistic, and I think it was sort of the
confluence of these factors and given the incredible, you know,
enormity of the James Webb architecture that led to where they
are. But unfortunately I think GAO is the one.
Mr. Schiff. Well, you know, I know, and thank you, we will
certainly follow up with GAO, but I know in your assessment of
systemic challenges facing NASA and what you describe as overly
optimistic or over confidence you have to look at things like
Webb to determine, you know, where you have the big problems.
Do you think in the case of Webb and others it was over
optimism being able to develop technologies that were
nonexistent at the time, was that really the driver or was that
really only a small piece of it but rather problems in the
acquisition process, in the development process, in the
management and oversight process, were those much bigger
contributors to the size of the overruns then the technological
leaps that, you know, that we have to make on all of these new
firsts?
Mr. Martin. I can't weigh those. My sense is that each of
those played a role in where we find Webb to be. Both is way
over schedule, way over cost.
I don't know whether it was the technological that was the
primary driver or whether it was just the poor oversight, poor
management, but it certainly came together and we are where we
are.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Dr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, and I will give you a
break from some of that to----
Mr. Martin. Kind of angle this way if you don't mind.
Mr. Harris. Oh, thank you.
NASA STRATEGY FOR IMPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT
You know, one evening I--I don't know why I was watching C-
Span, but you know, I saw Burt Rutan from Composite Scale--
Scale Composites rather, kind of talk about the future of
space. And one of the most interesting but I think
disappointing things he said was that these future missions,
like they will be private missions and they will probably
certainly not be launched or supported by anything the U.S.
government owns or runs because there just too much red tape
involved with it.
Your report here indicates that, you know, one of the
problems facing NASA is this inability--it sounds like an
inability to kind of make a decision whether to sell some of
their excess properties or lease their properties.
The first question is, are there adequate measures in place
in the agency to address the problems that Mr. Rutan suggested,
which are that it is just too difficult to deal with the
federal government? I assume he meant in leasing facilities or
gaining access through leases to NASA facilities. So is there
enough of an effort going on to deal with that?
And the second question is, you mention--there is actually
a mention of an old report in 2007 and a slightly newer report
about the number of properties, but do you have an estimate of
what the estimated value of the excess properties would be
either for sale or for lease?
Mr. Martin. We have done a recent review looking at NASA's
leasing practices, and our bottom line was they could do
better, in fact frankly could do much better.
I think as a fundamental matter as far as an inventory
control they don't have a good database or good set of
information about what facilities are even available for
leasing. And then once they have identified a facility that is
available to lease they don't market it or they aren't
transparent in their efforts. And so we made a series of
recommendations there.
Fundamental to the leasing issue is you only get to the
leasing question after you have decided that NASA needs to
retain the facility for its potential future use.
If you have made the decision that it is excess property,
that we no longer need it, then leasing should not be a way to
avoid the fact that you need to give it a GSA and excess it and
they may sell it to either another government agency or give it
to another government agency or sell it to a private concern.
So I think one of the cautions that we raised in our report
was not substitute leasing but perhaps the harder decision of
saying we no longer need--we don't need it now and we have no
future mission use.
Mr. Harris. And could you just let my office know where to
get a hold of that report?
Mr. Martin. Sure.
Mr. Harris. That specific report. Thank you.
Mr. Martin. It is on the Web site. We will be happy to.
Mr. Harris. And have you made any estimate of the value--
the potential value of either selling the property or leasing
the property to the government?
Mr. Martin. As I spin around and turn and ask my head of
audits.
Mr. Harris. I mean there was an estimate that ten percent--
I think they said there was a 2007 report done that indicated
that ten percent was excess, but I have to imagine that given
that the Space Shuttle is offline it has got to be more than
ten percent now.
Mr. Martin. That hasn't been updated. Our most recent
report we identified 33 specific facilities, including vacuum
chambers, test stands, airfields that NASA itself identified as
having no current mission or no future mission use. And just
the general upkeep for these 33 facilities was $43 million in
one year alone.
So the upkeep for facilities that NASA has no current or
identified future mission use is quite staggering.
Mr. Harris. But those are the facilities they have
identified, but----
Mr. Martin. Correct.
Mr. Harris [continuing]. I would--I would guess that they
are underestimating the number of facilities that they really
perhaps don't need.
So when is the next plan to actually look property by
property and to do an assessment of what is excess and what is
not?
Mr. Martin. Well, I think my sense is that NASA is under
requirement by Congress to come up with that. In fact every two
or three years in the authorization bill NASA is required to
assess. They never quite use the word BRAC, but they do talk
about reducing unneeded infrastructure. And we have done a
series of reports, we will continue to stay on them, and NASA
has a series of initiatives under way.
Again, as I mentioned, they seemed quite promising if they
have the will to see them through. These are very difficult at
times political decisions.
Mr. Harris. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Martin. Thank you.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Rooney.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Martin, glad to see you still have a little bit of a
Pittsburgh accent.
IMPROVING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SECURITY GOVERNANCE
Over the past couple years the House Intelligence
Committee, which I sit on along with Mr. Schiff, has held
countless hearings and briefings on the intelligence leaders
regarding the growing threat of cyber espionage and its impact
on our national security. As somebody who also sat on the Arms
Services Committee last year and served in the military it is
obviously a great concern for me.
And just yesterday the intelligence leaders announced that
cyber warfare they believe is the single most--or biggest
threat to our national security. And I share the chairman's
concern over China's growing perpetration of these attacks.
These attacks, as you know, risk not only our intellectual
edge but also the billions of dollars we have invested in
competitive technology through programs in DoD and NASA.
What is most troubling is that NASA's technologies dual use
by its very nature and many of the civilian use applications
can be used for military and non-proliferation purposes.
So given our enormous investment and faith in the success
of NASA's core missions this committee should do everything
possible to help protect those investments from being
compromised by cyber attack.
So my question to you is how, do you suggest that this
committee can better enable NASA's CIO to compel mission
directorates and contractors to share cyber threat information
that is critical to developing technologies to prevent future
attacks?
Mr. Martin. Right. We have long-standing concerns about the
effectiveness of NASA's current IT governance structure to
effectively handle the many serious IT security concerns.
We have an ongoing audit that we hope to wrap up in the
next four or five weeks that is going to set out some
significant findings and some significant recommendations for
potential restructuring NASA's approach. Because as you may
know NASA's CIO has very little authority over the mission
directorates where frankly 60 plus percent of the funds, the IT
funds, are spent. And so she can set out the--the CIO sets out
policy but doesn't have the stick to ensure that that policy is
effectively implemented.
So I think NASA needs to continue to do work to more
effectively strike an appropriate balance there.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Rooney.
Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How are you doing
inspector?
Mr. Martin. I am okay.
Mr. Graves. Good. You are doing well today.
Mr. Martin. Unless you tell me otherwise.
Mr. Graves. No, no, you are doing amazingly well.
NASA STRATEGY FOR IMPROVING INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT
And I wanted to follow up on Dr. Harris' thoughts there
because that is intriguing to me that I read in your statement
here there are 4,900 buildings and structures within NASA and
you as well as your statements say your office has identified
33, or at least they have recommended 33.
Mr. Martin. Low hanging fruit.
Mr. Graves. Right. Out of 4900. What can we do?
And maybe first of all what is your office able to do? How
far can you go to insure that they are being as transparent as
possible about identifying those properties?
And then what can we do to further encourage not
maintaining $43 million worth of maintenance expenses?
Mr. Martin. Right. We can keep the heat up through our
audits and oversight, we can assess the Agency's efforts in
identifying and divesting itself, or if they think they have a
legitimate potential future mission moving to an option like
leasing which would help at least fund the operation and
maintenance cost, that NASA wouldn't be on--you know, that
wouldn't be their expense.
But it really is going to be sort of a coming together of
the Administration and the Congress about these are the future
missions for NASA, the big ticket missions, these are the
facilities that we need to accomplish those missions, and then
once excess, you know, having frankly the institutional will,
the political will to let those go, and that is what it is
going to come down to.
Mr. Graves. Well, and you mentioned the political pressures
earlier and then now political will.
When you have various properties, let us say it is these 33
that aren't being utilized whatsoever it sounds like and aren't
being identified for future use but yet we are spending money
to maintain them, what is the political gain of anyone of
keeping them open? I don't understand the constituency that
would say yes we want to keep a vacant building vacant.
Mr. Martin. You clearly don't have a NASA center in your
district.
Mr. Graves. That is true. That is true. That is why I need
your explanation.
Mr. Martin. Exactly. I have only been here for three and a
half years at NASA, spent twelve years at Justice, Justice was
a bit different on that.
I think there is a concern--I am told there is a concern
that with capabilities if you have a test stand or a vacuum
chamber you currently have and you make yourself a viable
player for potential either current or future NASA projects, if
you divest yourself of that ability you have less flexibility
in arguing that you should be the recipient of that next
project that is coming.
And there is a significant amount of downsizing of
facilities or capabilities then the Center itself perhaps could
be, do we still need that particular Center? And that sets up
there is a lot of jobs there, there is a lot of economy. Those
are the issues.
Mr. Graves. Okay.
Mr. Martin. It is a slippery slope.
Mr. Graves. Well, I am glad they aren't in the typewriter
business or payphone business, because you know, things change.
You know, I guess the economy changes technology changes, but
to me--and you are right, I don't necessarily have a facility
in my district, but I would much prefer an operating facility
with employees that are being paid and receiving a paycheck in
a facility that is not vacant as opposed to a vacant building
or facility or airstrip or whatever it might be.
Mr. Martin. Right.
Mr. Graves. Well, I appreciate your explanation and
transparency with that.
Mr. Martin. Appreciate that.
Mr. Graves. Thank you.
Mr. Martin. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Mr. Fattah.
COST SAVINGS FROM COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT
Mr. Fattah. You mentioned in your opening statement about
the commercial crew successes both in terms of SpaceX and
Orbital and a number of other of the contracts have come to
fruition and good work is being done.
I want you to focus a little bit if you could tell us a
little bit about the cost savings between the Administration's
push to have missions to space station cargo delivered through
a private company versus when we were doing it the old way with
the shuttle.
Mr. Martin. Right.
Mr. Fattah. Because I think this is one of the big cost
savings as we go down the road in terms of lower orbit travel.
So if you could comment on that.
Mr. Martin. Well, I can and I can't. We have not done a
particular cost analysis to look at that, but obviously it
became very, very expensive per shuttle flight. You know, we
have heard numbers of upwards of $500 million per shuttle
flight toward the tail end. We are sort of keeping the standing
army marching forward, and so the shuttle was an inefficient
vehicle for cargo. It was an essential vehicle for building the
Space Station.
So we have not done. But the Space Act Agreements and then
the follow on FAR-based contracts that NASA entered into, the
$1.6 billion for SpaceX for the twelve resupply missions, two
of which have been successfully accomplished and the $1.9
billion for Orbital for the nine resupply missions, you know,
look to be relatively effective and economical.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
I have a number of other questions on the security issues,
which we will come back to.
USE OF SPACE ACT AGREEMENTS
There is a wealth of information available through public
online sources about unclassified Federal contracts, including
who receives those contracts and what amount and for what
purposes, but there appears to be no comparable source of
information about NASA Space Act Agreements.
Is there any reason why Space Act Agreements should be
treated differently than FAR-based contracts from an oversight
or disclosure perspective?
Mr. Martin. None that I can think of, sir.
Mr. Wolf. NASA said that all Agreements concluded under
international law are coordinated with other Federal agencies
under a process managed by the State Department. What do you
know about this review process? Do you believe it is an
effective safeguard against Agreements that might pose a
security risk?
Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, I know very little about the
oversight process, which is one of the reasons why several
weeks ago we opened a review looking at NASA's use of Space Act
Agreements, the funded Space Act Agreements, the reimbursable,
and the non-reimbursable Space Act Agreements. And NASA's
structure and adherence to export control regulations will be a
key focus of that review.
Mr. Wolf. Our office has reviewed a list of active NASA
Space Act Agreements and found a number of North America
subsidiaries of foreign companies on the domestic agreement
list. Presumably these agreements were not subject to the
additional State Department review because they were deemed
domestic.
Should these agreements get additional scrutiny because of
indirect ties to foreign entities?
Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, I believe that would be part of
our ongoing review as well.
Mr. Wolf. Each NASA center is empowered to enter into its
own Space Act Agreements with little or no Headquarters
involvement. In fact we found that Headquarters did not even
know the full universe of the agreements that had been entered
into by the various centers.
Does this high degree of center autonomy cause
inconsistency in the application of management standards or
internal controls to Space Act Agreements?
Mr. Martin. Again, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that it does
knowing how NASA works in its decentralized fashion, but this
will also be a focus of our review.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. We will share it with you, but I saw a
letter where there was a number of people who directly or
indirectly had these agreements and they were advocating for
somebody in NASA.
Would that be a problem if there were Space Act Agreements
that were given and then some of the people who got those
agreements were advocating for the person that gave the
agreement?
Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, I would have to know more about
the facts. I just don't know enough about that particular
concern.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I am going to give you the letter and then
you can get back to me by the end of the day just to tell me if
you think there is a potential problem.
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir.
NASA STRATEGY FOR IMPROVING INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT
Mr. Wolf. There are many members of Congress who oppose a
proposal to eliminate some specific pieces of NASA
infrastructure and point to the possibility of leasing that
infrastructure to an external user as a preferable alternative,
but you believe that leasing is often not an acceptable or
beneficial option. Why is that?
What do you think of NASA's recent announcement that it
would seek to lease Hanger One at Ames, one of the facilities
that your office has determined has no current or future NASA
purpose?
Mr. Martin. My understanding of the current state of the
Hanger One is it has been excessed to the General Service
Administration and the General Service Administration is in the
process of finding a new tenant for the facility. Once it is
excessed to the General Service Administration it is out from
the NASA umbrella and outside of NASA's recurring cost of
operations and maintenance.
So I have no problem--the Inspector General's Office has no
problem with finding a tenant for Hanger One, our audit when we
did the review of Hanger One, NASA had no current or future
mission use, and our recommendation if you have no current or
future mission use for any facility, particularly one as big as
that, is get rid of it, and that is what NASA did.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I am going to give you another letter from
a group, and I won't mention their name, with regard to that.
Could you get back to me by the end of the day and tell me if
you think there is a problem? Okay?
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
COST AND SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE
NASA's difficulties with cost and schedule performance are
serious and long-standing. According to GAO, however, there is
evidence of significant improvement over the past few years
among major projects other than the James Webb and the Mars
Science Lab. Do you agree with this characterization?
Mr. Martin. I agree that there has been some improvement,
in fact we put out an audit in the last 30 days that looked at
the Maven Project, which is the Mars atmospheric rover that
they are going to hopefully launch in November of 2013, and it
is a relatively small in NASA terms, it is a $453 million
project that appears to be on cost, schedule, and timetable for
launch.
So I think NASA still has difficulty with its larger
projects, and so we will see whether some of the new techniques
and protocols they have will be as applicable to some of the
larger projects like Webb.
Mr. Wolf. So do you think there are factors that they have
dramatically improved, or you don't know?
Mr. Martin. I think they have improved, I wouldn't call it
dramatically improved.
Mr. Wolf. Last year NASA proposed the cancellation of GEMS
Mission due to concerns about cost and schedule risks. This was
a relatively rare proposal, at least in terms of science
projects.
Do you think the cancellation of GEMS is a sign that cost
and schedule discipline are now being more seriously enforced
within the agency, or was the GEMS cancellation an isolated
incident?
Mr. Martin. I think that remains to be seen. I hope it is
an indication of more adherence to the cost and schedule
fidelity, but I think it remains to be seen whether it is just
an aberration.
Mr. Wolf. Our experience with the GEMS cancellation
proposal showed that while NASA has reams of policies and
procedures for approving missions, it has surprisingly little
formal guidance for how to go about canceling programs.
Have you come across this issue in your assessment of
NASA's project management practices? Don't you agree that clear
cancellation criteria and procedures are necessary for
effective and appropriate cost discipline?
Should there be a procedure that kind of fits--not that
everything fits into it--but we check one, check two, check
three?
Mr. Martin. I agree that there should be a standardized
procedure to cancel a project. I think it has happened so
rarely that that is probably why one doesn't exist. I agree
that one should exist.
Mr. Wolf. How many--and you can submit it for the record--
but how many have been canceled in the last ten years?
Mr. Martin. I think very few, and I would like to submit
that for the record to get you an exact number.
[The information follows:]
According to NASA's Chief Engineer, since 2003 NASA has cancelled
10 Science Mission projects and the Ares I rocket program.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
CONFERENCE EXPENDITURES
Your office has a mandate to review NASA's annual
expenditures for agency-sponsored conferences. Have you seen
any evidence of inappropriate or excessive expenditures such as
those that emerged at the GSA and several other Federal
agencies last year?
Mr. Martin. We have not.
Mr. Wolf. While NASA sponsors a number of its own
conferences each year, the agency is also an active participant
in many external conferences, including some that take place
overseas and are quite expensive to attend.
Does your office conduct any oversight of NASA's
expenditures associated with attendance at non-NASA
conferences? If so, do you believe their process for balancing
the cost and benefits of attending these events is transparent
and well reasoned?
Mr. Martin. We do review NASA attendance at all
international conferences, and I do believe the process is
transparent.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
RIF BANS
NASA is statutorily prohibited from conducting reductions
in force among its civil service employees. Are you aware of
any other agencies in government with this kind of restriction?
Mr. Martin. With the exception of possibly the DoD, no, I
am not familiar. I don't know.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you.
MAINTAINING LEADERSHIP IN SPACE
Earlier before I came to the hearing I met with a young man
from Boston University who is doing some post doctorate work
and was over in CERN in Switzerland working with the Super
Collider there.
We used to have the world's largest Super Collider and we
ceded that, you know, to your European friends, and so we
have--when our smartest young people, you know, who spent some
years over there doing some work and now he is back.
This is the danger in this exercise at times. We have to be
careful that we now have the premier space exploration agency
in the world, and you know, we have to have appropriate
oversight, but we don't want to be penny wise and a pound
foolish as we go forward. You know, if we want to have global
leadership in terms of space we are going to have to make that
investment.
And so when President Kennedy in 1962 charted this course
for the nation and over these many years, you know, we have
been able to continue these investments, I want to thank the
chairman in particular, the James Webb Telescope was one of the
items you mentioned at the front end of your comments, and when
we start talking about cost overruns this is one of the items
that comes up.
There is no possibility that we should not proceed with
this project however. And this is--part of the reason why NASA
has these challenges is not because people are purposely
underestimating what the cost is, this actually is rocket
science. I mean it is hard to do, some of the work that is
being done. And the more you get at the cutting edge of it the
more difficulty comes with it.
So this is not just a matter of, you know, accountants
figuring out what the cost of something is. The figuring out
the cost of doing something you have never done before is
challenging.
And so the big science projects of our nation whether it is
the Webb Telescope or whether it is a manned mission to Mars,
these are important mile markers associated with whether or not
America intends to be number one in the world or whether we
plan on ceding that to someone else.
And so I just--I mean I am very interested that we have
better project management, but I don't think that we can
substitute global leadership for, you know, better accounting,
you know, that it is going to cost money and the chairman I
think worked, you know, some magic to find additional resources
in the last time that we moved the bill, which is a little bit
back a ways, but to keep the Webb moving forward.
Just so it is like the Super Collider, you know, one of
these big science deals, right, and the Super Collider we ceded
on and that is unfortunate, we aren't going do that with the
Webb, and we can't ever expect that when we deal with, you
know, these kinds of issues that we are going to be able to
isolate, you know, the cost of every paper clip, because in
some cases we aren't talking about paper clips, and we are
talking about things that we can't really put a price on and it
takes a level of investment and daring and boldness on behalf
of our nation and continue to lead.
So I thank the chairman and I thank you for your work.
Mr. Martin. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Well, again, I agree with Mr. Fattah. I think
that is one of the reasons why we are going have to hopefully
come up with a grand bargain that reforms the entitlements and
does some of those things, so we don't just squeeze the
domestic discretionary down to where we just can't function and
can't be the leader that we want America to be. So I completely
agree.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. I apologize for being late, I was
chairing another subcommittee, but glad to be here. Thank you
for being here this morning.
I do want to express my strong support for the Chairman's
inquiries regarding the security violations regarding the
foreign nationals at Ames and Langley.
I want to echo the point that we must have a timely
investigation by your office when such violations occur, since
even a small breach of security can lead to a dangerous erosion
of our national security.
So I support Chairman Wolf on these matters and look
forward to prompt answers to the questions that have been
submitted to you.
BUDGETING FOR THE SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM
The Office of Management and Budget has imposed on NASA a
flat line budget of $1.1 billion a year for SLS, a rocket which
far exceeds the capacity even of the largest ULA rockets.
I know of no engineers who would say that a multi-year
rocket development budget exists as a flatline budget. There
are peaks and there are valleys. The authorization bill
acknowledges this.
What is your opinion of the financial impact to NASA of
imposing a budget not recommended by engineers? Does it risk
wasting dollars by prolonging a program's development time or
by provoking a termination of the program?
Mr. Martin. This is a complicated issue. We don't have an
ongoing audit looking at the SLS development, but we do have an
ongoing audit looking at the multi-purpose crew vehicle, which
of course is one of the components of the heavy lift rocket,
and I think there are some concerns along the same lines there
about a flatline budget that is going out 10 years that is that
a financial trajectory that is possible for success, and I
think there are some significant questions there.
So we haven't audited the SLS development yet, we plan to
do that probably in the next 6 months, we will open an audit on
that, but there are some very serious concerns, whether there
is adequate funding for these programs in the long term.
Mr. Aderholt. Did your office play any support role of any
kind in the termination of the Constellation Program?
Mr. Martin. We don't. The Office of Inspector General has
no role in the programmatic element of the agency.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
If the government allowed a business to take a GAO building
and use its own funds to make the building usable that would be
a lot cheaper than for that company to have to build its own
building from scratch. I think it would be fair to call the
arrangement a significant subsidy for that company's business
costs.
Looking at the value of NASA and of Air Force facilities
and ranges what is the value of what SpaceX has received from
the U.S. government?
Mr. Martin. I have to get back to you with the exact
figure. I know that they have received in the upwards of 300
and I want to say 400 or so million dollars in the Space Act
Agreement for commercial cargo, and then they entered into a
FAR-based contract I believe of $1.6 billion for twelve cargo
resupply missions.
Orbital received I think 200 million or so in the Space Act
Agreement and then entered into a FAR-based contract for $1.9
billion for its nine cargo missions to the ISS.
[The information follows:]
As of the end of fiscal year 2012, NASA had paid SpaceX $992.6
million for cargo and crew development and services.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
We have received rocket launch sale figures and promises
from commercial companies who also are heavily critical of
funds given to ULA to maintain ULA's availability to the U.S.
government to launch classified satellites.
We can't know the true cost of a commercial launch unless
we figure in the significant benefits the U.S. government
provides.
How much money has been spent under the umbrella of SLS
funding and what is the value of that spending for commercial
companies who will also be allowed to use these facilities?
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir. I don't know the answer to that
question, I would have to get back to you if I could.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. If you could get back with us on that I
would appreciate it.
Mr. Martin. I would.
[The information follows:]
NASA has spent $1.7 billion on the Space Launch System (SLS) since
its inception through February 2013. This amount does not include costs
associated with the Orion MPVC program or ground systems development.
Commercial cargo and crew have a separate line of funding and do
not receive funding from the SLS program. SLS systems and facilities
are not being built with an objective for compatibility with commercial
launch systems. Rather, commercial companies that choose to use NASA
facilities normally do so under cost reimbursable agreements.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Martin. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
SECURITY ALLEGATIONS AT THE AMES RESEARCH CENTER
Has your office done any assessment of NASA's procedures
for vetting and clearing contractors or academic partners for
access to NASA facilities or data? And if so, what have your
findings been?
Mr. Martin. I don't believe we have done any work on that
certainly since I have been here.
Mr. Wolf. Is it time to look at that maybe?
Mr. Martin. It sounds like it is.
Mr. Wolf. Particularly with Ames. I would appreciate that.
Thank you.
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Would you agree that a background investigation
that doesn't identify individuals with ties to organizations or
governments considered to be security or counterintelligence
threats is not a very good background investigation?
Mr. Martin. I would agree with that.
Mr. Wolf. Background investigations may be an area in which
new and improved policy is needed, but NASA also has problems
when a perfectly adequate security policy is in place but the
policy is not enforced, and you referenced that earlier.
For example, sensitive information is not to be shared
before undergoing an export control review, and yet we have
seen examples where that straightforward directive hasn't been
followed.
Is the problem that most of NASA's employees are unaware of
existing security policies?
Mr. Martin. I don't know that, sir, that is the--you know,
what I said earlier was that I think the appropriate policies
are there both from a security perspective and from an export
control perspective. Whether they are understood by the NASA
populous more broadly or the folks that are in the office of
security or export control or the program managers, the
sponsors of these individuals, whether they are adhered to that
is the $100,000 question.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SECURITY THREATS
Mr. Wolf. When you last appeared before the subcommittee
you testified that NASA was one of the top four federal
agencies, and you referenced it earlier, that are targets of
cyber attacks, and that many of those attacks originate in
China and eastern Europe. Is that characterization of the
threats still accurate today?
Mr. Martin. Absolutely.
Mr. Wolf. What percentage of the cyber attacks do you think
are from China and what percentage are from eastern Europe?
Mr. Martin. I don't have a percentage. We have worked a
number of cases particularly serious intrusions out of the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory that were traced back to Chinese-based IP
addresses. We have also had a very successful case in Estonia
where we arrested six Estonians and indicted one Russian on
various cyber charges.
Mr. Wolf. So of all the cyber attacks against NASA since
you have been there, where are most of them from?
Mr. Martin. I think you have touched base--well, I would
say China, I would say eastern Europe, I would say Africa.
Mr. Wolf. Can you give roughly--we aren't going to hold you
to this--but roughly give us a percentage?
Mr. Martin. I could spin around and ask my head of
investigations. About 40 percent from China.
Mr. Wolf. Forty percent.
Mr. Martin. For the cases that we are working, yes.
Mr. Wolf. And then the next government, the next area?
Mr. Martin. Probably 30 eastern Europe and then Africa.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Where in Africa?
Mr. Martin. Nigeria.
Mr. Wolf. All right, Nigeria.
Mr. Martin. And we have worked cases in each of these
countries where we send Office of Inspector General agents to
those countries working with local authorities to apprehend.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
THREAT TO NASA FROM CHINESE ESPIONAGE
This is an easy question, but I assume you agree with what
Directors Clapper and Brennan and Mueller said yesterday with
regard to cyber being the number one threat?
Mr. Martin. Absolutely. We have been singing that song for
years ourselves.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well, I am going to have a number of other
questions. I am going to go to Mr. Fattah and see if he has
anything else. But let me just say----
Mr. Fattah. I am prepared to reserve, so I don't have
anymore at this point.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. We are going to give you two things to take
to look at, if you could, and give us a call by the end of the
day.
Secondly, I really do think there is a potential problem in
your office. We are going to give you an opportunity to address
it, but we are going to stay with it.
Mr. Martin. Absolutely. And I look forward to discussing it
with you and your staff, sir.
Mr. Wolf. And if need be, we are going to seek a change if
we think it is appropriate.
I don't sense that there is that intensity with regard to
this issue that I think is appropriate. And I want to just kind
of give you background for understanding it.
The Chinese people are wonderful people. When most of the
Chinese dissidents come to our country, they come to my office.
Chen, the blind activist was by my office last week. So I think
of all the members of this body, I probably speak out more for
the Chinese people than most.
But the People's Liberation Army is the same group that
opened fire and killed the people in Tiananmen. The People's
Liberation Army are the same people that are doing the cyber
attacks.
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. The People's Liberation Army are the people who
now go into prisons and, for $50,000 to $60,000, will get a
person not voluntarily to donate a kidney by killing him. They
are selling kidneys.
The People's Liberation Army are involved in aiding the
Sudan government, which is bringing about genocide.
I was up on the Nuba mountains this time last year. All the
efforts, all the weapons, all the supplies are coming from the
Chinese government and the People's Liberation Army. Who, I
will ask you, runs the Chinese space program?
Mr. Martin. I am sorry, sir?
Mr. Wolf. Who runs the Chinese space program?
Mr. Martin. I am assuming the Chinese military runs the
Chinese space program.
Mr. Wolf. Is that assuming or did you know it is? I would
hope you would have known. The People's Liberation Army runs--
that is what you are saying, right? Runs the program?
Mr. Martin. That is my understanding.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. So we are very serious about this and we
expect your people to be. You may send a message to your people
at the local level, because if I don't think we are making
progress we will do a data dump and let all this information
come out so that the world can see what is taking place.
Now, I think it is appropriate that we give you an
opportunity, but some of the comments I have heard are that at
some of the local centers your people have not been as
enthusiastic about this as I think is appropriate. I believe
this deals with the national security of our country, it deals
with jobs, and it deals with having an opportunity for
Americans to have jobs that aren't taken away by others. And
lastly, it deals with the safety and the security of the men
and women that are serving in the military. We have an
obligation to them.
Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I couldn't agree more
with that. I look forward to the discussion with you and your
staff, but I respectfully disagree that the Office of Inspector
General is shirking its duties. We are an aggressive
independent entity out there securing NASA, its information,
its facilities, and we look forward to working with you and
your staff.
Mr. Wolf. Well, let the record show that we disagree
strongly, and I think that there are times that the IG has
failed. If we don't see results, we will lay out where the IG
has failed and we will call it the way that it is. So I want
you to know that.
Mr. Martin. We look forward to those discussions.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. And even, if need be, we will say that the
office ought to be changed.
With that, Mr. Fattah, I will ask you if you have any last
comment?
Mr. Fattah. I have no further comment.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. With that the hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, March 19, 2013.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESSES
HON. SUBRA SURESH, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
DR. BRAD J. BUSHMAN, PROFESSOR, OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
Opening Statement of Chairman Wolf
Mr. Wolf. Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to
today's hearing on the National Science Foundation. Our first
witness, Dr. Subra Suresh, is the director of the NSF.
This will be your last appearance before the subcommittee
as director, but maybe you will be back in other capacities.
I would like to both thank you for your service to NSF and
to wish you very good luck. I know you are going to do a great
job in your new position at Carnegie Mellon. That is a
wonderful institution.
I originally come from Pennsylvania. Actually, my roommate
in college was, I think, the director of Admissions at Carnegie
Mellon for a number of years. I think he was.
It is a great institution, and I would just say that they
are lucky to get you. So I appreciate the great job you have
done. I want to wish you well. I know we are going to continue
to talk and stay in touch as time goes by.
Ordinarily we would spend this hearing discussing NSF's
budget request for the upcoming fiscal year, but,
unfortunately, the submission of the request has been
significantly delayed--not because of Dr. Suresh, I want to
make clear.
So we will be prevented from having a detailed conversation
about your budget plans for 2014. However, there is still
plenty of other material that is necessary and useful to
address. We will discuss the status of projects you are funding
with the current budget, management issues that affect your
ability to effectively and efficiently carry out your
operations, and changes in policies and procedures that could
help make your agency an even better steward of Federal funds.
After we hear from Dr. Suresh on these issues, we will
change gears a bit on our second panel, whose witness is Dr.
Brad Bushman of Ohio State University. I want to welcome Dr.
Bushman.
We appreciate your willingness to be here today.
Dr. Bushman recently served as co-chair of a subcommittee
to NSF's Advisory Committee on Social, Behavioral and Economic
Sciences and led that subcommittee in an examination of the
causes of youth violence.
Dr. Bushman will give us an overview of the findings of the
subcommittee, including a discussion of the major known risk
factors associated with youth violence and further research
that is necessary to comprehensively address the problem.
It is my hope that this report will be helpful to all of us
in policymaking roles as we attempt to develop an effective and
appropriate response to last year's tragedy in Newtown.
In a moment, we will begin our first panel with some brief
opening remarks from Dr. Suresh, who will then answer
questions, and we will then turn to Dr. Bushman and proceed the
same way.
But first I would like to recognize our ranking member, Mr.
Fattah, for any opening remarks he would like to make.
Opening Statement of Ranking Member Fattah
Mr. Fattah. Well, let me join in with the chairman in
thanking you for your service as the leader of the National
Science Foundation. I think you have done extraordinarily
important work on behalf of our Nation.
And the fact that you are going to lead one of the premier
institutions not just in Pennsylvania but throughout the
country indicates that you will be continuing to serve but in a
different capacity.
Carnegie Mellon is an institution I have visited in my
earlier life as a state senator in Pennsylvania. And I remember
their early work in robotics.
But I wish you well. You have done a great service at the
National Science Foundation with a number of initiatives from
the innovation of corps to a host of other work that we will
get into a little bit.
But I want to wish you well and I also want to thank you
for your help in the neuroscience initiative and at the
chairman's behest and you hosting the STEM education conference
rollout in Philadelphia. So welcome again here to the committee
and we look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
Pursuant to the authority granted in Section 191 of Title 2
of the U.S. Code in clause 2(m)(1) of House Rule XI, today's
witnesses will be sworn in before testifying.
Dr. Suresh, please rise and raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Wolf. Let the record reflect that the witness answered
in the affirmative.
Dr. Suresh, your written statement will be made part of the
record. You may proceed with your summary remarks and you may
proceed as you see appropriate.
Opening Remarks of Dr. Suresh
Dr. Suresh. Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Fattah, and
Members of the subcommittee, it is my privilege to be here with
you today. Mr. Wolf and Mr. Fattah, thank you very much for
your kind words as well.
My testimony today will be the last time to address you and
the subcommittee in my official capacity as the director of the
National Science Foundation. I have gratefully appreciated the
strong working relationship we have had over the past three
years and this moment is bittersweet for me.
As I indicated in my memo to NSF staff last month, it is
with mixed emotions that I face this transition from one
exciting professional journey to another and from one
remarkable institution fostering research and education to
another.
I am saddened by the prospect of leaving the National
Science Foundation, an organization that has become the
dominant part of my life for the last three years. At the same
time, I am excited about the new opportunities and challenges
as I assume the leadership of an outstanding university.
With a strong partnership of this subcommittee and despite
the economic crisis and the lingering uncertainties that have
ensued, NSF funding has sustained growth through the turbulent
times of the recent past.
The hard working and dedicated staff at NSF have created
the gold standard for science funding for more than six
decades. The programs and practices they have established have
been emulated around the world and they have nurtured the
creative balance of hundreds of thousands of scientists,
engineers, students, and educators in every part of the U.S.
Their work has also supported the discoveries of some 200
American Nobel Prize winners who represent about 70 percent of
all U.S. Nobelists since 1950.
I would add, Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is any other
funding agency on the planet that can claim that. And as
director of NSF, I am very proud to claim that.
Transitions such as the present one provide reasons to
reflect on and to take stock of one's journey and to examine
the key milestones encountered along the way.
My written testimony provides some examples that with the
committee's strong support we have achieved in these last few
years together. They are grouped into several major thematic
areas: the one NSF philosophy and creation of new paradigms for
cross disciplinary interactions and organizational efficiency,
national priorities and grand challenges, support of major
infrastructure projects, nurturing and expanding the innovation
ecosystem, new models for global engagement, and principled
commitment to human capital development and broadening
participation.
These activities are not only being launched successfully,
but they establish strong roots with support from a broad group
of dedicated NSF staff. I, therefore, have confidence in the
potential for continuing success and growth in the years to
come.
I am extremely proud of the work that we have done
together, Mr. Chairman, whether it was working with you and
your staff in identifying highly successful K through 12
schools and programs in STEM education or being with Ranking
Member Fattah for the rollout of those findings in
Philadelphia, or the ability to use the foundation's convening
powers to bring together experts on areas of national discourse
like youth violence. I believe that together we have made an
impact.
It has been my extraordinary honor to lead the National
Science Foundation which is blessed with a marvelous cohort of
highly talented, devoted staff as well as hundreds of thousands
of innovative grantees and investigators from every field of
science and engineering.
I am grateful for the opportunity to serve the country in
this capacity and to be the beneficiary of many wonderful life
experiences as I witnessed and played a small role in helping
to advance science over the past several years.
Mr. Chairman, I am most grateful for the working
relationship with you and with Ranking Member Fattah and with
your subcommittee.
I thank you for your leadership and especially for the
warmth that you have shown me during my tenure at NSF. I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. I want to thank you for your testimony. I agree
with your word bittersweet. Here is your Congressman coming in,
Mr. Rooney. I hope you will live in Mr. Rooney's district and
support him. He is going to be the new head of Carnegie Mellon.
But when the staff told me that you were leaving, I was
disappointed. It was bittersweet. I said, wow, really? But you
have done a good job, and I think you have had a good attitude.
You have always been open, and it is a tribute to you. But,
I am not going to say goodbye because we will see you. I am
sure there will be a lot of other activities.
Pittsburgh is a great town. I went to Penn State, and when
you go to Pittsburgh, you know, what was it called? The Tower
of Learning? What is the place out there called? What is it
called, the big building?
Mr. Fattah. The Tower of Rooney.
Mr. Wolf. The Tower of Rooney?
Mr. Fattah. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. I used to get very resentful of Pittsburgh
because I come from Philadelphia and root for the Philadelphia
Phillies. My dad was a Philadelphia policeman. And the
announcer at Penn State was named Bob Prince, I think his name
was. Was it Bob Prince?
Voice. The Pirates.
Mr. Wolf. The Pirates. No, I know that. But they broadcast
the Pirates game at State College. They did not broadcast the
Phillies games, which I never quite understood.
But Pittsburgh, it has great representation. I mean,
unbelievable. It is really a nice town. They are nice people.
They have neighborhoods and a renaissance in the town.
So, Pittsburgh is going to love you and I think you are
going to love Pittsburgh. So, anyway, I want to just
acknowledge that.
Mr. Suresh. Thank you.
ALLEGATIONS OF WASTEFUL GRANTS
Mr. Wolf. At least once a year, and usually more often, we
hear allegations from different folks about frivolous grants.
These allegations are then used to make an argument that we
could reduce NSF's budget without negatively impacting any
important work.
Do you believe that NSF makes any frivolous or wasteful
grants? You understand what I am talking about?
Mr. Suresh. Yes. Mr. Chairman, NSF receives tens of
thousands of proposals every year and we use a process that
brings in experts from the community to select these in a
highly competitive environment and more than 240,000 proposal
reviews conducted.
I cannot sit here and say that there is not one or two or
three times that may not meet everybody's approval. But on the
other hand, I think we do everything possible to be sure that
these are done in the most appropriate way. These are done to
the very, very rigorous standards of NSF.
In fact, the standards are viewed as a gold standard by the
global community to such a point that in the last ten years,
nearly ten countries have established new funding agencies that
are exactly modeled after the National Science Foundation.
And last year when I invited 53 heads of funding agencies--
my counterparts--to come at their own expense to the National
Science Foundation to talk about peer review, 44 of the 46
invitees came.
So I can assure you that the funding is done through a
process that has been refined over the last 60 years which has
been viewed as a gold standard, and we do everything possible
to make sure that the science is done in the best way.
I would also like to add that sometimes when we look at the
titles of these projects and just look at the titles, we may
end up with misleading conclusions if we don't go through the
outcome of the project.
For example, there was a NSF funded project called Game
Theory and Game Theory led to mathematical analysis through
which spectrum auctions could be done. The return to the U.S.
Treasury from NSF funded Game Theory was $60 billion.
So these are examples of activities where science funding
over some period of time leads to unexpected outcomes and I
have other examples that I can give you if there is time.
Mr. Wolf. I mentioned Mr. Rooney--you are from Pittsburgh;
are you not?
Mr. Rooney. We are all originally from Pittsburgh.
Mr. Wolf. I know you represent Florida now.
Mr. Rooney. Yeah.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Mr. Rooney. That is okay.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Good. You love Pittsburgh. It is a great
place.
Mr. Rooney. Absolutely.
Mr. Suresh. Mr. Chairman, I am learning a lot about the
Steelers. They told me not to come to Pittsburgh without
knowing all about the Steelers.
Mr. Wolf. And the Eagles, I think, if you are Mr. Fattah.
Because you fund basic research, how can NSF and its
grantees do a better job of explaining the purpose and value of
its grants to the public? Do you see Senator Coburn has had his
reports? There have been other reports. What can be done? How
can NSF do a better job of explaining?
Mr. Suresh. So we try our best. We continue to use all
kinds of media, all kinds of forums. There are a number of
places that I have gone to articulate the significance of NSF
funded research. Just last week, we had an opening of a new
telescope with 500 people from around the world. I tried to
explain to that group what impact NSF funded research has had.
I met with a number of a Members of Congress individually
over time, over the last three years, trying to articulate the
impact of NSF funded work.
I mentioned at the beginning it is not only my claim, but
the data shows that in the last 62 years, 70 percent of all
American Nobel Prizes have had some connection to NSF funded
research. And it is only a $7 billion agency, so comparatively
over all of the enterprises of the U.S., it is a fraction, but
its impact is enormous.
I think we could do more. We could do better. It is also a
double edged sword, Mr. Chairman, because when we try to
articulate the impact of it in layman's terms, that has the
potential to be misinterpreted because if somebody just looks
at the title that is articulated for the lay person, it doesn't
fully convey the full impact of the scientific work.
We try to strike a very delicate balance between
simplifying the science behind it for common explanation versus
running into the cross-fires of misinterpretation of that
simplification.
Mr. Wolf. The social science directorate is only a tiny
fraction of the size of other major research directorates,
which seems to confirm that you also consider social sciences
to be a lower priority.
If social sciences should be considered on equal footing
with other research disciplines, why does NSF itself de-
emphasize social science in its budget request?
Dr. Suresh. So let me first of all say on a personal note
speaking as a trained engineer and a scientist, a natural
scientist, I firmly believe that social sciences are very much
an integral part of the scientific enterprise and increasingly
so to address major challenges that we face not just in the
social sciences disciplines but also in every field of science
and engineering that we face.
The social sciences are unique in certain respects. If you
look at physical sciences or geosciences, they require enormous
physical facilities and physical infrastructures such as
telescopes or ocean going vessels, et cetera. Social science
doesn't have those major infrastructure needs even though there
are increasing needs for data management, data collection, and
longitudinal studies which can become expensive.
So even though the social sciences' budget is only $300
million or so in the NSF budget, increasingly we have
activities that interface with every corner of NSF from big
data to education and human resources to mathematical and
physical sciences, geosciences to healthcare studies, et
cetera, et cetera.
So I think I firmly believe that social sciences are an
important part of it. I have said that in every statement that
I have made during my three years at NSF. And I think some of
the grand challenges that we face both nationally and globally
will inevitably require integration of perspectives from social
and behavioral sciences and economic sciences with natural
sciences and engineering.
Ultimately we want to understand the human condition. We
want to understand human beings and we want to understand
institutions and social, behavioral, and economic sciences
provide a unique platform to do that.
Mr. Wolf. As you know, there are usually amendments every
year on that issue.
Mr. Suresh. That is right.
Mr. Wolf. And they generally carry.
RETAINING THE RESULTS OF FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH
Last year, the subcommittee held a hearing on American
manufacturing and job repatriation. One of the findings that
came out of the hearing was that technologies developed
partially or even solely through the use of Federal research
funding often end up manufactured overseas. That means we are
allowing foreign economies the benefit of our research dollars.
Are you aware of instances where this has happened among
NSF grants?
Mr. Suresh. The way that NSF grants work is we fund the
universities, but the universities own the intellectual
property and then they license it. In fact, with engineering at
MIT, a lot of the intellectual property portfolio reported to
my office in the School of Engineering.
So NSF doesn't directly engage in the licensing of this
technology at universities and colleges because of the Bayh-
Dole Act, so we leave it up to the institutions to comply with
the federal regulations, export control, et cetera, et cetera.
And so this is given a lot of careful thought at various
universities.
Mr. Wolf. But do you have any policies in place that would
help to minimize or eliminate that? Could there be some
conditionality on the grants to say that if commercialization
takes place, the preference ought to be with an American
company to keep that technology here and also to create jobs
here?
Mr. Suresh. Given the fact that by law the ownership of
these intellectual properties reside not with NSF but with the
recipients of these grants, it is very difficult for us to
individually prescribe solutions to that.
One of the things we have done with respect to the I-Corps
program, for example, we tried to develop a virtual national
network so that the vast number of scientists and engineers and
students at American universities that don't have the access to
the ecosystem, for example, people in the Midwest who may not
have access to the venture capitalists on either coast, using
NSF's convening power, we can bring them in touch with them. We
can put them in touch with them to give them greater
opportunities. This is something that we are trying to do.
Mr. Wolf. But shouldn't there be some mechanism so that if
Carnegie Mellon or Penn State were to take an NSF grant,
conditionality would require that manufacturing or technology
from that grant be kept here?
You know, America is struggling on these things and we are
subsidizing technology that later perhaps--as we see in the
solar now, China is moving ahead in solar--will be gone abroad.
I went to Penn State University, a great engineering
school. If Penn State takes a grant that then turned into a
manufacturing technology, shouldn't there be some language or
something to say that there ought to be a first refusal or
something from an American company rather than a foreign
company?
Mr. Suresh. Well, from my experience in dealing with these
at the School of Engineering at MIT, sometimes there are well-
intentioned prescriptions that lead to a lot of unintended
consequences.
For example, if General Electric, or some other American
company, were to license the technology, 75 percent of the
manufacturing is in the U.S. and some part of the manufacturing
is somewhere else, say Mexico or some place. Would that be
beneficial to the technology or detrimental to the technology?
Should all of them be in the U.S.? I mean, there are so
many little details. I think perhaps it is probably a good idea
to look at it, but I will be happy to look into this. My
experience has been that every time we prescribe something with
one intention, there are some unintended consequences that
emerge out of this.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I would like you to look at it. You know, I
was raised in Philadelphia, and I lived next to the largest
General Electric factory, I think, in the country. As I go back
to my old neighborhood, it is gone. It is over.
GE has now moved their MRI imaging that you see their ads
on. They are leaving Waukesha, Wisconsin. Now, I do not know if
NSF was involved in that. They are leaving Wisconsin and going
to Beijing. And Americans are watching this and I think the
question is are American tax dollars leaving?
So, obviously we are a global society. And some things may
be manufactured overseas. But we can't have a raw Federal
dollar go to a locality, go to Penn State, Penn State then
takes it, develops manufacturing technology, and then it is
being done offshore. Then somebody in south Philly or
Harrisburg or out in the Winchester area in my congressional
district does not have the opportunity.
Mr. Suresh. Most of NSF funding is for basic research. So
between the time the NSF funding is over and whatever emerges
out of it to the time the technology is developed and then is
ready for commercialization or manufacturing, there is a large
time gap involved. That requires significant additional
investment beyond what NSF has given. And sometimes it is a few
years.
So at the end of the NSF grant, some technology emerges
that is further developed that leads to a small business and
the small business receives funding from a number of different
sources and then that leads to a process, software technology
that leads to some kind of manufacturing. So there is a long
time gap.
NSF's role is primarily basic research. So what NSF does
and what eventually happens in a company like GE, there is
quite a lot of things that happen after the termination of the
NSF grant.
That is one of the reasons it is going to be very, very
difficult for a basic research agency like the National Science
Foundation to give prescriptions on what should be done with
the output because the output of NSF research and the input
that leads to manufacturing, there is a lot of development in
between.
Mr. Wolf. I understand. I am going to go to Mr. Fattah. I
understand, but GE is now producing some aircraft parts and
engines in China. That probably all came out of DoD funding,
which could have earlier come out of an NSF grant or some other
grant.
And I just think, America is going to go into decline. We
are broke. We have tremendous debt. We have a tremendous
deficit. And all this manufacturing leaves. So I think anything
we can do to keep it here in the United States is appropriate.
There are no easy answers, but I would like you to really
look at it, because it is not appropriate to take the tax
dollar from an American citizen and then find that the
resulting job, the technology, the manufacturing is in Bogota
or some other place like that.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I wanted to cover three subjects. One is the subject
that you are just concluding on. I want to spend some time on
that for a minute.
And I do want to then talk to you about the global
competitiveness of the American efforts in science vis-a-vis
some of our competitors and then I am going to finish up on
neuroscience which, of course, is my number one focus and
subject.
But the chairman started here, so, you know, I have learned
something from the chairman which is that commissions and
bringing people together is a very good idea. And so I
introduced a bill, H.R. 614, which is American Discoveries,
American Jobs, and it deals with this issue that the chairman
just raised.
It has nothing to do with the National Science Foundation.
Across all of our agencies, NASA, which has got thousands of
patents, NIST, all of our various agencies, we fund a lot of
research. And a part of this research eventually does lead to
progress and sometimes that progress means, you know, some new
way to make a widget and the manufacturing of these items.
There are federal labs where we have, not through NSF, but
through DoE, we have funded. They have come up with things. And
the new widgets are being manufactured in far places.
You know, the notion that we should tax a waitress this
morning in some restaurant in D.C. and fund research, I am all
for. I really do think we should fund research. I am for big
science. I am for us investing money in science. But I do think
that we have to make sure that we are as relevant as possible
and responsible to the American public here.
So, you know, scientists have this desire and almost
responsibility to want to be open sourced and want to
collaborate and want to interact with their international
counterparts and then, you know, but in a competition, you
know, and I am talking now about the economic competition
between the United States and others who would like to eat our
lunch economically, we have to be a little more--it is like the
Steelers. They do not put their play book so that other teams
can see it. I mean, you try to like figure out what you are
doing and perfect it, right, to your own interest?
So to some degree on some of these economic issues, the
country has to be a little more parochial in some of these
areas, right? So we have lost, you know, some ground in an
area. We make some investment. We pick up some ground. If we
did share that with everyone who we are competing with, you
know, really we are working at cross purposes.
And I know this is hard to reconcile between the way
scientists work and the way people who have responsibilities
for our economic competition might think about these things. So
I think that we have to do better at this.
And, you know, major research universities, whether it is
Carnegie Mellon, whether it is University of Pennsylvania, the
great universities have benefitted because they get research
grants from the Federal Government. Their faculty and students
do work. The university owns the intellectual property. We do
not have any problem with that.
The issue becomes is I believe, Mr. Chairman, there is a
way that we can tie the fact that there were federal
investments originally in that work to the responsibility that
if the intellectual property is going to be utilized, that
those jobs end up in the United States of America.
You know, I think there is a way to get there from here. I
am not a lawyer, but there are plenty of smart enough lawyers
to figure out how to do that because a grant is a grant. It is
free. We are giving some scientist the money because they have
a great idea. And that idea might eventually lead to, you know,
to making people's lives better and they might even make
millions of dollars or billions of dollars.
But in the meantime, we want the jobs that emanate from
that. Whether they are in Mr. Rooney's district or mine or even
in Texas, you know, or Virginia, I mean, we want those jobs,
you know, in the United States of America. So I think it is a
reasonable proposition. So that is number one.
I have some legislation in that regard and I think the
Congress--I am not sure scientists can work this out because,
again, the impetus for--the notion is that you have this great
desire to share all this information with everyone and interact
with your colleagues around the world, but we have to think
about this in a little more guarded way, particularly in this
area of manufacturing.
This is critically importantly and if we develop
techniques, we develop materials, we develop approaches--I was
out at Oak Ridge looking at this additive manufacturing. It is
amazing. But if we are going to develop it and then just share
it with everybody the next day, you know, it does not give our
workers the kind of advantage that they need.
Mr. Suresh. Mr. Ranking Member, first of all, you used a
Steelers analogy and I am not yet fully up to date on the
Steelers, but I will be before too long, and I will use better
analogies than I can do right now. I have been trained with the
New England Patriots for almost two decades, so it will take me
some time to migrate over.
I want to make a few points in response to that. First,
Congress actually asked NSF in 1977 to be the very first
federal agency to start the SBIR program. In hindsight, we
would not have thought of NSF as being the destination for the
creation of the SBIR program, but Congress asked NSF to do it
in 1977.
Here is what came out of it. NSF gave small grants to
companies like Qualcomm. In fact, I have on videotape the Co-
founder of Qualcomm, Irwin Jacobs telling us that he got a
small grant of $125,000 from NSF when they had 10 or 15 people
on the company payroll. Now they have 21,000 people. Another
company is Symantec which now employs 18,000 people.
NSF over the last several decades as the federal agency to
start an SBIR program has nurtured American innovation and
American manufacturing on American soil. There are lots and
lots of examples.
Even the last couple of years when we started the I-Corps
program, some of the initial grants were $50,000 that we gave.
We have a company, a small company, Professor Strader, that was
just bought out by Drop Box in the U.S. There are many, many
examples of this. So that is the first point I want to make.
The second point is that we do have as a basic research
funding agency responsibility for research and education and
STEM education. We do fund activities that contribute to that
in a major way.
For example, in the EHR directorate, we fund a program
called ATE, Advanced Technological Education, to the tune of
about $64 million a year. That supports community colleges in
technological education. In fact, it trains American
undergraduate students in community colleges to learn about
things like manufacturing, not all of it, but some fraction of
it.
Mr. Fattah. Well, thank you.
Again, my proposition is simple. American Discoveries,
American Jobs. To the degree that we finance the discovery, the
jobs should be here. And there is a lot of how to get to that
from here which is why I introduced this legislation to create
a national commission because it will require some work to
think through how to do this.
But I do believe we can get there. We do not have to
finance work that then leads to tens of thousands of jobs being
created among people who are competing with us economically
while our own people do not benefit from those jobs even though
they were taxed originally to finance the research.
So I think there is a way in keeping with our commitment to
build these major research universities and to have this
effort, I think the chairman is absolutely right.
INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
So let me move on because I wanted to make sure that we
preserve some time. In your original testimony before the
committee years ago, you talked a little bit about the fact
that the United States, you know, had challenges in terms of
scientific competition around the world ranging from much
smaller countries like Singapore to much larger countries with
multi billion populations and that we needed as a country to be
thinking more aggressively in terms of our investment in
science.
I want to give you a chance in your last visit to comment
on that before we move to neuroscience.
Mr. Suresh. Sure. I think our biggest problem is our
inability to plan ahead. For example, when I discuss projects
with our counterparts from around the world with whom we are
vigorously competing, they are able to plan for five to seven
years.
Take Europe as an example. Europe is in the middle of a
deep financial crisis from Greece to Italy to Spain to Cyprus
to Ireland to you name it. But still the European Parliament is
right in the middle of discussions of a funding project called
Horizon 2020, that will, over a seven-year period, lead to
somewhere on the order of 60 to 70 percent increase in science
funding because 27 European countries unanimously feel that
this is so important for the future.
Singapore as an example, a country that I have interacted
with in my previous job quite a bit, and they plan for many
years ahead of time. China has a five-year plan. Look at
Germany. The German National Science Foundation, which is my
counterpart agency, has a guaranteed five percent annual
increase for the next five years guaranteed by the Chancellor
of Germany.
It is not the amount of money, it is the lack of certainty
for planning. We not only don't have annual planning, we are
still in a Continuing Resolution for the fiscal year that began
last October 1st. I think this really potentially undermines
the credibility of agencies like the National Science
Foundation when we try to compete when science inherently
requires long-term planning and this is a major problem for us.
It continues to be a problem for us.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you.
I was talking with the chairman last evening on the floor
about the European Union's Horizon 2020 because they have among
their six focus areas that they are going to make these
scientific investments, they decided that neuroscience is going
to be at the leading edge of their activities.
And yesterday at lunch with the Prime Minister of Ireland
who now has the lead for the EU for this year, they change
leadership every year among these 27 countries, but Ireland has
the lead and they are taking this effort around neuroscience
very seriously.
NEUROSCIENCE
So this will make a good transition here to this point. So
I want to thank you for your leadership. The committee had
instructed the OSTP to create a collaboration on neuroscience.
I want to again thank the chairman for his help with us and his
leadership on this and along with our Senate counterparts,
Thompson, Hutchison, and now Chairwoman Mikulski. We were able
to get this done.
But NSF co-chaired this collaboration. I want to thank you
and your team. I take note of the dear colleague letter that
went out in March, on March 4th around a very significant
effort of the agency neuroscience. I know that the
collaboration is going to issue its report in June.
But I cannot think of any other way to say it, but I think
that the only way that we would have made this progress up to
and including the President's talk at the State of the Union
about the brain mapping effort is because of the great
contribution of your agency----
Mr. Suresh. Thank you.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. In this regard. So I want to thank
you for what you have done and what the NSF will continue to do
in this regard. But if you would like to give some comment on
this effort, please.
Mr. Suresh. Thank you. And also I want to thank you and the
chairman for highlighting the importance of neuroscience. As
you know, the U.S. National Academy of Engineering about six
years ago released the 14 grand challenges of the 21st century.
One of the grand challenges is reverse engineering of the
human brain. There are so many applications from education to
learning how people interact, bringing the biology of the
neurons in the human brain connecting that to the psychology of
the human mind. It is a grand challenge and I think this is one
of the frontiers of exploration and discovery where the tools
that we have will position us to make some phenomenal new
discoveries in the future.
This is something that takes place at NSF in many different
offices and directorates. And I think all indications are that
we will continue to grow in the years to come given the
importance of this topic.
Mr. Fattah. Well, thank you.
And I thank the chairman.
You know, our effort, you know, obviously the most
important one to date, there has never really been this kind of
a high priority collaboration among all the federal agencies,
but I do not think it could have been done without the
leadership of the National Science Foundation's co-chair along
with NIH in this effort.
The European Union has decided to make this the year of the
brain. They are going to have a major conference in May. I was
telling the chairman I am going to participate in in Dublin. I
am trying to convince the chairman to come with me. We can
visit with our counterparts.
They have decided to put about, and I do not want to say an
exact number because Parliament is still debating this to some
degree, but somewhere in the range of 100 to 200 billion euros
into this effort on neuroscience. And they want to make as one
of the principal pillars of it is collaboration with the U.S.
because this is important.
So diseases, disorders of the brain, there are hundreds of
them. We are literally nowhere in terms of getting to some
effective treatment. We have traumatic brain injuries. And I
know my colleague, Mr. Culberson, who chairs the Veterans'
Affairs Committee, is quite aware of the fact that some 40
percent of our returning veterans who have been injured have
brain injuries. This is a big issue for us.
But also on the operations or the functioning of the human
brain when it is well is something we know little about. So
this is a great scientific endeavor that can lead to a great
deal of progress in our country.
So I thank you and I wish you well in your new efforts at
Carnegie Mellon. So, you know, between MIT and Carnegie Mellon,
you are able to stop off here in Washington and do some great
work for the Science Foundation. So we thank you for it.
Mr. Suresh. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
You know, maybe we should put your commission into our bill
this year.
Mr. Fattah. I like the sound of that.
Mr. Wolf. A lot of the authorizing committees are not
passing very much, but maybe we should do that. And I
appreciate the effort on brain science.
I think that your comment about the spending--to set aside
a certain amount--has so much sense.
My wife and I, we have 16 grandkids and I worry about the
future of this country. If we do not do something bold like the
Simpson-Bowles Commission, I think this country is going to go
into decline.
We had Niall Ferguson here last year and he said when great
nations decline, they decline rapidly. I do not want us to
decline. I want my grandkids to live in the greatest nation in
the world.
I think about what my mom and dad and my grandparents, who
were immigrants, did, and I see the hassle and the argument in
this town. We are just descending rather than ascending. Every
politician loves to say America's best days are yet ahead and
the sun has barely begun to rise on the country. I want that to
be the case, but in order for that to be the case, there are
things that we have to do.
Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you, Dr. Suresh, for your service to the
country, all you have----
Mr. Suresh. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Done for the National Science
Foundation and in the work that you have done in collaboration
with young people. I notice we have got a group of young
students that have been rotating in and out. And I have been
trying to read your shirt, inspiring leaders in technology and
engineering.
What school are you all from?
Voice. Battlefield High School.
Mr. Culberson. Fantastic. Obviously----
Mr. Wolf. Battlefield? I know where that is. Welcome. Why
don't you come by my office later?
Mr. Culberson. You all are well represented. Mr. Wolf has
done extraordinary work in preserving the Nation's investment
with Mr. Fattah and the subcommittee to make sure that National
Science Foundation has stable, predicable funding for the
future, that the NIST, NASA, all of the extraordinary,
incredible scientific achievements have made this Nation what
it is will continue to be funded in the future and to
particularly bring young people like you all up into math and
science.
LEGACY OF DR. SURESH'S TENURE AT NSF
Could you talk a little bit about the legacy you would like
to leave for the future for NSF, the collaborative work that
you have done already and hope to see continued with high
schools like Battlefield, young people like these that want to
go into the sciences and engineering and what should this
subcommittee do to help or support that work that you have
begun.
Mr. Suresh. Thank you, Mr. Culberson, for giving me the
opportunity to say that.
Let me just make a personal comment from life experience. I
came to the U.S. in 1977 after receiving my undergraduate
degree from India Institute of Technology. When I finished, I
was 21 years old and there was no question in my mind what my
next step was. I didn't have to sit down, ask anybody what I
should do next, where I should apply for a job.
Automatically the obvious path for me at that time was to
come to the U.S. to do graduate education. So I got on a plane
with less than $100 in my pocket and a suitcase and went to
Ames, Iowa.
I think if we can keep that for people from around the
world, the destination to do science and engineering is the
U.S. If our universities and colleges can keep at the
forefront, then we will have our scientific enterprise not
decline in our lifetime or in our children's lifetime.
After I finished my Ph.D., I was a professor at Brown
University for ten years. My first major grant that pretty much
guaranteed my research work, research path and my tenure and
full professorship at Brown University was an NSF grant.
Mr. Culberson. Remind us and the young people here your
field of study.
Mr. Suresh. I received all my degrees in mechanical
engineering. NSF was the preferred destination to seek support.
It was $100,000 a year for five years, something called the
Presidential Young Investigator Award. I received a letter from
President Reagan which is still in my office at NSF and that
pretty much guaranteed my move.
So you asked me what your subcommittee can do and what NSF
can do. I think we can make sure that young people who want to
do science and engineering have the opportunity to compete in a
fair way for grants of the National Science Foundation, and the
National Science Foundation has enough resources to support
them because we receive far more proposals that are of the
highest quality than we are able to support with the resources
that we have. I think this is why it is so critical that we
continue that support.
Mr. Culberson. And I think the chairman's bill this year
that the Senate I hope will pass, there will be language in
there that encourages NSF to create a pool of funding for
competitive peer-reviewed grants that would encourage
collaborative research between science technology high schools
like Battlefield and others and like Thomas Jefferson with
universities.
Talk a little bit about that. I hope that is something that
you have been pursuing in the time you are at NSF.
Mr. Suresh. Well, you know, we have a number of activities
that involve undergraduate education, for example, especially
in STEM education. We have a number of activities for K through
12 programs. The Discovery Research K through 12 program is one
example of this.
I think it is important to find the mechanism to engage
young kids and start them at an early stage. I think in
testimony in this room a couple of years ago, we talked about
at what age do children become passionate about science and
engineering. It is the first grade level.
I think we don't want them to lose that interest in science
and engineering. Given all the pressures on NSF funding and the
increasing demand for limited resources from the National
Science Foundation, we are trying to do everything possible to
make sure that we not only reach out to undergraduate students
but also to K through 12 STEM educators.
This is why one of the reports that the chairman helped
commission through the National Research Council; we have been
disseminating it around the country, holding different events,
talking about this, and what the National Science Foundation
can do to help in that.
Mr. Culberson. You mentioned that the $100,000 grant over--
$100,000 a year for five years was so decisive in your career
and the work that you have done. I hope the subcommittee will
consider putting language in our bill that frankly just creates
a pot of money out there for STEM high schools to do
collaborative research with universities because it truly can
be transformative, particularly in, you know, some of these
really good science high schools across the country.
There is such a great opportunity for you all to do work
with university researchers and if NSF can help fund in a peer
review competitive fashion as all other grants are done, some
of these really bright young people that are in these great
high schools to do collaborative work with universities, I
think it would help immensely and there is no better way to do
it than with a grant program.
And you also mentioned stability and predictability. And I
did want to ask you as this is your final appearance before the
subcommittee. I am working through a really interesting
biography of Hyman Rickover on the work that the chairman and I
are doing on trying to reform NASA, giving them greater
stability and predictability.
But would love to work with you, Mr. Fattah, on this and
giving that agency a little more freedom, make them a little
less political, more professional as you are, sir, in the way
that they are governed and the ability to do multi-year
procurement. And NASA has got a lot of problems, and I am
convinced as the chairman is and all of us that love NASA and
care about it, is a lot of its governance and a lack of
stability.
Talk to us, if you could, about--because Rickover was
always interested in problems. Whenever he met with his people,
they would try to give him glowing reports. And he was like I
do not want to hear about all the good stuff. I will find out
about that later and everybody is going to take credit for
that.
Tell me about the problems. As you leave NSF, talk to the
subcommittee about the problems and in particular obviously the
stability, predictability and how we in Congress can help
resolve that for the future.
Mr. Suresh. I think, given--we discussed earlier pretty
much about every one of our competition agencies from around
the world, agencies with whom we compete, and increasingly we
compete for human talent because it is now global.
If we cannot attract the best scientists to come and work
on one of our NSF funded grants, the German National Science
Foundation would provide a mechanism for them to go to one of
their institutes or some other university in Germany.
I think the stability and predictability is an issue. The
second, because I think, especially in this economic climate,
one of my biggest fears is that young people who are really
interested in science and engineering will get so disillusioned
and turned off that they will leave science once and for all.
If that happens, I think that is going to have a very
detrimental effect on the future of the scientific enterprise,
and this is one of the reasons we made a principal commitment
during my tenure at NSF that no matter what the budget
uncertainties are, we will not cut back on our commitments to
graduate student fellowships, postdoctoral fellowships, young
career awards.
We decided that those are things we will protect to the
fullest extent possible and that is one of my biggest worries
that it is partly psychological, but it is also partially based
on reality. And that is something that I worry about.
In fact, when I visited Carnegie Mellon just a few weeks
ago, most of the questions I received from students was that if
I want to go do a Ph.D. and do research, what is the
opportunity because they were asking me in my capacity as NSF
director what did I see will be the future for them and whether
it is a good idea for them to stay in science or do something
else. Is it a good idea for them to stay in the U.S. or look
for job opportunities all over the world?
So that is my biggest fear. Anything the subcommittee or
Congress can do to assure the young people that the future is
still very bright and for people like me who came to do
science--and I took up U.S. citizenship in 1989--and that
opportunity exists for future generations. I think that is the
best contribution that can be made.
Mr. Culberson. We will do our best. Thank you.
Mr. Suresh. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Rooney.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I was actually born near Mr. Fattah's district there in
northeast Philly, but all my people are from Pittsburgh, my
parents and brothers and sisters, but----
Mr. Wolf. You were born in Philadelphia?
Mr. Rooney. I was, in northeast Philly at Holy Redeemer
Hospital which I do not know if it is there anymore. But I was
raised in Villa Nova. But, anyway, that is not what the witness
wants to hear about.
Actually, I am glad you are going to CMU. I was not smart
enough to get in there, but we did CMU in football which was
probably the most important thing for me at that time in my
life.
The story you just told about, you know, your life was
great. And I think that it really shows especially the young
kids that are coming in the room the American dream sitting in
front of us.
And somebody who is trying to figure out Pittsburgh Steeler
football, it took my grandfather 40 years to figure that out,
so, you know, you have time. But he also lived the American
dream.
MANAGEMENT OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
And the chairman, you know, spoke of it, what we are all
concerned about with regard to the future and our children and
where we have been and where we are going. And our economy, as
you know, is, and as everybody in this room knows, is in
turmoil and trouble right now and we are trying to figure out
as a Congress and as a government how to move forward.
And a lot of times when Members go on to the House floor
when we are trying to figure out where to cut spending and, you
know, it might be easy for me to cut NSF spending in somebody
else's district and, you know, it makes me look good back home
in my district.
And so when we try to justify what we are appropriating and
what we are cutting, you know, one of the areas--I am just
going to read something to you and I would like to get your
reaction to it because it does trouble me a little bit and I
think that it would help all of us when we do try to justify
how we are spending the tax dollars.
And NSF's OIG stated in its September report to Congress
that it is an ongoing challenge for NSF to establish
accountability for the billions of federal funds in its large
cooperative agreements which as of last year totaled $11
billion.
The report also stated that NSF does not require or conduct
adequate pre-award audits to ensure that projects have
reasonable budgets and that NSF has serious weaknesses in their
post-award monitoring for high-cost, high-risk projects.
Billions of dollars are at stake and the OIG strongly
recommends that NSF strengthen its cost monitoring of BCAs and
other grant awards from the grant proposal to the closeout of
the award.
So if I could get your reaction as you leave before. What
is the plan for that for your successor and why haven't we done
what the OIG has recommended or why haven't we been doing that
already?
Mr. Suresh. Very good questions. First of all, thank you
for giving me the opportunity to respond to this.
We take all of these comments very, very seriously. In
fact, to the point that our chief financial officer is sitting
behind me and her whole team have been in almost weekly
meetings with the IG's office.
Part of the reason is that for audit resolution, we follow
the A-50 circular. OMB had issued a circular a year ago that
said that NSF's procedures meet established federal guidelines.
So part of the difficulty here is that there are a lot of
one-off procedures, one-off facilities that come into existence
that are not standard practice. That is one of the reasons why
NSF has historically done these projects the way it has.
We do that by a peer-review process, but we take each of
the comments of the IG's office very, very seriously. We have
had a number of responses that BFA has prepared to address some
of the concerns that the IG's office brought up.
Part of the challenge in this is the IG's office has looked
at one aspect of the way we do large facilities. So many of
these policies and practices came into existence when NSF was a
billion dollar agency. Now it is a $7 billion agency.
We have to look at, so do we want to address one issue that
the IG brings up that may have an unintended consequence
somewhere else? To make sure that we address it correctly, last
December I commissioned a federal study of everything that NSF
does related to large facilities.
I appointed one of my senior advisors to go to all the
federal agencies to talk to them about their best practices
from NASA to DoE to Homeland Security, meet with OMB, not just
the science side of it, but the business side of it, OSTP, DoD,
and we invited people to come to NSF.
It is my intention to finish the study before I leave which
is three days from now. There is a preliminary report of this.
It will be done and it will be handed to my successor. There
are recommendations on what we could do.
This is something that will come up for discussion with the
National Science Board in their May meeting. We have been
following up these things.
There are some established practices that are unique to
scientific science funding. There are things that we could
change and we want to look at all of them before we decide what
is the best path to move forward.
The good news is that in response to those comments, in
response to a number of other things, not just from OIG, but
how to do business better in the most efficient way and how to
have the fullest level of accountability and audit
capabilities, that this study will be completed. It is actually
in the very final stages and I will finish it before I leave.
Thank you.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good luck.
Mr. Suresh. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Dr. Harris.
H1B VISAS
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, and it is good to see you
here on the other committee that has to do with NSF.
Because I consider, you know, like in the medical field, we
have the surgeon general, I consider you kind of the scientist
general of the U.S. Government. Okay? You are the head of the
NSF.
So you should be looking at what the country is doing in
terms of its policy to make sure that we stay leaders in the
world in science. And I think that is one of your roles.
And maybe this chance now three days before you depart is a
chance to say what might be really on your mind about some
things.
And I am sorry I have to step aside to the other
subcommittee for a few minutes, so I do not know if you
discussed the future of our ability in America to attract
foreign talent.
I am going to be very specific because, you know, as a
scientist working in government, I consider myself, you know,
as a physiologist, a scientist, and you must be frustrated
because, you know, to us, two plus two equals four every day of
the week. It is one of those triple equal signs, always equal
to four.
And we find we come to Washington and two plus two is
whatever the subcommittee or the committee or the body says it
is on a given day. It could be three. It could be five. It is
whatever the majority says which is a little frustrating
because as I view the problems with attracting foreign talent,
my first concerns came to me when I was on the faculty at
Hopkins.
And I just visited NIH yesterday and their concern is, you
know, with the sequester cuts, oh, my gosh, how are we going to
keep young people in the field as I am sure your concern is.
And I recall a case a few years back where we had a very
promising person who came here from the UK, did research in the
lab, very high-quality research. And when his time was up on
his training Visa, he could not get an H1B Visa. Actually,
instead of going back, he found another program where he just
did not do research. He did clinical work and that is where he
ended up. So here is someone we lost to research because of the
faults of our program.
And then in my district back in Maryland, we had Martin
Marietta. I went and visited. They said, look, part of our
problem is we cannot get engineers, we cannot get people
trained, you know, we have frustration with the H1B process.
Last year, famously Steve Jobs before he passed away, you
know, the head of one of the greatest success story companies
in America, Apple products, says this is not the difficult
problem. We really need to increase and make it easier for us
to get H1B Visas.
And here we are. I have been here two and a half years. I
think the H1B Visa quota is exactly the same as it was. It may
have increased a little bit. But, I mean, we are talking about
it should be doubled, maybe even more.
And, you know, the Administration, the President said,
look, because we have had free-standing bills, everybody looks
at this and two plus two equals four. We need to change the H1B
program if we are to retain our preeminence in the world and
especially because we are spending our dollars--for instance,
some of your grants go to departments where we train
postdoctoral fellows to go back and compete against us.
I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, how that is efficient, how
that is an efficient use of our money. We are literally taking
our taxpayer dollars to train our competition, giving them no
chance to do what you did and my father did which is to say I
actually want to come to America and participate in this
economy.
Do you think that is a wise decision to say it is all or
none, we either get H1B as part of comprehensive reform or this
country just does not need it?
Look, comprehensive immigration reform is a laudable goal,
but it is a tough goal. H1B reform is probably a chip shot. I
mean, the President admits we need it. Business leaders admit
we need it. I think we have bipartisan agreement we need it. We
should be attracting these individuals.
This is going to be very simple. Do you agree with the
Administration on this?
Mr. Suresh. The whole issue of immigration is not only an
intellectual exercise for me, but I have lived through it. In
1982, I was post-doc at Berkeley in California and I couldn't
leave the country for eight months because my passport and Visa
status was in limbo. I mean, it was being processed, but I was
waiting for a response from the immigration office.
And so I think to go back to the early part of your
comment, one of the reasons I think the scientific enterprise
of this country has been so powerful and the U.S. has been the
unquestioned innovation leader at least since the second World
War, is because we were the unquestioned destination for people
from all over the world to come here voluntarily.
If we lose that, we lose our scientific leadership and,
therefore, we lose our economic leadership and security,
military leadership. I can give you a couple of examples of
this before I come to your point.
It is a very complex factor because, when I graduated from
college and came to the U.S., we had a very well-known
undergraduate institution. There were 250 of us graduating in
all fields of engineering that year in that campus.
Out of 250, more than 200 came to the U.S. from that one
campus and all of them stayed here. The vast majority of them
became U.S. citizens. And that is because at that time, that
was the right thing to do. That was the best opportunity.
Thirty-five years later, same campus, still about 250
students graduating every year in engineering, probably much
better quality now because of competition compared to my
graduating class, probably 15 to 20 percent of them even bother
to apply. If 80 percent of them applied, they would get in, but
they don't even bother to apply because they have opportunities
elsewhere.
I think this combined with the fact that if there is
significant lack of opportunity or perceived lack of
opportunity for either jobs or in STEM fields, then I think it
is going to have a huge detrimental factor.
A couple of other really quick data points. More than one-
third of all the American Nobel laureates since the second
World War came here as immigrants. You take the National
Academy of Sciences which is about 2,100 living members, about
25 percent to 33 percent of the members of the American
National Academy of Sciences are foreign born. Some of them
have done their pioneering work abroad. So I think if we lose
that ability to attract, it will be a detriment.
One other point in the late 1990s when many of the small
businesses started in the Silicon Valley, about half of all the
CEOs of small companies with at least 100 employees were
foreign born. So I think that has been historically the way
this country has operated.
Regarding what is the best way to address the issue, do you
give green cards to all those who get a Ph.D.? It can help. It
will help. But I think it is much more of a complex issue. It
is a complex issue because when I first came here and when I
decided to stay here, when I decided to become an American
citizen, and at the time I decided to become an American
citizen--the U.S. would have allowed me to keep a dual
citizenship, but my country of birth would not allow me to keep
my citizenship. It is a very emotional decision.
I had to look at a lot of factors to consider. And I think
there are many factors that play a role in this decision on
whether we are able to attract talent or not. What are the
opportunities for young people that choose to come here,
whether we have green cards or not. Do we have enough funding?
Do we have enough jobs to support them? Do you have a system
that nurtures talent the way we have done for 60 years? We
continue to do that. What kind of hoops do you have to go
through to get a green card?
In my case, there was absolutely no problem or question. I
have always been a stickler for abiding by the law. It took a
year and a half and I couldn't leave the country for a year,
for most of that time.
Are people willing to put up with it now when there is so
much easy mobility of people around the globe and much greater
opportunities? So I think it is a combination of a lot of these
issues rolling into one decision. And definitely the
opportunities are much greater now around the world than it was
when I was looking at opportunities here. So that is my
response to your point.
Mr. Harris. And let me just follow-up a little bit. Okay.
As the scientist general, what would you advise Congress to do
on this issue?
The ability to attract talent, that is young talent, that
is frequently educated here, how should we deal with the issue
of allowing them to participate in our economy?
Mr. Suresh. I think providing opportunities for highly-
trained, highly-talented people to compete in a fair way
without too much bureaucracy to reside here permanently is one
welcome step.
Another would be removing some of the uncertainty related
to the future. I think part of the problem when a student
starts a four or five-year Ph.D. program in STEM, it doesn't
matter whether it is an American student or a foreign student,
in an American university, they have no idea, their professors
don't have any idea right now whether they will have sustained
funding for five years.
We discussed this a little bit when you had to step out.
But I think one of the biggest problems for us as a funding
agency is not the amount of money itself, but the lack of
certainty about next year or the year after that. Even last
October, we still are in a Continuing Resolution.
I think removing some of the uncertainty--if Congress can
create a multi-year budgeting process, especially for agencies
such as National Science Foundation, which look at multi-year
future--I think it will be extremely beneficial. So those are
some of the things that come to mind.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
EARTHQUAKE RESEARCH
Director, I wanted to ask you about a couple of subjects.
One of them is about something near and dear to our hearts in
California and that is earthquake research. This is not only a
problem and a threat in California but an issue in communities
throughout the country. Investment in earthquake research can
ultimately save billions of dollars in infrastructure damage.
Can you tell me a little more about the research that NSF
is currently supporting to better understand earthquakes as
well as any future plans for investment in this area?
Mr. Suresh. NSF supports a lot of activities in earthquake
research to give American scientists an opportunity almost in
real time to do analysis, prediction, mitigation studies and so
forth.
In California, for example, a number of us here visited
last September at UC San Diego. There is an earthquake
simulation center that NSF has funded for a long period of
time. That is one type of activity.
There is a George E. Brown Jr. Center for earthquake
studies. It used to be in California. It is now at Purdue. And
that is another activity that the NSF has supported for a long
period of time.
There is a network called IRIS. It, again, is one of those
NSF acronyms. What matters is the S in the IRIS. S stands for
seismology which consists of about 140 institutions in 80
different countries where there are poles in the ground.
If there is an earthquake happening say in Italy or in
Japan or in New Zealand, the signature from that earthquake,
even the signature preceding that earthquake will be recorded
in a number of institutions in the U.S. NSF has supported the
IRIS program for a long period of time and it is a real-time
network.
There was an earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand a
couple of years ago and then in March of 2011, the people
running in Japan with the earthquake, tsunami, and the nuclear
disaster. NSF has a mechanism called RAPID where we very
quickly fund projects with almost no bureaucracy in the Federal
Government where we quickly send the money out so that American
scientists have immediate access to the damage zones so that
they can study before it is too late to gather data.
This is something that we have fostered for a long period
of time.
Mr. Schiff. Have you been involved, Director, and I know
there have been efforts in California and elsewhere to develop
early warning systems? We are not at the point of predicting
earthquakes yet, but we are at the point of giving sometimes
half a minute or a minute of notice.
USGS I know does some work in this area. Does NSF work in
this area as well?
Mr. Suresh. Well, we fund the fundamental research in all
of this. For example, it is not just with respect to
earthquakes, but also tornado forecasting, to do advanced
warning to people, especially now with mobile devices.
The way in which we can give advanced warning is very
different from previous modes of a phone call on a land line or
through the radio broadcasting system. Now we have additional
vehicles.
And especially with things like GPS and a mobile device, we
not only can give a warning to a citizen in an earthquake
affected area, we also know from GPS where they are so we can
target the type of warning to the type of location based on the
geographic location.
There is a lot of research that NSF supports, the output of
which works in conjunction with what other agencies do, like
USGS and other agencies; NOAA, can be extremely beneficial.
There are many of these activities that NSF supports already.
SUPPORT FOR LARGE RESEARCH FACILITIES
Mr. Schiff. Let me ask another topic and that is one of the
things that NSF does which is a great responsibility--is it
funds and supports large scientific research facilities that
provide data that is important to our scientists but important
to the advancement of science around the world.
I have some concerns about NSF's continuing ability to
support these facilities and I wonder if you can tell us a
little about your plans to keep these facilities operating at
their highest potential.
Mr. Suresh. Well, I appreciate your concern and it is a
concern of mine as well. We have a budget line item called
MREFC, major research equipment facility and construction.
Currently it is about $200 million a year. The demand for that
far surpasses our resources. Plus the operating costs of large
facilities is quite enormous.
Just last week, I was in Chile with the President of Chile
to open a major telescope facility. It is the largest telescope
facility on the planet right now. It was created over 25 years.
The first discussion at NSF to create the facility started in
1990. It was officially opened a week ago tomorrow in Chile.
The President of Chile, Sebastian Pinera, participated in
that program. It is a $1.3 billion facility, and NSF is a lead
partner in that. The European Southern Observatory, which is a
consortium of European countries and Brazil, contributed an
amount that matched the American contribution. Plus we had
Japan and Taiwan participate from east Asia as well.
That facility has brought a lot to the American scientists.
In 2011, there were two Nobel Prizes to American scientists.
They did the research with NSF funding, but the research was
done in the country of Chile not only with the facilities
partly funded by NSF, but facilities funded by the government
of Chile, the European Southern Observatory, and east Asia. So
we stand to benefit a lot.
The IRIS program that I mentioned, it involves 80 countries
currently. So these programs are very important to us for our
science and also for disaster mitigation.
Part of the challenge for us is that the cost of operating
these facilities becomes quite substantial. Invariably because
of the increasing cost of these facilities, we have to partner
with other countries like Europe or east Asia to create these
facilities where American scientists can work.
For example, we made a decision not to fund the super
conducting super collider. Now, the facility exists in Geneva,
Switzerland, and the bulk of that facility is funded by an
international consortium of more than 30 countries.
Mr. Schiff. And that is going to destroy the whole
universe, right? We drew from that, right, because we----
Mr. Suresh. No. But that is an example of a facility that
we fund, the science behind this in a small way. But it leads
to discovery.
So I think one of the biggest points behind your concern is
that if we don't fund these facilities, can American science
that needs these facilities to keep at the forefront of
discoveries maintain its leadership goal? And I think this is a
question that we have to address.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Can I just jump in----
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. For a second on this? I met with a
postdoctoral student from Boston University last week who just
came back from the facility in Switzerland, the CERN facility.
Now, we had the world's most powerful super collider at the
Fermilab right outside of Chicago. We opted out of this deal to
continue and then we partnered with our European counterpart.
And I am all for partnering. But as you know, as we retreat
on big science projects, what it meant was that this young man
had to go to Switzerland, right, and he had to spend his time
there. And there will be others like him from all over the
world who because the investment in this facility took place
there, they will travel there.
Some of them will end up staying there. Some of them will
end up being attracted. So, you know, there are other-- it is
not just that the scientists can go somewhere and do their
work.
Now, for instance, the observatory in Chile or the
observatory in Hawaii, they are in those locations because you
need the location to do the work.
Mr. Suresh. Yes.
Mr. Fattah. But the super collider, we could have, if our
Nation had decided to, we could have continued to lead in that
regard. So, you know, the forfeiting global leadership in
science, whether it is in super computing, whether it is in
super colliding, or in these other areas, will have an impact
not necessarily to the individual scientist who can travel and
go and do the work that they want to do but for our Nation's
ability to do what you are pitching on the front end which is
our ability to attract the greatest minds in the world. They
are going to go where the science can be done at.
Mr. Suresh. Yes.
Mr. Fattah. And they are not actually all that hung up
about whether it is here, there. They want to go do their work
and they will go to Switzerland and do their work or they will
come here.
And the question becomes is whether our Nation wants to
continue to retreat on this front because it is not that we
cannot afford it. We are the wealthiest country in the world.
We just have to make a decision about what our priorities are.
Mr. Suresh. Yes.
Mr. Fattah. And if we forfeit our leadership in this area,
it will, I think, create a circumstance that will be even more
expensive for our country than we had invested in it.
Mr. Suresh. Absolutely. So to put the NSF budget in
context, the NSF's annual budget is about $7 billion. Last
year, Americans spent $7 billion on potato chips. So it puts a
comparison there.
The points that you also raise go back to the comment that
Dr. Harris made. It is not only that people go to Switzerland
to do research. When they set up CERN as a facility, they set
it up as a self-containing diplomatic enclave so that Visa
requirements and all the other things are handled separately
for CERN than it is if you were to visit Switzerland as a
tourist or for employment elsewhere within Switzerland.
Once people go there, they not only see this banding of
facilities and the opportunity to collaborate with scientists
from more than 30 countries, plus you have good food and a
system, an immigration system that is welcoming as well. That
causes a significant competition.
And I will tell you that there are a number of American
universities that have lost key faculty members to universities
in Switzerland because of this attraction.
Mr. Fattah. Well, it is not just the Swiss. I mean,
Singapore is a much smaller operation, 4.8 million people. They
have invested billions in their National Science Foundation.
They are still--not still--they are attracting talent, American
talent, you know, from--because they decided that even though
they are a very small country, they want to become
indispensable in certain of the life sciences and they have
made the investment to do so.
And it is a very wise course and decision on their part
just like it is for the Europeans. Even while they are cutting
everything else in their budget, they are going to increase
significantly their investment in science and innovation,
right, because they understand that this is where the
opportunity for economic prosperity begins and ends at. If we
do not make the investments in innovation, then we get to
consume what someone else has made and invented.
NSF'S RAPID RESPONSE REPORT ON YOUTH VIOLENCE
Mr. Wolf. In a few minutes, the committee will begin a
discussion of the report on youth violence that the NSF
recently commissioned at my request.
How was your process for commissioning this report similar
or different from other rapid response initiatives NSF has
undertaken?
While the report on youth violence is not an NSF product,
it does contain the results of some NSF funded grants.
How active has NSF typically been in funding research on
causes and responses to violence?
And for the subcommittee, right after the Newtown attack
took place, which I think moved the country, I called Dr.
Suresh at the NSF and said can we put together a group of
people to see what is going on here.
And my own sense, and I might say that the report sort of
validated what my feelings were, but it is really threefold. It
is guns--and I support the Brady amendment, so we can debate
the gun issue and that is going to go on--but it is also mental
health. We were faced with a mental health issue in the
Virginia Tech atrocity that took place, and a couple of the
victims were from my congressional district.
And then also there is the whole issue of media violence.
You cannot help but see some of the violence both from video
games and from other sources, television and movies, without
having an impact.
Campbell Soup buys ads to move people a certain way. And I
can recall the movie ET. I read after they had, I think it was,
Reeses Pieces or whatever it was, the sales soared simply
because of seeing it on the screen.
I know it is a controversial issue and people do not want
to deal with it. And this is the political process with
lobbyists hired all over town to do different things. But I
just felt it should be looked at.
So if you would kind of briefly describe how the members
were chosen and then how active NSF has typically been in
funding research on causes and responses to violence. And after
you finish, we are going to bring up Dr. Bushman and swear him
in.
Mr. Suresh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank
you for giving us the opportunity to do this. You and I spoke
just before Christmas and you asked about what NSF can do to
provide input.
Our Social, Behavioral, & Economic science directorate for
the past 60 years has supported 60 awards in different areas of
research that have an impact on youth violence broadly.
And Dr. Bushman is much more of an expert than I am, so he
will have an opportunity to talk from an expert's viewpoint.
One of the things we did with respect to the process: I
received a call from your office that you and I were going to
speak about an hour later. And within that hour, I had access
to at least 12 awards that we had given that I described during
our telephone conversation.
Our colleagues in the SBE directorate quickly assembled a
group of leading experts in this field to come to NSF on
February 1st and February 2nd to provide an expert viewpoint.
As you saw in the report that we delivered to you, in fact,
for the benefit of the other members, this is the report we
gave the gentlemen----
Mr. Wolf. For the record, I sent that copy to every Member
of the House, Senate, and every governor.
Mr. Suresh. And thank you for that.
I would make one point here. In fact, as the need for
social, behavioral, and economic sciences constantly is being
questioned, this is one of the reasons why we need SBE sciences
because we have an opportunity to quickly respond to requests
such as yours with a group of experts and bringing in NSF's
convening power.
This group met over the course of Friday and Saturday and I
had asked them to come up with the report right away so that I
could deliver it to you the following week, which I did when we
met to discuss this. I appreciate your disseminating it very
broadly.
There are 60 awards over the last 60 years and I will
quickly give you just a couple of very brief names of the kinds
of projects.
The influences of TV and media on very young children,
school rights, law and dynamics of every-day school life,
campus violence, exploiting the communities for strategy,
economic nervous system activity at the age aggregation as seen
by social controlling interactions for delinquency and crime,
the effect of self control on anti-social and pro-social
behavior, hormonal and behavioral responses to social effect,
day-to-day coping with fear, diversity of friends, bystanders,
and responders.
These are sorts of examples of the kind of activity, but
Dr. Bushman will be much more able to articulate the point of
view than I can.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Doctor. And, again, we thank you for
your service to the country.
Mr. Suresh. Thank you very much. And I very much enjoyed
working with this committee.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, and God bless you.
We would like to call up Dr. Bushman.
Doctor, please raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Wolf. Let the record reflect that the witness answered
in the affirmative. Your written statement has been made a part
of the record. You may proceed how you see appropriate. I guess
I am not speaking for the committee now. I am only speaking or
myself.
I was of the opinion that it is a combination of the issue
of guns, the issue of mental health, having lived through the
Virginia Tech, and also the issue of media violence.
And you know, Simon and Garfunkel sang a song in Central
Park called The Boxer, and in it it says, ``A man hears what he
wants to hear and disregards the rest.'' My sense is that
Congress and the Administration are going to disregard this.
But I am not going to disregard it. Other members have got
to make their own sense, but some of the children who were
killed in Newtown were the same age as my grandkids. That
didn't move the nation, and my sense is, depending on where
people sit politically, they kind of want to look only at a
certain aspect of the problem.
We are not saying that every person that watches a video
game will become violent, but the concern is when you get a
person who is isolated, has mental health problems, and then
you add into this, we see some very serious problems.
So with that, let me just turn it over to you. You are a
Professor of Communications and Psychology at Ohio State
University. You might just give us a sentence or two about your
credentials, and then summarize your report and then there will
be questions.
Opening Remarks of Dr. Bushman
Dr. Bushman. Sure. Thank you.
Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, my name is Brad J. Bushman. I am a
Professor of Communication and Psychology at the Ohio State
University. In the summer I am a professor at the Vrije
University in Amsterdam in the Netherlands.
I have been doing research on the causes of aggressive and
violent behavior for almost 30 years. I have published over 130
peer-reviewed journal articles on the topic and conducted over
50 studies on violent media effects.
In the wake of the Newtown shooting, Chairman Wolf asked
the National Science Foundation and myself to find out what
researchers know and don't know about youth violence and that
is when they approached Katherine Newman, who is the Dean at
Johns Hopkins and an expert in rampage shootings, and myself to
assemble a committee of relevant expertise to address this very
important topic.
The twelve of us gathered at NSF headquarters on February
1st and 2nd and to write a report called ``Youth Violence: What
we need to know.'' And so my purpose today is to summarize the
results of this report.
First, I should tell you we know about youth violence. For
decades social scientists have been studying youth violence and
much of this research has been conducted by Federal agencies.
There are also numerous and well-validated theories to explain
youth violence.
When rampage shootings occur, like the one in Utah, people
want to know what ``the'' cause is. However, there is no simple
cause. Legislatures and mass media have focused on three
possible causes--guns, mental health, and violence in the
media, but there are many more causes besides three.
What I would like to do is just briefly describe some of
those major risk factors. One is media violence. Public debate
on the link between violence in the media and violence behavior
can be contentious, especially following a shooting rampage.
For example, violent video games have been implicated in
the Newtown shooting. We haven't proven that violent video
games directly cause violence because it can't be proven. There
is no way to ethically run experiments to see if playing a
violent game like Call of Duty pushes somebody to violence. You
can't give people guns and knives in our laboratory
experiments.
But that doesn't mean we are left without evidence. We know
that violent video games are correlated with violent behavior
just like smoking is correlated with lung cancer. We also can't
randomly assign people to smoke or not smoke and see if they
get lung cancer. It is not ethical to do so.
But we do know that there are causal effects from violent
media and again from violent video games as well. The most
comprehensive review on video games to date was conducted by my
colleagues and I. It includes 381 effects from studies
involving over 130,000 participants, and these studies show
that violent video games increase aggressive thoughts. They
increase angry feelings. They increase physiological arousal
such as heart rate and blood pressure. They increase aggressive
behavior. They decrease healthy behavior, and they decrease
feelings of empathy and compassion for others.
The effects were observed from both males and females of
all ages regardless of what country they lived in in the world,
and similar effects have been found for other forms of violent
media, such as TV programs, films and music.
Peer rejection and hierarchies: Most youth who engage in
illegal violence have a history of social rejection, yet they
want to be accepted by others. Analysis of 15 school shootings
found that social rejection was a major factor in 13 of the 15
school shootings.
Youth are especially susceptible to peer rejection. They
also care a great deal about peer hierarchies. Research shows
that school climates and cultures and social trust can act as
protective factors against youth violence.
Comparative criminology: Rampage shootings in schools
differ in dramatic ways from street violence in urban areas.
Violent crime mainly occurs among young people, adolescents and
young adults. Poor self-control is the single best predictor of
criminal behavior, including violent criminal behavior.
Many rampage shooters commit suicide following their acts.
Facing their behavior is a very highly unusual category of
murder/suicide.
The news media cover rampage shootings heavily, but we know
very little about the effects of such coverage. Some youth may
actually commit violent rampages to gain fame.
Family influences: There is a large body of research
suggesting that many family-based qualities and processes are
important risk or protective factors for youth violence. Risk
factors include low social status, poverty, harsh or rejecting
parents, chaotic family life, inter-parental conflicts,
domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, family stress, poor
monitoring by parents, criminal behavior or incarceration of
parents, mental illness in parents.
Protective factors include close attachment bonds with
consistent care givers, effective parenting, good cognitive
skills or education in parents, and families that are
organized, safe, and well regulated.
Data mining: Online data sources such as Twitter have
multiple potential uses for understanding, predicting and
preventing violence.
Guns: All shooting rampages and more than 80 percent of
homicides involving youths are committed with guns. It is
critical to reduce access to guns in youth, especially youth
that have a history of delinquency, crime involvement and
certain mental illnesses.
In conclusion, it is estimated that gun violence costs this
country roughly $174 billion a year. Beyond this enormous
financial cost is the devastating emotional impact of lost
lives, neighborhood destabilization and fear of attack.
For children in particular, exposure to violence erodes
their confidence in society. These costs alone justify the
dedication of the Federal research agencies and the scientific
community to understand youth violence.
Thank you for allowing me to appear here today. The NSF
advisory group that I am here to represent hopes that you will
find our report helpful and I am happy to answer any questions
you have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
RAMPAGE SHOOTINGS VS. MORE GENERAL VIOLENCE IN SOCIETY
You know, since, I guess, Cain and Abel, you know, violence
has been among us, and there is no society in the world in
which violence is not part of, you know, the society.
Our situation here in America seems to be somewhat
different inasmuch as we seem to have an over-amplification of
violence, particularly with guns. There is no other place on
earth even where, you know, where there are prevalence of guns
available where they are used in such as a way as they are
here.
But you know, we had a situation yesterday at a university
in Florida where a young man killed himself after it was
discovered that he was planning some sort of attack with both
guns and explosives and a lot of these situations seem to fall
into a certain category, these, what you I think refer to as
rampage shootings like that.
They are in the kind-of everydayness of this. You know,
there have been over 2,000 people killed since Newtown, most of
them not with an AR-15, not with the publicity associated with
the shooting of a group of young people, but just, you know,
every single day in our country these seems to go on.
And it is a real challenge. The chairman is right that
there are obviously multiple factors to this. NIH has been
doing a very significant study with the largest group of
adolescents ever, some 10,000, looking at their development
over a period of time through brain imaging. And it seems as
though, you know, this social isolation is a very, very
important factor in some of these activities.
You know, when I grew up, you know, we saw a lot of
violence in the movies, you know, westerns with John Wayne, and
then we had, you know, we had a lot of the movies that
glorified the mafia, you know, like The Godfather, one of my
favorite movies. And you know, we had a whole series of Die
Hard and other kinds of movies.
You know, in my city is where they frame this Constitution
and the Bill of Rights where they gave out certain rights, the
right to free speech. And you know, there is some regulation of
it, but it is a very important fundamental underpinning of our
society and, you know, so you know, we started talking about
what we do, people say, well, you know, obviously people who
make video games can, you know, under freedom of speech they
can do anything they want. And it is true, I mean.
But you know, it is also important for us to understand the
impact of these things. Now, there is not a direct causal, as
you said, relationship between, you know, kids might watch it,
they are not going to go out and shoot up their school. But if
the kid has some other issues, some problems, socially
isolated, is prone to violence, has some other, you know, they
could be a triggering, I guess, or even a training event.
So but I think that, you know, we have to look at not just
how we deal with rampages, but how we deal with this general
pervasive nature of utilization of violence as a way to solve
conflicts in our society, and I am not sure that we are going
to be able to regulate that from the United States Congress. We
can do something about people's access to guns or ammunition
but that is even limited because, you know, if you limit, you
know, certain types of guns--I mean, even in the most
aggressive proposal by Senator Feinstein, you know, it exempts
2,000 guns; 2,027 are exempted from even the notion that we
would ban them.
So there are going to be guns in our society. The question
is how we get people to think about how they solve problems
without killing each other, and particularly for young people
who are if they are socially isolated or if they have some type
of psychosis or some other issue, how do we from society figure
out how to provide help in situations where usually the person
is not even known other than to their family and most young
people who are, you know, who have some, you know, if it is a
schizophrenic situation, they are some of the least likely, you
know, but there is a small percentage of people who, for
whatever reason, and some of it may be media attention, you
know, because people look at Columbine and then they looked at
some of these repeat instances on the same date as the
Columbine massacre. You know, obviously, people were, they were
engaged in some pattern of activity connected to that.
But you know, the rampages are just one small part of this
gun violence issue. I mean, a lot of people are being shot down
every day and not in large numbers, not as hard as some
rampaged. That has to be a concern also.
So I will be glad to hear any response to that.
Dr. Bushman. Yeah, you are correct. There is a big
difference between school rampages and street violence. We
talked about those in our report. School rampages often occur
in small, low crime towns. The shooter has no record of
delinquency problems. The shooter has no record of treatment
for mental disorders. The shooter is not only smart. The
shooter generally has good grades, but the shooter generally
lacks attributes that are valued by peers, and they are not at
the top of the peer hierarchy.
In contrast, street violence occurs in densely populated
areas plagued by high levels of crime, low levels of social
trust, illicit drug use and gun markets.
Often, the differences in shooting rampages, they do
involve social rejection and usually the killer kills whoever
rejected him. It is almost always a male. The rampage shooters
are almost always males.
I am sorry.
Mr. Wolf. That is all right. Go ahead. Continue.
Dr. Bushman. They almost always are males and the shooter
usually kills whoever rejected him--it can be a girlfriend,
parents, peers--and then kills as many other people as possible
before killing himself. Suicide is very common in these
shooting rampages. The shooter often gets the guns from
relatives.
So there are very important differences between the
shooting rampages and urban violence that you talked about.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson.
RELIGION AS A PROTECTIVE FACTOR AGAINST VIOLENCE
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much for the work that you
have done. I recall years ago when the shooting occurred in
Colorado. There was a hearing on gun control and one of the
parents appeared and said that in his opinion one of the
biggest problems in his mind was the removal or the absence of
any spiritual foundation that all these kids had. They had no
spiritual foundation at home, whatever their religion may be.
If they had an absence of a sort of a set moral guidelines
based on a belief in God or a higher being, whether that be the
Ten Commandments or whatever it is at home. Once the human
heart was empty, what do they expect to fill it up with all
this poison out there around us.
I have gone through this from top to bottom. I don't see
any study, any mention, any analysis of any kind of the effect
of the absence or presence of the Ten Commandments or a
spiritual belief in the home on these kids, on youth violence.
Have you looked at it?
Dr. Bushman. That is because there is hardly any research
on that topic at all. There is some research. My colleague,
Ralph Huesmann, at the University of Michigan has found that a
religious foundation is related to less aggression and violence
in youth, but very few studies have looked at that, although
they should.
Mr. Culberson. That is very revealing in and of itself. I
think it is astonishing because I grew up with guns in a house
and it is just not a problem. I mean, you have got a good
strong moral and religious foundation in the family and, you
know, healthy mom and dad, or healthy families is obviously
critical of that, but the presence of a strong religious faith
and moral grounding is, I think, fundamental to a healthy
society and it is certainly reflected in, I think, in the--you
just said there was one study that showed that it was a strong
religious or moral foundation in the home and you typically
didn't have a problem with violence. Great.
Dr. Bushman. That is just kind of a protective factor, yes,
which is common. There are many protective factors and many
risk factors, and that is certainly one of them.
Mr. Culberson. Well, that has got to be a powerful one,
though. I was taught all my life you don't touch a gun and we
grew up in a family. It has just not never been a problem.
In any event, we appreciate the work that you are doing and
the studies, but I personally, common sense, personal
experience, the fine knowledge of Texas, we all have come from
different surroundings, but the solution to this doesn't seem
to be very complicated. It is just strengthening the family,
strengthening giving, doing everything we can as a society to
encourage strong families with a mother and a father and stop
trying to drive religion or spirituality out of every public
institution.
Congress can't make any law respecting an establishment of
religion. It wasn't what the founders intended. In fact, they
actually held church services in the Rotunda for much of the
19th century.
Thomas Jefferson, my hero actually, signed an executive
order opening up the Rotunda of the Capitol for church services
in Washington, DC. The intent was to prevent the creation of an
Anglican church, for example, in the United States. It wasn't
to drive the Ten Commandments out of every public institution,
to drive prayer out of public schools. I think that has
probably been as destructive as anything else.
Unfortunately, unavoidably the human heart, there is a lot
of eat-on poison out there, but if you have got a strong moral
foundation on which to stand, on a rock instead of sand, you
can resist that.
Dr. Bushman. I should say that Professor Ann Masten, who is
professor at the University of Minnesota, was part of our
committee, and there is a major section of our report on
parental factors, the role parents and family can have on youth
violence. And it is really important. Parental factors and
family factors are very important in understanding, not only
risk factors for youth violence, but also protective factors.
Mr. Culberson. And I hope you will do what you can in your
position to encourage your colleagues to do more studies in the
correlation between obviously a strong family and a strong
moral religious foundation in preventing and discouraging
violence because it seems to me that is where the answer lies,
in the human heart, not in the laws that we pass. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
TRENDS IN VIOLENT CRIME AND VIOLENT MEDIA
First of all, I wanted to ask you a couple of things. One
is, over the last decade or so there has been a fairly dramatic
reduction in crime and violence on the whole, and that is
reflected in the decrease in youth violence at the same time.
The same time over the last decade, you know, I think the
proliferation of violent video games has increased, not
decreased.
How do you reconcile the conclusion of your report that
violent video games could contribute to violent acts if at the
same time you see an increase in the number of video games and
the prevalence of violent video games, you see a significant
decrease in youth violence?
Dr. Bushman. Yeah, I would be happy to address that point,
and it is a valid point and an interesting point. It is true
that violent crime rates have been going down in this country,
and it is fantastic. It is wonderful, and I hope they continue
to decrease.
But that assumes that the only factor related to violent
criminal behavior is media violence, which, of course, it is
not. Violent criminal behavior is very complicated and
determined by many factors. In terms of overall crime rates,
probably the best explanation for reduced crime rates is the
U.S. population is getting older and older and older.
Since the 1990s, when violent criminal behavior was the
highest, if you look at the increase in age, America is getting
greater and greater. Old people don't rape, rob, murder and
assault people very often at all.
Also, if you look at the same period, incarceration rates
have increased dramatically, and it is much harder to murder,
rape, rob and assault people if you are locked up behind bars
than if you are roaming the streets.
So I am not a criminologist, although we have some
criminologists on our panel.
Obviously, violence is not determined solely by violence in
the media. There are other factors that may explain the
decrease in violent criminal behavior in America, but there is
certainly a correlation between youth violence and violent
media consumption, and there is a causal relationship between
exposure to violent media and aggressive behavior.
CORRELATION BETWEEN MEDIA VIOLENCE AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR
Mr. Schiff. On that latter point and no one is suggesting
that violence in the media or violence in video games is the
sole determining factor of the level of crime, but I think it
does indicate that there are factors that are much more
significant in determining the level of violence than the level
of violence in media. Otherwise, if it were the most
significant factor, the vector would be pointing in the other
direction. We would have seen a fairly dramatic increase in
youth violence and violent crime over the last decade which we
haven't seen.
But you know, I have read some commentary of your analysis
that was critical in that it indicated that it did not feel
that your report considered any of the countervailing data and
reports, and that really relied upon only reports that led to
the same conclusion, and I wonder if you could respond to that
because I know there were a couple of meta studies that were
done fairly recently--one in Sweden in 2012, one in Australia
in 2010--that found, contrary to what you just stated, no
causal relationship between violent video games and aggressive
behavior.
And it also found that there were, the studies that did
show a small statistical correlation had severe methodological
problems, so I wonder if you considered it in your reports; if
you did, why you didn't cite them or try to explain the
results.
Dr. Bushman. We do cite them, and the meta analysis that I
described that involved 381 effects from studies involving over
130,000 participants included all those studies, all of them,
up until that point. And in that meta analysis that I
described, the most methodologically rigorous studies actually
had the largest effects.
So maybe there have been some studies since. Ours was
published in 2010. But the one we published had at least ten
times as many studies as any other meta analysis ever
conducted, the most comprehensive by far, and we didn't pick
and choose which studies to include. We included every single
study conducted on violent video games until that point.
Mr. Schiff. And how do you then attribute the dramatically
opposite conclusion you reached from the conclusion the
government in Sweden reached in its 2012 study or Australia
reached in its 2012 study?
Dr. Bushman. Yeah, I think it is a matter of
interpretation. So we find average correlations of about .20.
They find average correlations of about .20. We say they are
not trivial. They say they are trivial.
Well, the average correlation between wearing a condom and
getting HIV is .18, right. I would say that wearing a condom is
not a trivial factor in determining whether you get an HIV
infection. The average correlation between second-hand smoke
and lung cancer is less than .2. The average correlation
between exposure to lead and brain functioning is less than .2.
The average correlation between exposure to asbestos and cancer
is less than .2
The correlation between one sexual act and getting pregnant
is .16, so well, I think nobody would say sex is not related to
pregnancy. I mean, who would say that?
Mr. Schiff. Is that the only difference between your meta
analysis and these others that basically you have reached the
same statistical correlation but they reach a different
conclusion from it?
Dr. Bushman. I think so. I think that is a major
difference, how you interpret the effects. If you look at the
average correlation figure, they are virtually identical to
ours. They just dismissed the magnitude of correlation as
trivial, and we would say it is not so trivial.
Mr. Schiff. Just drawing on the point from Mr. Culberson. I
completely agree with Mr. Culberson. You know, I think having a
religious and spiritual upbringing certainly helps in terms of
raising children and the values of those children.
But on that subject you participated in, I think, a fairly
controversial study in 2007 that found a link between reading
violent passages in the Bible and the same kind of aggressive
behavior that you are attributing to video games. Is that----
Dr. Bushman. It is not a controversial study at all. It was
published in Psychological Science, one of the top scientific
journals in my field, and it did show that violence in the
scriptures, especially when God sanctions it and says it is
okay to retaliate, increases aggressive behavior in readers.
Mr. Schiff. Did you find that comparing the degree to which
that people were inspired to act more aggressively or violently
from reading violent passages in the Bible, was that a stronger
effect or approximately the same effect as a violent video
game?
Dr. Bushman. I would have to go back and look. I can't
remember the exact effect, but I assume it is--I honestly can't
tell you off the top of my head.
Mr. Schiff. And did you reach any conclusions as a result
of that study in terms of what you thought?
Dr. Bushman. It follows directly from theory that exposure
to violence in the media--especially when the source is
credible, as God is, when it is justified, if God says it is
okay to do it, then it is okay to do it. The effects follow
directly from theory.
Mr. Schiff. You know, getting back to the violent video
games, to what degree do you think we should be influenced by
the example or non-example of some of the mass killers that we
have seen? The mass killer in Aurora, for example, liked video
games but his video game was Guitar Hero. You had others like
the killer in Scandinavia who did watch violent video games to
learn technique in terms of shooting people. Each case is
further radically different. How much would you conclude from
any particular case about the influence of video games on them,
or is the common denominator more mental illness, or a
combination of mental illness and exposure to violent media?
Dr. Bushman. Yeah, we will never know what caused any
killer to commit those acts. We will never know. And they are
incredibly rare and very difficult to reenact. But we do know
that playing violent video games or other forms of violent
media can cause more common forms of aggressive behavior like
children fighting on a playground, pushing each other down,
pulling each other's hair, kicking each other, tripping each
other, hitting each other, those kind of things.
But it is impossible to know what caused those. We could
look at correlations and I would say the strongest correlation
is pure rejection. That if you look at analysis of school
shooters, I think I mentioned the 15 school shootings, peer
rejection was present in 13 of the 15. So I would say if I had
to choose one factor, I would say peer rejection would be the
biggest factor.
There is some research showing that people who are
particularly vulnerable may be more affected by violent media
than those who are not. We need a lot more research on that
topic.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Professor.
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Graves.
PREDICTING VIOLENT BEHAVIOR
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And it is fascinating in listening here. I am a father of
three, wonderful wife, school teacher, three kids who are in
elementary and junior high. So what occurred a few, or I guess
a couple of months now ago struck me, and it hurt to watch what
occurred.
But I am a gun owner, too. I teach my children to shoot, to
be responsible. Hunting is a big part of our, I guess, culture
in North Georgia. And I listened to this a little bit and I
guess I am struggling with some of the conclusions and maybe
you can help me with because--and Mr. Schiff did a great job of
sort of looking at how society is changing, how violent acts
have gone down while gains in media have increased, trying to
see what really is that correlation.
But I remember back when I was growing up, my favorite
movie on TV at that time was the Dukes of Hazard, one of the
great all-time series. But I didn't grow up thinking I had to
outrun the law, you know, run shine, hang out in my car with a
bow and arrow, paint a number on the side of it.
My favorite all-time movie was Smokey and the Bandit. It
never crossed my mind that I would ever grow up to run beer
from Colorado to Georgia and circle around Atlanta Motor
Speedway in celebration of that, and that was some great feat.
And so I think about these correlations, I think about all
the good that is on TV, a lot of great entertainment, clearly.
American Idol, probably one of the most popular TV shows on
right now, but my kids aren't running around singing, nor are
many others.
So I am having a real hard time connecting this because in
our family, and I will go with Mr. Culberson who was talking
about the family unit and how important that is, and we fail to
recognize how important that is and how throughout history,
even biblical history has been referenced here, evil exists and
I don't know how you craft policy that will prevent evil
because our job is to protect the rights of the American
people. We certainly can't prevent every evil act that is going
to occur.
In fact, it seems to be that of late, Mr. Chairman, that a
lot of the policies that are recommended are to punish law-
abiding citizens rather than the actual criminal acts themself
and some hope that even though these criminals violated so many
laws to get to that evil act in which they committed, that if
we punish law-abiding citizens, that might not have happened,
but in fact they broke so many laws already.
Mr. Chairman, you may not be aware but in Georgia we have a
city just south of my district, Kennesaw, Georgia. And in fact,
in that city, and it has been on the news lately, it is a
requirement that every homeowner have a firearm in their house.
That's city ordinance.
One of the lowest crime rates in the United States is in
the city of Kennesaw, and I imagine they watch video games and
have access to the outside media as well, but yet there is
responsibility there and family unit and all.
I read an editorial by a D.C. prosecutor just prior to the
ban. He referenced the ban in D.C. and the results afterwards,
and in fact, homicides increased after the ban on firearms in
the District of Columbia and homicides decreased after the
Supreme Court struck that down. Now, he even acknowledged they
made a bad decision back--I guess that was in the '70s if I
remember right.
So I guess my question is, in just thinking through all of
that, and I know I rambled a little bit, in your opinion, I
mean, if a child or youth in what you're referencing doesn't
watch movies, doesn't play video games, and doesn't read the
Bible, are they less likely to commit violent acts?
Dr. Bushman. Yeah, well, hardly anybody commits violent
acts. In fact, I think .1 percent of FBI crimes are murders.
So, if the standard is well, I play violent video games and I
have never killed anyone, great, nobody kills anyone. I mean,
it is so rare that anybody kills anyone.
What I want to know is how you treat your parents, how you
treat your siblings, what you think the world is like. Do you
think it is a scary and dangerous place where you will become a
victim of violence? How rude are you? How do you act in a car
when you're driving down the road?
Yeah, I am a firm believer in free speech and I advocate
that. But, you know, we don't let our kids drink beer and we
don't let our kids smoke cigarettes, and I think it is
inappropriate to let children play age inappropriate games.
Games are clearly rated, like M rated games are for players
17 and older. Yet many, many children under age 17 play such
games.
I'm a father of three children, also. I don't let my kids
play those games. What can we do? Well, one thing--I'm also a
professor in the Netherlands, in Amsterdam, and in the
Netherlands and much of Europe they have a universal rating
system, for TVs----
Mr. Graves. Excuse me for interrupting.
Dr. Bushman. Yes.
Mr. Graves. You may not let your children watch video games
and that is your decision, I do the same--or play video games,
I am sorry. And we govern that in our home. But, do you let
your children read the Bible?
Dr. Bushman. Yeah, of course.
Mr. Graves. Okay. Because you had mentioned a minute ago
that is actually your study--I guess Mr. Schiff indicated that
you had produced a study that said there are passages in the
Bible that incite criminal acts.
Dr. Bushman. I didn't say that. I said when God sanctions
killing, when God says it is okay to kill, when God says it is
okay to retaliate, it increases aggressive behavior. I didn't
say anything about criminal acts.
There is a huge difference between violent criminal
behavior such as raping, robbing, assaulting, and murdering
someone, and aggressive acts.
Mr. Graves. Which God says is wrong.
Dr. Bushman. Right.
Mr. Graves. Right.
Dr. Bushman. And aggressive acts, which we measure in the
laboratory by doing things like having people give each other
electric shocks or loud blasts of noise through headphones, or
have people eat spicy hot sauce, or force somebody to stick
their hand in ice cold water. That's how we measure aggression.
So, in that study the measure of aggression was giving
somebody a loud blast of unpleasant noise through headphones.
That's the measure of aggression that we used.
But, I would like to finish my comment that I think--you
know, what can we do? You asked, what can we do without
stomping down our amendment rights?
Mr. Graves. No, my question was, do you believe if a youth
does not watch a movie, play a video game, or read the Bible,
are they less likely to commit a violent act?
Dr. Bushman. Yeah, I think violent acts are very rare and
determined by many risk factors, and these are just a few of
the many risk factors for violence.
Mr. Graves. Do you--and you mention media quite a bit, do
you include books in that category?
Dr. Bushman. There needs to be a lot more research about
books. Hardly any research exists on books. There are a few
studies on violent comic books, and those studies show that
violent comic books at least increase aggressive thoughts. But,
we need more research on books. There is not so much research
on books.
And the reason I talk about violence in the media is that
is what I spent the last 30 years of my life doing. But there
are other members of our committee who are experts in other
areas, and you can find their comments in our report.
Mr. Graves. Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will wrap up and
say that from my perspective I think this is in large part a
responsibility of the family, the family unit, and particularly
fathers of children. Just as you have indicated, you make
choices for your family and the right way to rear them and I
applaud you on that and I do the same for mine and I certainly
don't want the Federal Government dictating how I must or must
not do that.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Serrano.
IMPACT OF ACCESS TO GUNS
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you and
I have been around here a long time and you longer than I and,
not by long, not too much longer. And this hearing really
explains and indicates what a dilemma this is, because you
notice that the opening statement before a question by most
members, and I am going to do the same thing, is longer than
the question itself. And that is because we are conflicted.
You know, I am a strong advocate for strong gun control
laws. Yet, I am one who believes in freedom of speech enough to
do whatever I have to do to protect it. And so I feel the need
to say, `put on the market whatever game and let the parents
control it.' But I know that there is a problem with some of
these games being too violent and I wish either parent or
government or something could come to an agreement on how to
deal with them.
But, you know, Mr. Culberson brought up a point, which--and
he and I have discussed this in the past, and that is that, yes
it is important and I am the first one to admit it and agree
with it that there has to be a center in the family, faith-
based, if you will, that tells us what and how we have to
behave.
But, there is a contradiction in this country. I just told
you that I am a contradiction when trying to deal with this
conflict. There is a contradiction because some of the folks--
and I am not referring to him--but some of the folks who speak
of having a Bible in the house and so on, are the same ones who
after they read the Bible, speak ill of other people around the
children and then wonder why the children grow up not liking
some people.
You are not going to see that more than in the next few
months when we do, hopefully, immigration reform in this
country. The verbal violence that you're going to hear on the
radio and see on TV, verbal violence against those people,
against them, against those ``illegals,'' is really going to
make some people, I think, angry. Whether they will react to it
or not, angry.
I experienced some of that. Recently, two things happened
to me in cyberspace on Facebook and Twitter which were very
interesting. One was, that I have been putting in a bill since
George Bush, the father, was President, saying that I don't
believe in term limits for presidents, that I believe in people
voting you out of office.
So, I have this bill to do away with presidential term
limits. Because President Obama is now President somebody found
out about that and said I was going to destroy the Constitution
and went berserk, and what I was called and where I was told to
go was pretty, pretty violent verbally.
Then, I didn't learn my lesson; when President Chavez
passed away I said, ``President Chavez changed the conversation
of Latin America to pay more attention to the poor.'' Even his
opposition said that is true, oh my God.
I also found out which of all the Latino groups people seem
to be angriest at, because they kept telling me to get out of
the country and go back to Mexico and I was born in Puerto
Rico, but it shows you where people are at. And you're going to
see that.
So words, as we know, do have consequences and I think a
lot of the folks who say that we have to have more religion,
more faith, which I agree with, you know, control this, control
that, also have to be responsible for the words they use.
Because those words can hurt a lot of people and cause people
to hurt others.
And so, I, as I started out to say, am conflicted about
just how much we do. So, let me ask you a question leading in
this way. Do you think that there is a correlation between
violent video games and the access to guns in this society?
Dr. Bushman. That is one of the things we recommend funding
for research, that we don't know but we need to know. We have
some initial data that show that guns are appearing more and
more in violent media as time goes on. You're more and more
likely to see a gun. But we don't know that, and we recommend
funding to do that kind of research to find out.
Mr. Serrano. All right. You don't know, but do you have a
sense about this? I mean, I want to know in your profession if
you give out opinions without doing the research, you know.
Dr. Bushman. Yeah, I am reluctant to do so.
Mr. Serrano. Right.
Dr. Bushman. I like to base my statements on data.
Mr. Serrano. Now you, obviously, also, in all your studies
come across the issue of freedom of speech and, you know, those
things that we value in this country.
Dr. Bushman. Right.
Mr. Serrano. The ability to say what we wish and let others
decide how to deal with it. Is it an issue of freedom of speech
if we set out to control or put restrictions on the use or the
sale of video games?
Dr. Bushman. I think for adults, perhaps. But I think we do
control what our children are exposed to, and I think for
children that we have a responsibility to protect them.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just realized
something also, on those two issues, the presidential term
limits and the Chavez comment, things have died down and I just
brought it up, so it will probably start up again this
afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Dr. Harris.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VIOLENT BEHAVIOR AND SUICIDE
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much and thank you for appearing
before us and I am going to apologize. I haven't been able to
read the entire--my staff, unfortunately, didn't give it to me.
Your staff was nice enough to give me the summary--the youth
violence.
But, let me ask you, because as I go through it, when I
looked into the--and I--look, I have five children and three of
them teenagers right now. When we look at violence it seems
that you play down, because I looked for the word suicide in
this report and I think it only appears once in the section on
gun violence. Yet, we know that----
Dr. Bushman. In comparative criminology.
Dr. Harris. Oh, does it appear there also? Okay. So--but if
we look at the word shootings and we look at other words that
appear much more often and yet, when you look at the
statistics, as you are well aware, between the age of 15 and
19, homicide is the second leading cause of death, suicide the
third. And there have been studies to show that perhaps up to
three quarters of the homicides are gang related.
So, if you set aside gang related homicides, I am pretty
confident my children don't belong to a gang and I think the
average person in their own household, since gangs are a very
small minority of people, I think they want to say what about
for non-gang related violence, suicide, in fact. If you
consider the violent act against yourself--suicide is actually
more common than homicide in teenagers; is that right?
Dr. Bushman. Yeah, well----
Dr. Harris. I am just--it appears----
Dr. Bushman. Most scientists would not call suicide
violence.
Dr. Harris. And why would you not call taking your own life
a violent action related to a lot of the preceding factors that
you talk about here--self esteem, psychological illness? Why do
we not consider that disrespect for life and the taking of it,
a violent act?
Dr. Bushman. I think it is just conceptually clearer to
keep suicide in a separate category. It is not that scientists
don't care about suicide or aren't studying suicide, but they
define aggression as intentionally harming another person.
Dr. Harris. Then why is suicide mentioned in--I mean----
Dr. Bushman. Another living person.
Dr. Harris. Yeah, I know. But you kind of bring it in. You
kind of bring it in in two places you say, but by what you're
saying now, you should academically keep them separate. You
kind of want it in there----
Dr. Bushman. No, we----
Dr. Harris. I know it is an uncomfortable topic because
look, it is a real problem among teenagers.
Dr. Bushman. We talk about it in connection with many
rampage shooters who, after killing others, kill themselves.
Dr. Harris. We know, but the school related shootings are
less than one----
Dr. Bushman. Yeah, right----
Dr. Harris. Less than one--so, again, you know, I know this
was all brought about by a rampage shooting incident.
Dr. Bushman. Right.
Dr. Harris. But we would be missing an opportunity to delve
into what is a real problem whispered about, worried about by
parents, but not a high profile topic.
Dr. Bushman. Yeah, I agree. It just wasn't a charge of our
committee.
Dr. Harris. Well--and is that because you don't consider--I
mean, 40 percent of suicide deaths are firearm related, so it
is not an insignificant number.
Dr. Bushman. Right.
Dr. Harris. So, under youth violence--so, do you perceive
the charge of your committee was violence committed against
another person----
Dr. Bushman. Yes.
Dr. Harris. Not just violence itself?
Dr. Bushman. Yes. Violence committed against another
person.
Dr. Harris. You know, I am just going to say I think, you
know, you miss an opportunity there. I will just--again, and I
thank you for agreeing that more study needs to be done with
regards to anchoring in a faith that perhaps would lend more
respect for life and the need to see whether that--how it is
related. Again, I am going to share this point, Mr. Culberson,
because I did look through this and I don't see any indication
of it as an area for future study, but I thank you for agreeing
to it in your verbal testimony, that perhaps it was just an
omission from the document.
I think that is something we should--again, it is something
we don't like talking about. Because, you know, it is religion
and it is, you know, should the State be involved in this?
Look, it is--just as a scientist you and I both know that
as scientists we don't worry about talking about--we shouldn't
worry about talking about uncomfortable things.
Dr. Bushman. Right.
Dr. Harris. And I think that is worth looking at for the
reasons that have been brought up. Now, it may turn out that
there is no correlation, but we should know it.
Dr. Bushman. Well, I have done experimental studies myself
showing that prayer can reduce anger and aggression. So,
personally I have done it, but I agree that more research is
needed.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for bringing this topic up. It is a--again, to
parents and grandparents, it is a critical topic and, you know,
moms and dads, grandmas, grandpas around the country, they
worry about this. They really do. And any light we can shed on
it to prevent violence--again, I would urge that we do group
suicide into violent behavior, because I think it does have the
same roots and origins, as you can imagine, with aggression
against others, aggression to yourself. And it would be--I
think we would miss an opportunity. But, thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
ROLE OF VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES IN RECENT MASS SHOOTINGS
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Harris. I recently read in a
New York Daily News article that Adam Lanza plotted the Sandy
Hook shooting for years on a seven foot long, four foot wide
spreadsheet. I quote, ``They don't believe this was just a
spreadsheet, they believe it was a score sheet.'' The cop, who
wished not to be identified, continued, ``This work was the
work of a video gamer, and it was his intent to put his own
name at the very top of the list.'' They believe that he picked
an elementary school because he felt it was a point of least
resistance where he could rack up the greatest number of
``kills.'' That is what the Connecticut Police believe.
I am aware that you have also seen the report. Can you
comment on this?
Dr. Bushman. Well, we don't know for sure what cause--it is
a troubling comment, and violent video games have been
implicated in previous school shootings. But in terms of
drawing cause-effect statements, it is not possible to know if
playing violent video games caused Adam Lanza to do what he
did. But we do know that they're correlated--playing violent
games is correlated with violent behavior, such as choking and
punching and beating and threatening people with guns and even
using guns against others. And we know that it causes less
serious forms of aggressive behavior. But I don't know if it
caused him to do what he did.
Mr. Wolf. Of the mass shootings, have video games been
mentioned as a part of all of them?
Dr. Bushman. Well, there have been--I think our report
includes a list, Columbine High School----
Mr. Wolf. What was the involvement of video games at
Columbine?
Dr. Bushman. Well, Klebold and Harris, apparently, created
their own customized version of ``Doom'' with two shooters who
had unlimited weapons and unlimited ammunition and all the
victims were unarmed.
Mr. Wolf. What are the other ones?
Dr. Bushman. Bethel, Alaska; Paducah, Kentucky----
Mr. Wolf. Do what they----
Dr. Bushman. I don't have that information.
Mr. Wolf. Give us the list.
Dr. Bushman. Bethel, Alaska; Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro,
Arkansas; and most recently Newtown, Connecticut within our
country. And then in Norway, Anders Breivik, and also in France
there was a case----
Mr. Wolf. What was the Norwegian--I had seen something
about that. What was the involvement of video games in the
Norwegian killings?
Dr. Bushman. Well, he specifically said that he used the
video game ``Modern Warfare 2'' to improve his shooting skills.
To practice as a training and simulation tool.
Mr. Wolf. We know that Adam Lanza may have been emulating a
video game as he moved room to room at Sandy Hook. Do you think
that as youth struggling with mental illness, these shooters
were more vulnerable to violent media effects?
Dr. Bushman Yeah, the data we have indicate that some
people are more vulnerable than others, but we need to do more
research on the topic.
Of course, it is unethical to do laboratory experiments on
the topic, because it is not ethical to expose vulnerable
people to potentially harmful violent video games. But, we can
measure their exposure, what they do, and measure their mental
illnesses and see if there is a relationship between the two.
TESTING FOR A CONNECTION BETWEEN VIOLENT MEDIA AND VIOLENT BEHAVIOR
Mr. Wolf. Your specific research interests are focused on
relations between exposure to violent media and subsequent
aggressive or violent behavior. Your findings, as well as
others as described in the report, show that a definite link
exists between violent video games and aggressive thoughts,
feelings, and behaviors. How did your research establish that
link?
Dr. Bushman. Yeah, well we reviewed every scientific study
conducted on the topic--and every study has a quantitative
affect such as a correlation--and we averaged the correlations
across those studies.
Mr. Wolf. And how strong is that link?
Dr. Bushman. I think the average correlation was about .20,
like I explained before.
Mr. Wolf. Can you elaborate on the difference between
saying that there is a link or a relationship between exposure
to violent media and violent behavior and saying that one
causes the other?
Dr. Bushman. Absolutely. The only type of study that allows
you to make cause-effect statements is an experimental study.
And in an experimental study, we don't ask people if they want
to play a violent game or a non-violent game, because if we did
different types of people may choose to play the violent game.
And if they're more aggressive afterwards, we don't know if it
is because of the kind of person they were or the game they
played.
And so, instead what we do is we choose the games, usually
there are six violent games, six non-violent games. And we flip
a coin to determine whether they play a violent or non-violent
game and then roll a die to determine which one they play. And
that way you cannot say, oh, all the aggressive people played
the violent game because you flipped a coin to determine what
game they played. So, there's a 50/50 chance that they played a
non-violent game. Or you can't say all the people with mental
problems played the violent game, or all the people with low
cognitive skills played the violent game.
On average, on every single dimension you can imagine,
those groups should be equal, especially if you have a large
number of participants. Most of our experiments have 200
people, maybe 100 play a violent game, 100 play a non-violent
game. Then you treat the groups identically. You're not nice to
the non-violent game players and mean to the violent game
players. You have standardized procedures and you treat the
groups identically. The only difference is the game they play,
and then you measure their behavior afterwards to see if the
violent game players are more aggressive, such as shocking
another person or blasting them with loud noise or getting into
fights out on the playground, or if they're the same. You see
different levels of aggression after they play the game. The
only thing that could have caused that difference is the game
they played or a random fluke.
And scientists are very careful to do stringent,
statistical tests to minimize the likelihood of random flukes.
RECONCILING CONFLICTING SCIENTIFIC RESULTS ON VIOLENT MEDIA
Mr. Wolf. We often hear assertions that in the media that
exposure to violent video games has nothing to do with violent
behavior. There are individual researchers who make this
argument, and last year the Supreme Court held that any
correlation between the two is small and indistinguishable from
the impact of other factors. Why do you believe that your
research findings are correct and these other findings are
wrong?
Dr. Bushman. I can't imagine how the U.S. Supreme Court
could have made that decision, because I personally sent our
meta-analysis to every single Justice of the Supreme Court. So,
I am not sure. Of course, they are not scientists and they are
not in a position to evaluate scientific evidence, but I don't
know how they could make such a claim.
POLICY PRESCRIPTIONS FOR DEALING WITH IMPACTS OF VIOLENT MEDIA
Mr. Wolf. Many previous attempts to address the problem of
violent video games have run into Constitutional problems and
First Amendment concerns. Are there practical steps that you
are aware of to mitigate the negative effects of violent video
games without running into Constitutional concerns?
Dr. Bushman. I think there are things that we can do as a
society. I was trying to explain earlier to Mr. Rooney that in
the Netherlands there is a universal rating system for TV
programs, video games, movies, and I have been to the place
that does the ratings. First of all, they are not industry
assigned. They are assigned by professional raters who play the
games and give it a rating. And there are child development
experts on the panel who are consultants. So, it is not a
rating assigned by the industry.
They say that we have two goals, Number one, to inform
parents. Number two, to protect children. And it is very
simple. They have ``plus 12'' for 12 and older; ``plus 16'' for
16 and older, for every form of media. If there is violence on
it they have a fist, If there is profanity, they have a bubble
with characters in it. And it is very easy for parents to
understand these ratings.
In America, it is like alphabet soup. There is R for
movies, TV MA for television, MBG for mild blood and gore. Most
Americans, you ask a parent, what does TV MA mean? I don't
know. And that rating is only on the TV program for 30 seconds.
In the Netherlands it is on the corner the whole time. So, a
parent can walk in the room any time and see what the rating of
that program is or the video game their child is playing or the
movie they are watching.
The Surgeon General in 1972 issued a warning on violent
television programs. We know the Surgeon General in '64 issued
a warning on tobacco products. Yet, the Surgeon General warning
is on every tobacco product, and there is no Surgeon General
warning on any violent media product. I am not sure why.
Also, we could have media literacy programs to teach
children to be more intelligent consumers of media.
Mr. Wolf. So, you may have some lobbyists out here who are
paid very well by the electronic gaming industry. I assume some
of these great reporters that we have here are going to tell
the fair and objective report. What message, because you said
the two purposes were, one, to what? To help the----
Dr. Bushman. To inform parents.
Mr. Wolf. Now, I think everyone would be--you would hope
the industry would want to inform parents.
Dr. Bushman. But I think they confuse parents.
Mr. Wolf. But we would think that----
Dr. Bushman. Hopefully, yes.
Mr. Wolf. And what is the other one?
Dr. Bushman. To protect children.
Mr. Wolf. To protect children. So, you would think everyone
would want to protect children.
Dr. Bushman. I would hope so.
Mr. Wolf. We're not really talking about 21-year-old
people, are we?
Dr. Bushman. No.
Mr. Wolf. We are talking about children.
Dr. Bushman. That's right.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. So, why would the industry be opposed to
doing that?
Dr. Bushman. Having a universal rating system? I don't
know.
Mr. Wolf. Who is with the industry here? Raise your hand.
Is there anybody--are any of you lawyers that are representing
the industry here? Should we swear in a whole panel and put you
under oath? For some reason I don't completely believe you. Why
would they be opposed, though, to protecting children? You're
really telling me that we are not talking about, a 21 year
old----
Dr. Bushman. No. An 18 year old, 18 and above, yes.
Mr. Wolf. So, we are talking about a 12 and 13----
Dr. Bushman. Yeah, any child under 18.
Mr. Wolf. Why would the industry be opposed to that?
Dr. Bushman. I think because mainly they care about money
rather than those issues. I know that when Jack Valenti was
still alive, I sent him all the research evidence about ratings
and recommended a universal rating system after the 1994
Telecommunications Act when they were deciding about what kind
of ratings to put on television programs. I said, at least make
them the same as movies, so parents know what the ratings are.
But instead they came up with totally different system that
parents don't understand.
Mr. Wolf. So, that would be more helpful for a parent
because then it would be uniform----
Dr. Bushman. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. Does anybody out here want to get up and take the
industry position on why they would be opposed to this? I mean,
as a father of five and a grandfather of 16, why would they be
opposed to that?
Dr. Bushman. I am not sure. The industry doesn't talk to
me. They hate me, I think.
Mr. Wolf. We know that violent video games have played a
role in some of these large tragedies. I think that Congress
ought to do what it can to stop this, and I think your point is
well taken. We're talking about young people. We're not talking
about 18 year olds, we're not talking about 21 year olds, 25.
And to give the parents more and more information is very
important.
So, I have some more questions, but I think that makes the
point that I wanted to make. I appreciate you----
Dr. Bushman. Sure. My pleasure.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. Testimony. I appreciate the NSF, and
if you would also thank the other panel members for their
participation.
Dr. Bushman. Absolutely. Yes, will do.
Mr. Wolf. And with that, I see the place is empty.
Dr. Bushman. Okay.
Mr. Wolf. The hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
Dr. Bushman. Okay. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
INDEX
----------
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden, Jr., USMC (ret.), Administrator
Page
Arc-Jet facility................................................. 40-42
Arecibo Observatory.............................................. 28-31
Center for the Advancement of Science in Space................... 15-16
Collaboration across agencies.................................... 17
Commercial crew...............................................39-40, 46
Compliance with statutory authorities............................ 12
Cooperation with China........................................... 44-48
Cost and schedule control........................................ 34-35
Destination of retired orbiters.................................. 42-43
Excess property.................................................. 38-39
FY 2013 appropriations concerns.................................. 18-19
Flight Opportunities Program..................................... 25-26
Foreign espionage threat......................................... 11
Heavy list rocket and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle..............20-21, 26
Independent external security review............................. 11-12
Inspector general................................................ 44-45
Multi-year budget................................................ 26-28
NASA Space Act Agreements........................................ 31-34
NASA's education program......................................... 17-18
Opening statement:
Gen. Bolden.................................................. 4-10
Mr. Fattah................................................... 3
Mr. Wolf..................................................... 1-4
Planetary science................................................ 21-25
Questions for the Record:
Mr. Aderholt.................................................95-117
Mr. Culberson................................................ 92-95
Mr. Serrano.................................................. 117
Mr. Wolf..................................................... 49-92
Security controls at NASA centers................................ 12-15
Sequestration implementation..................................... 35-36
Weather satellites............................................... 36-38
Working with a flat funding profile.............................. 43-44
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of Inspector
General
The Honorable Paul K. Martin, Inspector General
Allegations of security violations at the Ames Research Center... 132
Allegations of security violations at the Langley Research Cente132-139
Budgeting for the Space Launch System...........................151-152
Conference expenditures.......................................... 149
Cost and schedule performance...................................146-149
Cost savings from commercial spaceflight......................... 146
Improving information technology security governance............. 144
Information on information technology security threats..........153-154
James Webb Space Telescope......................................141-142
Laptop encryption at NASA centers...............................139-141
Maintaining leadership in space.................................150-151
NASA strategy for improved infrastructure management...134-135, 142-147
Opening statement:
Mr. Fattah................................................... 120
Mr. Martin..................................................120-128
Mr. Wolf....................................................119-120
Questions for the Record:
Mr. Aderholt................................................162-165
Mr. Wolf....................................................156-162
RIF bans......................................................... 149
Security allegations at the Ames Research Center................152-153
Threat to NASA form Chinese espionage..................129-131, 154-155
Use of Space Act Agreements.....................................146-147
National Science Foundation
Dr. Subra Suresh, Director
Allegations of wasteful grants..................................178-180
Correlation between media violence and aggressive behavior......219-221
Earthquake research.............................................196-197
H1B visas.......................................................193-196
Impact of access to guns........................................224-225
International competition in research and development...........185-186
Legacy of Dr. Suresh's tenure at NSF............................188-191
Management of cooperative agreement.............................191-182
NSF's rapid response report on youth violence...................199-201
Neuroscience....................................................186-187
Opening statement:
Dr. Bushman.................................................202-214
Dr. Suresh..................................................168-177
Mr. Fattah................................................... 168
Mr. Wolf....................................................167-168
Policy prescriptions for dealing with the impacts of violent
media.........................................................230-231
Predicting violent behavior.....................................221-223
QFRs for Dr. Bushman:
Mr. Aderholt................................................248-252
QFRs for Dr. Suresh:
Mr. Aderholt................................................252-254
Mr. Serrano.................................................254-257
Mr. Wolf....................................................232-248
Rampage shootings vs. more general violence in society..........215-216
Reconciling conflicting scientific results on violent media...... 229
Relationship between violent behavior and suicide...............225-227
Religion as a protective factor against violence................217-218
Retaining the results of federally funded research..............180-185
Role of violent video games in recent mass shootings............227-228
Support for large research facilities...........................197-199
Testing for a connection between violent media and violent
behavior......................................................228-229
Trends in violent crime and violent media.......................218-219