    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

       COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                      2016

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                     HEARINGS

                                     BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                  FIRST SESSION
                                      ______

         SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES

                      JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas, Chairman

      ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama           CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
      JOHN R. CARTER, Texas                 MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
      JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington     JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
      MARTHA ROBY, Alabama                  DEREK KILMER, Washington
      DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
      STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi

      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.

                   John Martens, Jeff Ashford, Leslie Albright,
                         Colin Samples, and Taylor Kelly
                                Subcommittee Staff
                                       _______

                                        PART 5

                                                                       Page
    Department of Commerce.......................................         1
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration..............        57
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration................        87
    National Science Foundation..................................       253
    Federal Investments in Neuroscience Research.................       321

                 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                   _______

              Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                   _______

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    96-070                  WASHINGTON : 2015

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                    ----------
                       HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman

      RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey   NITA M. LOWEY, New York
      ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama           MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
      KAY GRANGER, Texas                    PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
      MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho             JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
      JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas           ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
      ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida               DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
      JOHN R. CARTER, Texas                 LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
      KEN CALVERT, California               SAM FARR, California
      TOM COLE, Oklahoma                    CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
      MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida            SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
      CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania         BARBARA LEE, California
      TOM GRAVES, Georgia                   MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
      KEVIN YODER, Kansas                   BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
      STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas                STEVE ISRAEL, New York
      JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska            TIM RYAN, Ohio
      THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida             C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
      CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee     DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
      JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington     HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
      DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio                  CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
      DAVID G. VALADAO, California          MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
      ANDY HARRIS, Maryland                 DEREK KILMER, Washington
      MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
      MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
      CHRIS STEWART, Utah
      E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
      DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
      DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
      EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
      STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi

                    William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director

                                       (ii)

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                      2016
                                    _______

                                                Tuesday, March 3, 2015.

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                                    WITNESS

    HON. PENNY PRITZKER, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        Mr. Culberson. The Commerce, Justice, Science
    Appropriations Subcommittee will come to order. And we are
    delighted to have with us today the Commerce Secretary.
        Secretary Pritzker, we are delighted to have you. Thank you
    for your service to the country. And as you present the
    President's 2016 Department of Commerce budget request, we are
    just delighted you could be with us today and really genuinely
    appreciate your service to the country.
        You have many important responsibilities of the department
    including obviously promoting trade and dual use technologies,
    making sure those are not exported improperly, helping
    economically distressed communities, administering our patent
    and trademark laws, preparing for and conducting the decennial
    census, advancing the measurement of science standards and
    technology, and forecasting the weather and protecting and
    researching our oceans which is extraordinarily important.
        And we will, of course, work with you to do everything that
    we can to be sure that each one of your important
    responsibilities are adequately funded, but it is important to
    point out that the department's request proposes discretionary
    appropriations totaling $9.8 billion which is a total of $1.3
    billion higher than last year.
        And your request proposes increases for nearly every
    Department of Commerce program. And in light of the sequester
    and the difficult circumstances budget-wise that we find
    ourselves in, it is not a realistic budget proposal. It also
    assumes a number of different fee and tax increases which are
    simply not going to happen.
        The subcommittee will not have an allocation that is
    sufficient to fund this excessive level of spending. While we
    recognize the important work that you do and we will work with
    you and the Members of the Committee to meet the resource needs
    of your highest priority programs, we have to find savings and
    reduce spending for lower priority or ineffective programs. Our
    current budget environment will simply not allow everyone to
    get everything that they want.
        We look forward to hearing from you about how we can help
    you improve the management of the department and to ensure that
    Commerce employees, for example, are not abusing tele-work
    programs.
        We heard earlier from the inspector general. Our first
    hearing of the year was from the inspector general and the
    weather satellite programs. We want to make sure they meet
    their cost and schedule milestones.
        And the 2020 census, we want to work with you to make sure
    that the cost of the 2020 census is less than the last census
    and to find out how you are prioritizing cyber security and
    protecting the department from the ever-growing threat of cyber
    attack.
        We will do, as I say, all we can to help you, but we are
    going to have to prioritize and cut wherever we can. I do
    appreciate your service to the country.
        And I want to, before we proceed, recognize my colleague,
    Mr. Fattah, for any remarks he might wish to make.
        Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I want to thank the Secretary for the extraordinary
    service that she has provided to the Nation. Having spent a
    great deal of time in the private sector to take on this role
    at this time I know is a major sacrifice but has helped our
    country.
        So we now have 59 months of straight consecutive job growth
    and over the last 11 months, we have seen job growth of 200,000
    or above each month. And we hope that when the February numbers
    are made public that we will continue to see this trend moving
    in the right direction.
        This country, this economy in which you are the chief
    custodian for has generated more jobs than the rest of the
    developed world combined. And so you have done a great job
    under some challenging circumstances.
        We welcome you to the committee. And I know that my
    colleagues on the other side always talk about dynamic scoring.
    In your case, it is kind of like dynamic investing. If we
    invest in job growth, we can reap the rewards. And we look
    forward to hearing about your budget request. Thank you.
        Mr. Culberson. Madam Secretary, we will, of course, without
    objection enter your statement into the record in its entirety
    and welcome your testimony to summarize your statement. And if
    you could, keep your statement to five minutes. Thank you very
    much, and we are pleased to recognize you.
        Secretary Pritzker. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member Fattah, and Members of
    the committee when they arrive, thank you for this opportunity
    to lay out the priorities of President Obama's fiscal year 2016
    budget for the Department of Commerce.
        This budget advances the core tenets of our department's
    mission which are to develop and implement policies that
    support economic growth, enhance our country's competitiveness
    and global leadership, as well as strengthen America's
    businesses both at home and abroad.
        To support this mission, the fiscal year 2016 budget
    provides $9.8 billion in discretionary funding to reinforce the
    priorities of the department's strategy, our open for business
    agenda, by promoting U.S. exports, trade and investment, by
    spurring high-tech manufacturing and innovation, by unleashing
    more data for economic benefit, by gathering and acting on
    environmental intelligence, and by making our agencies'
    operations more efficient and effective.
        Today I want to highlight some key initiatives supported by
    this budget. First the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau creates
    data products used by businesses, policymakers, and the public.
        And this budget reflects the fact that this is a critical
    year for preparation of the 2020 census as we test the use of
    administrative records, re-engineered field operations and
    Internet data collection, create new systems to improve the
    quality of the census and develop plans so that in fiscal year
    2017 and 2018, we can conduct an integrity test of the entire
    process, all leading to a potential savings of $5 billion to
    taxpayers. To achieve these savings, we must invest today.
        Another part of our agenda is to help communities and
    businesses prosper in a changing environment. NOAA's budget
    will enhance our ability to meet this goal through two
    investments.
        First, the budget proposes $2.4 billion to fully fund the
    next generation of weather and environmental satellites.
    Funding the development and launch of future satellites is
    absolutely critical to reduce the risk of a potential gap in
    the weather data in 2017 and beyond.
        Second, the budget requests $147 million to develop a high-
    endurance, long-range ocean survey vessel. Immediate action is
    necessary to maintain our critical ocean observing
    capabilities. Making this investment this year will enable NOAA
    to take advantage of the navy's design work and project
    management team which will save taxpayers millions of dollars
    in acquisition and design costs.
        For generations, manufacturing has been a key to U.S.
    innovation, a source of middle class jobs and a pillar of our
    global leadership. Over the last five years, America's
    manufacturers have added more than 870,000 jobs, growing for
    the first time in decades.
        Recognizing the importance of manufacturing to our
    competitiveness, Congress passed the Revitalize American
    Manufacturing and Innovation Act which calls for the expansion
    of the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation or NNMI.
        This initiative brings together industry, university
    researchers, community colleges, NGOs, and government to
    accelerate the development of cutting-edge manufacturing
    technologies.
        Our fiscal year 2016 budget requests funding first to
    support and coordinate current and future NNMI institutes and
    second to support two institutes led by the Commerce Department
    which would focus on manufacturing technologies that industry
    determines have the most potential.
        This budget will also provide the International Trade
    Administration with the resources needed to advance President
    Obama's robust trade agenda and to help U.S. businesses expand
    their exports and reach the 95 percent of customers outside of
    the United States.
        Finally, our budget requests $24 million for the renovation
    of the department's headquarters to enable us to make better
    use of our space and ultimately to reduce the amount of funds
    required to house our employees.
        These priorities only scratch the surface of our
    department's work to support U.S. businesses, communities, and
    our economy.
        I look forward to answering your questions today and to
    partnering with this committee to keep America open for
    business. Thank you.

                                  2020 census

        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        I wanted to ask you a couple of questions about the census.
    I have a lot of constituents who are concerned about the
    American Community Survey, the intrusiveness of it in a lot of
    areas, and, of course, the survey response is currently
    mandatory.
        Is that statutory or by your internal administrative rules
    that the survey is mandatory? I think it is administrative
    rule, but it is mandatory.
        Secretary Pritzker. I am not sure.
        Mr. Culberson. I think it is----
        Secretary Pritzker. It is mandatory by statute. I think it
    is by statute.
        Mr. Culberson. It is mandatory by statute. So we would need
    to change the law in order to make it voluntary?
        And I notice also there is a lot of overlap between the
    information that the community survey asks and information, for
    example, that the Internal Revenue Service already has.
        And the estimate, I know that the Commerce Department is
    predicting that the survey is planning for the census in 2020
    to cost less than the last census, but the estimates show that
    the cost of the census is going to be nearly $13 billion. We
    just simply do not have $13 billion to spend on a census.
        So one way it seems to me that is the straightforward way
    to save money is to use other branches of the government to
    provide some of that data, and so many of the questions that
    are asked in that long census could be obtained from the
    Internal Revenue Service.
        Have you worked with the Authorizing Committee on this?
    What are you planning on doing in order to ensure that you are
    using information already collected by other branches of the
    government to bring down the cost of the census?
        Secretary Pritzker. So, Chairman, you know, one of the
    major efforts that we have with the 2020 census is the use of
    what we call administrative records, the ability to use other
    data that has been collected by the Federal Government.
        What we need to do in order to take advantage of that
    information is we have to test the efficacy of using that. And
    so that is why our request is so significant this year. It is
    very much about testing.
        The 2010 census, as I understand, was pretty much done the
    way censuses have been done for the prior 30 or 40 years. What
    we need to do is to transform the way we do the census. And you
    very much are suggesting that which is that we have more
    automation and greater use of administrative records. And so we
    very much want to use other administrative records. What we
    need to do, though, is test that that will work.
        In terms of the American Community Survey, we respect the
    privacy and time, of the individuals who fill out the American
    Community Survey as well as the time that we ask people to take
    to fill out the survey.
        It is a survey, though, that is very much used by
    businesses, by NGOs, by local, state and Federal Government.
    The VA, for example, is a big user of the American Community
    Survey. It is the only source of data in many instances for
    small and rural communities.
        So if the ACS were no longer available or no longer used,
    there is about 60 million Americans that we would not be
    collecting data on except during the census period.
        But recognizing the concern about this survey, I did last
    year call for complete top to bottom review of the survey, what
    other sources of information could we be using, how frequently
    do we have to ask questions, could we ask them less frequently
    and still have the data be reliable, could we delete questions.
        And we are in the process of analyzing that and the answers
    are due back to me at the latest by the end of the fiscal year.
        Mr. Culberson. So you will be using, for example,
    information from the IRS to help you fill in some of the
    blanks?
        Secretary Pritzker. I do not know the exact sources of the
    administrative records that we are allowed to use. And some of
    that is by statute what we are allowed to use.
        Mr. Culberson. But you anticipate using IRS records?
        Secretary Pritzker. We would anticipate using whatever is
    available to us. We will have to check whether we can use----
        Mr. Culberson. Can you use IRS records?
        Secretary Pritzker. I do not know, but we will find out. I
    will get back to you, Mr. Chairman, on whether we can use IRS
    records. Obviously what we want to do is use whatever
    administrative data and records are available to us. And there
    is a whole list that----
        Mr. Culberson. Right.
        Secretary Pritzker [continuing]. Census is accessing.
        Mr. Culberson. I ask for a couple of reasons. A, obviously
    you want to try to save money by using administrative records
    that are collected by other agencies, but, B, I am a big
    believer in privacy and our most important right as Americans
    is to be left alone which is why I am concerned about the
    American Community Survey.
        It is very long and intrusive and it is treated as though
    it is mandatory. I understand that it is statutory. That is
    something we in Congress ought to change because fundamentally
    the census ought to just be who are you, how many people live
    there, what is your, you know, ancestry,--very simple,
    straightforward questions.
        I am also concerned about whether or not privacy advocates
    are aware that you may be using IRS records with the problems
    that the IRS has had recently about targeting people. I am
    concerned about the privacy angle and I do want to know whether
    or not you will be using IRS records.
        Secretary Pritzker. Mr. Chairman, we will get back to you.
    Privacy is something that we at the Census and we at the
    Department of Commerce take very, very seriously.
        We work very hard to protect the data that we have the
    privilege of having access to and we work very carefully to
    make sure that it is being handled in a responsible fashion
    when we do the things that we are required to do either by
    statute or by the Constitution.
        Mr. Culberson. I understand another way you will be trying
    to save money is with allowing people to log on and handle a
    lot of this online. And if there are 140 million households
    estimated to participate in the survey, you are going to have a
    lot of people visiting the Web site. The Obama Care Web site
    had about 250,000 visitors before it just completely melted
    down.
        What are you doing to prevent something similar from
    happening to the Census Web site?
        Secretary Pritzker. So we are in the process of beefing up
    our systems to be able to handle the volume. But the other
    thing that we need to do is make sure that we--we are equally
    as concerned about the issue of verification to make sure that
    when we send out a survey, a census survey, someone knows that
    it is us, it is the government, it is the Census Bureau. It is
    not someone else.
        And we also will need to have methodologies to authenticate
    that the person responding is actually who they say they are.
        There is a lot to be dealt with to make sure that this
    works online well. It brings me back to what is important is
    that the Census Bureau very much wants to take advantage, as
    you said, of how do we save money, how do we do this
    efficiently.
        But to do that, we have to invest today. We have to be able
    to test because if we cannot prove that it is going to work,
    then we are now allowed by, you know, as I said, what I call
    the lock-down or the integrity test that will occur in fiscal
    years 2017 and 2018.
        If we cannot prove to the Census folks that this will work,
    we are not able to do the census that way. Then we go back to
    the more expensive survey which is sending people to people's
    houses which seems ridiculous in a digital world.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
        You know, we just simply will not have the money this year.
    It is going to be a very difficult budget environment.
        Secretary Pritzker. No, I understand.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Fattah.

                            MANUFACTURING INITIATIVE

        Mr. Fattah. Well, let me first of all, Madam Secretary, ask
    you about the manufacturing initiative. One of my priorities on
    the subcommittee over the last few years that I have been the
    ranking member has been the MEP program, the Manufacturing
    Extension Partnership, the Hollings legacy around manufacturing
    extension using the same basic method that was used in the
    agriculture extension to apply to our manufacturers.
        Now, we have seen arrested by this Administration the major
    losses that we were seeing in this sector. In fact, I recall in
    the first weeks of the Administration economists aggregated
    together on the pages of the New York Times saying how this
    could not work and manufacturing could not come back.
        And the Administration has shown that this was a fallacy,
    that in truth manufacturing has led the recovery. And you said
    it is 800,000 jobs, but there is more for us to do. And I have
    talked to you about this.
        I am particularly interested in how this intersects with
    the other work of our subcommittee because we invest in
    science. And the chairman and I have a great interest in
    science.
        But I am interested to make sure that American innovation,
    that is American ideas are connected to American jobs, that
    when we have the spinoffs from our space program and other
    programs in which intellectual property is allowed to be used
    mainly for free by companies to create wealth that we require
    in the licensing of this intellectual property that whatever
    jobs it created are created in the United States of America.
        And the committee has done some work in this area in the
    past, and I have a continuing interest to make sure that where
    we invest in a national lab, where we invest in NIST or NASA or
    NOAA that when there are new widgets that those widgets get
    manufactured whether in Texas or Pennsylvania or some other
    place, California, New York, and Washington State.
        But the point here is that there is no reason why taxpayer-
    financed research, even though it may create wealth for some
    innovators, and I think that is wonderful, I am all for it, but
    that the jobs that go with it should benefit Americans and the
    Americans that we are taxing to make the initial investment
    into science.
        So if you could talk a little bit about that, that would be
    helpful.
        Secretary Pritzker. Congressman, you know that I am as
    passionate about manufacturing as you are and I view my number
    one responsibility is to help our economy grow and help our
    private sector grow because one thing I know from my own
    experience 27 years in the private sector is that the people
    who create jobs are the private sector.
        And so one of the things you talked about, the
    Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and, as you know, we are
    re-competing our MEPs at this time and we have just done ten of
    them, and the reason that we are doing that is and the reason
    that MEP exists is to help small and medium-size manufacturers.
        And if you had told me from the private sector before I had
    this job that the Federal Government could help you to have
    better access to technology and processes to manufacture, I was
    highly skeptical until I went out and actually saw this with my
    own eyes and, more importantly, talked with owners of
    businesses who said I would not have been able to adapt the
    kind of world-class processes that I have access to because of
    the Manufacturing Extension Partnership.
        So these are programs that I think are extremely effective.
    We have changed the funding match to be one to one so more
    small businesses can take advantage of it. And it is something
    that, you know, is really exciting to see the kind of
    specialized expertise that a small manufacturer can take
    advantage of.
        In terms of other efforts that we have around innovation,
    whether it is the Centers of Excellence in terms of that NIST
    has working on disaster resilience or forensic science or
    advanced materials, these are areas where we work with outside
    universities to take technologies, move them forward so that
    they can get out of the laboratory sooner rather than later.
        The National Network of Manufacturing Innovation is a
    continuation of that effort to take ideas that we think can go
    from lab to market over the next five to seven years, and that
    is why I was so excited when you all passed the Revitalize
    American Manufacturing Innovation Act because it is an
    opportunity for us as a country to really put together our
    researchers in the universities, our private sector, our local
    governments, our NGOs, our community colleges and the supply
    chain and the skilled labor training that can go on in our
    community colleges to take technologies like lightweight
    materials or take technologies like photonics or digital
    manufacturing and really bring them to market.
        And the reason we need to do that is we know that a third
    of our economic growth since 2009 has come from our
    innovations. And so it is really critical.
        Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        I saw the red light come on and I think that----
        Secretary Pritzker. Sorry.
        Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Means that--no--that I will wait
    until the next round to ask a follow-up. No, we are going to
    try to follow the rules.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, I wanted----
        Mr. Fattah. Could the gentle lady introduce the young one?
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. Sure. This is my daughter, Abigail.
    She used to be quiet and you could just drag her anywhere. And
    now she just babbles, so I thank the Chair for his indulgence.
    Babbling that people like, right?
        Okay. I wanted to bring up an issue that is not wholly your
    purview, but it is something I would like you to be aware of
    and would very much appreciate your assistance and your
    thoughts. So I want to get it right. Let me stick to my notes.

                            GROUNDFISH BUYBACK LOAN

        Fishermen in Washington State and along the West Coast have
    been under a challenge since about 2003 under the groundfish
    buyback loan. We feel that the terms of the loan are punitive
    and so we moved in a bipartisan fashion to change that.
        And it was actually the end of last year with the NDAA
    passage and the President signed into law provisions that fully
    refinanced that loan at rates that other businesses get which
    we feel like is a little bit more appropriate.
        The implementation of the law has been held up, though,
    with the Office of OMB, which we will be bringing it up as
    well, claiming that either the funding must come out of NOAA's
    budget or a new appropriation is required which Congress did
    not feel like that was necessary. That is why we were able to
    move it, quite frankly. The bill was fully offset in the NDAA,
    so we felt like we had provided what we needed to.
        So what we are seeing is a challenge within the
    Administration where the money is going to come from. And the
    law was passed. The offset was in it. I, quite frankly, do not
    care whose budget it comes out of. I just would like to make
    sure that it is addressed and that the law is followed in
    conjunction with the Congress and the President's signature.
        So if you have a comment, great.
        Secretary Pritzker. I would just say I am well aware of
    this issue.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. Oh, great.
        Secretary Pritzker. And I know it is important to you. And
    I understand my staff is working with your staff and the
    committee's staff to try and get this addressed.

                                  FISH STOCKS

        Ms. Herrera Beutler. Great. I think that is what we would
    like. We would just want to make sure that it gets taken care
    of and that, you know, recognizing the offset was there. And it
    is nice to see everybody behind you, yeah. Okay. I know how
    that works as a former staffer.
        And I brought this up with the OIG as well. The salmon
    hatcheries, switching issues on the Columbia River are funded
    through the Mitchell Act and which supports recreational and
    commercial fisheries in the rural communities. I am along the
    Columbia River and then out to the Pacific Ocean, so that is
    almost my entire district. They provide a lot of jobs and
    resources in my local area.
        I was really upset to see NOAA requested a decrease of
    nearly $3 million to the salmon management account and those
    reductions actually target the Mitchell Act Hatcheries. So even
    under level funding, we know that the number of fish released
    is decreasing and the costs are going up.
        Moreover, the funding needed to ensure that the hatcheries
    are maintained is being undermined and we are seeing the
    consequences of fish losses from failed equipment.
        So despite all these facts, NOAA states in their budget
    that a document that they are able to--in their funding
    document, they believe they are able to meet their obligation
    for operation and maintenance and their obligation to meet
    their hatchery reform responsibilities.
        But given these facts, I am not sure how NOAA is going to
    be able to do this, and I guess I would love comments that you
    have on that because this is another big one.
        Secretary Pritzker. Making sure that we have adequate
    salmon stocks and that this fish stock is doing well is of
    great importance to us. What I would ask is that I would
    probably have my NOAA staff work with yours to explain to you
    how exactly we believe--we believe this is adequate funding to
    do what we need to do, but I would like to have them come and
    work with you so that you can be satisfied about that.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. Absolutely. Mitchell Act funding for
    these hatcheries is key and so we want to make sure what we are
    hearing on the ground corroborates with what your NOAA staff
    are seeing and hearing.
        My time is just about up. I just want to put this on your
    radar. Hatchery genetic management plans which are required
    under ESA, and we can go into a little bit more detail, again,
    I do not want to run out of time, but I am concerned about the
    backlog. I think I have seen over 100 are due and we do not
    have them. So we will bring that up with your staff as well,
    but those are kind of my top three.
        Secretary Pritzker. Terrific. We will look into it and we
    will work with you.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you. Appreciate it.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Culberson. I yield to my colleague and good friend Mr.
    Serrano from New York.

            2020 CENSUS--IMMIGRATION REFORM AND TRADE OPPORTUNITIES

        Mr. Serrano. Thank you. And thank you, Madam Secretary, for
    being here today and for your work. I am going to ask you two
    quick questions at the same time because they are based on
    hopes. It might be that by the next time the Census comes
    around we may have immigration reform. While what that means to
    the Census Bureau, other than people coming forth to be counted
    that perhaps were afraid to do so before, you know, are we
    ready for that? Will it be a big challenge or something you
    have to be ready for? And secondly, my second hope, which seems
    to be coming to be, is that by pretty soon we may have full
    diplomatic relations with Cuba which may entail a lot of trade.
    And the Commerce Department will play a role. Are you ready to
    meet that challenge if that comes your way? Simple questions,
    but historic in nature.
        Secretary Pritzker. Yes. Well Congressman, I too hope that
    we have immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform by
    the time, certainly hopefully before the next 2020 Census. And
    I assure you we stand ready to be able to handle that
    regardless of when it comes into fruition. It will not affect
    the processes that we use, it simply is the number of people
    that we count.
        In terms of Cuba diplomatic relations, which is also as you
    said historic and something that as the Department of Commerce
    we have been proud to play a role in. You know, we are working
    on the regulatory aspects of, and the licensing aspects
    particularly in the area of telecommunications where there is
    an opportunity for certain goods to be sold into Cuba. And so I
    am looking forward to having the opportunity to visit Cuba
    later this year.
        There is an embargo in place. We respect the embargo. But
    it does, the current laws do allow for certain items to be sold
    into Cuba to the private sector particularly in the area of
    telecommunications. I think there will also be some
    agricultural opportunities now and banking opportunities.

                        CUBAN TRADE MARKET OPPORTUNITIES

        Mr. Serrano. Right. Without telling me anything I am not
    supposed to know, although we are supposed to know everything,
    right? What items does the Commerce Department think the Cubans
    would be ready to sell us other than to flood us with great
    baseball players and great music and so on, which is great. But
    we know what we can sell to Cuba. We have been doing it little
    by little. But what would we be interesting in getting from
    them in that kind of trade?
        Secretary Pritzker. You know Congressman, I have not
    studied the opportunities for two-way trade in the way we
    should. But I am sure that is something that our International
    Trade Administration will be looking into and I am happy to do
    more research for you.
        Mr. Serrano. All right. Thank you. One last question since
    I do have time. The chairman is interested in cigars, by the
    way, in case----
        Secretary Pritzker. I think it is $400 worth of cigars you
    can buy?
        Mr. Serrano. That is right.
        Secretary Pritzker. I think that is the limit right now.
        Mr. Serrano. That will end, hopefully.
        Mr. Fattah. Well I am sure the chairman and the ranking
    member will be glad to go with you----
        Mr. Serrano. Right, very, that is true. Very quickly----
        Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Allocation if you got the chairman
    some cigars, you know what I mean? I hear that, Judge, I am
    sorry.
        Mr. Serrano. Are you charging me for this time? No, but
    anyway. No, it is not. Madam Secretary, in 2010 the Census
    received a lot of criticism and feedback around how respondents
    of Hispanic or Latino origin were able to self-identify. How if
    at all has the agency considered making changes to this area?
    Are there any plans to expand the existing response categories
    of Mexican, Mexican American, or Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban,
    and other Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? And have you
    been in conversations with any groups concerning those changes
    or petitions for changes?
        Secretary Pritzker. Well Congressman, we are committed to
    accurately measuring how people self-identify their race and
    origin. And we tested an approach in 2020 and we are building
    on the research of that in twenty--we tested in 2010 and we are
    building on that for 2020. We have been actively working with
    stakeholders and in fact we have just put out a big Federal
    Register notice on this issue. So we are trying to make sure
    that we get this accurate, get this right. Because we are very
    much committed to an accurate Census.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much. Judge Carter.

                               EXPORT INITIATIVES

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being
    late. I have got a bill on the floor. Thank you very much for
    being here. I am from Texas, as my colleague from Texas pointed
    out, and energy export remains a major driver of the Texas
    economy. The Obama administration's regulatory policies
    threaten to impair this vital part of our trade economy. How
    does your agency expect our nation to be able to expand trade
    to reach foreign markets if the regulatory burden here at home
    cripples those industries? And with these concerns in mind what
    are the challenges to encouraging direct foreign investment in
    domestic industries?
        Secretary Pritzker. Well I will start with the last part
    and then talk about our export initiative. But first in terms
    of foreign direct investment, we run a program called
    SelectUSA. In fact, I am quite excited, I got a report on, an
    update this morning about SelectUSA. This is the first ever
    effort by the federal government of the United States to
    welcome investment by foreign companies into the United States.
    And what we do know is about 5.6 million Americans today are
    employed by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies.
        So SelectUSA is both, is populated by people in 32 key
    markets that we want to attract investment from, and we also
    put on a summit. Our foreign commercial service officers that
    work on SelectUSA are helping those companies invest here in
    the United States and then we have staff here in the United
    States helping them navigate our federal system. But obviously
    we do not prefer one state over another.
        Then we also run a summit once every 18 months. The second
    annual summit will be March 23rd and 24th. You are all invited.
    We will have about 1,200 attendees. The goal is 2,500 attendees
    and about 1,200 companies to join us for that. These are
    companies interested in investing in the United States. So we
    have a robust effort to reach out to foreign companies to
    invest in the United States.
        In terms of helping American businesses export, that falls
    under our Foreign Commercial Service and our U.S. Export
    Assistance Center and our National Export Initiative which we
    just revitalized this year. We took a look at what we have been
    doing over the last three or four years and tried to update it
    to grow exports. And you know we hit record exports this year
    at $2.35 trillion. So we work both to attract foreign direct
    investment as well as helping American businesses, particularly
    small and medium sized businesses, that need help to understand
    well what market our U.S. Export Assistance Centers, of which
    there are 108 I think in the United States, they help American
    business identify what countries their products are competitive
    in. And then our Foreign Commercial Service Officers, which are
    in 75 countries around the world, help those companies then
    navigate the local regulations, the local rules, etcetera, to
    be able to do business there.
        Mr. Carter. Oh, you did not answer my question about the,
    the United States regulatory burden and how it affects trade
    and commerce.
        Secretary Pritzker. Ah. Well, to date what we are finding
    in terms of interest in investing in the United States, it is
    extremely high. We are the number one place in the world, by
    A.T. Kearney, by Goldman Sachs, to invest in the U.S. So in
    terms of regulatory burden it does not appear that that seems
    to be an impediment at this time for companies being interested
    in investing in the U.S.
        But President Obama has asked his head of OIRA and each and
    ever one of us running our departments to look at our
    regulatory burden and to assess whether on a cost benefit
    basis, whether our regulations are working and are worth it and
    are effective. And we have been doing that here at the
    Department of Commerce. For the most part that would affect,
    for example, two different areas. First fisheries, how does it
    affect our fisheries and how we regulate our fisheries? And the
    second area is really our licensing at BIS. At BIS we, if you
    have a dual use product that we are trying to sell outside the
    United States there is what is going on is what is called
    export control reform. Something like 30,000 plus items have
    gone from being really restricted to being sold outside the
    United States to a much lower standard, which is what we
    manage. And so BIS has gone from 24,000 licenses in fiscal year
    2013 to our estimate in fiscal year 2016 of about 50,000
    licenses a year. So we are trying to lower the regulatory
    burden to encourage exports as well as foreign direct
    investment.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Judge. Mr. Honda.

                              NNMI SITE SELECTION

        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for being
    here, Madam Secretary. You made the comments on the NNMI and on
    MEP, which were very positive and we are grateful for that.
    Under the NNMI you in your testimony indicated that the
    Department of Commerce would be looking at two selections for
    sites and I was just curious as to how is that choice, how are
    those choices going to be made? Who will be part of that? And
    do you know when these choices will be effective?
        Secretary Pritzker. Well assuming that we get funding for
    two institutes then what we would do is we would run an open
    topic federal funding opportunity that would be posted. And
    then what we would do is consider the results of the FFO and we
    would structure the FFO that would take into account the
    recommendations that the PCAST has made, you know, the
    President's Advanced Manufacturing Partnership has also made.
    They have recommended various technologies. The idea being our
    goal is really to have industry decide what are the
    technologies that ought to be in the Department of Commerce
    institutes as opposed to at the Department of Defense and the
    Department of Energy they are choosing the technologies that
    they would like to see go from lab to market. We view that our
    role would be more to take our cues from industry.
        Mr. Honda. And based upon that process, then, the outcome
    if the decisions would make more clear the sites or the regions
    that----
        Secretary Pritzker. That would help determine topics and
    then we would use those topics to determine, to run a
    competition where consortia would come together regionally. It
    seems that to date the consortia being put together, they are
    pretty broad actually in terms of their geography. They tend to
    end up locating one place but the groups that come together
    tend to often be broad based upon the researchers needed to
    bring the ideas from lab to market.
        Mr. Honda. Okay. I have always been one to make sure that
    we fully fund this process so hopefully we move forward on a
    fully funded----
        Secretary Pritzker. I hope so, too.

                          SEQUESTRATION AFFECTS ON PTO

        Mr. Honda. On the USPTO we were fortunate to have the
    Department of Commerce locate in Silicon Valley. And which
    city, that was arm wrestling among the cities in the district.
    But we were very fortunate to have USPTO place the office
    there. Having said that, since that selection was made
    sequestration came in. And USPTO is fully funded through fees,
    which is not part of the tax dollar budget process. However, in
    spite of the fact that it is fully funded by fees it was
    affected by sequestration. How will you help us build a
    firewall around that fund so that if there is another episode
    of sequestration that we can build a firewall around agencies
    that are fully funded by fees and not be affected by
    sequestration?
        Secretary Pritzker. Well sequestration, you know, was very
    destructive to the Department of Commerce and particularly
    destructive to the Patent and Trademark Office. In terms of its
    effect on the Patent and Trademark Office, basically when
    sequestration came down the only real flexibility in terms of
    cutting that we had at that time was to cut our investment in
    IT. And so first of all it was sort of a double whammy. If you
    think about it PTO, as you said, is fully funded by fees. So
    the idea of sequestration does not make any sense because I do
    not know where that money went to but it is not accessible to
    PTO. But folks seeking a patent or a trademark put up fees in
    order to get their patent and trademark adjudicated, so that is
    kind of nuts. And the second thing is that our IT systems, it
    is really critical, we are working now on something called
    patent end to end. One of the issues that is often brought up
    about our Patent and Trademark Office is its backlog, or how
    long until we have a first adjudication and how long until a
    final adjudication. We have a target of ten months to first
    adjudication, and 20 months to final adjudication. By, if we
    were to have sequestration and then not have access to the
    money that third parties have paid as fees in to actually
    adjudicate a patent, the thing that would probably get cut is
    our systems. And the systems are the very things that help us
    actually expedite, systems and training and number of patent
    adjudicators, are kind of the three inputs to how fast you can
    do patent adjudication. So it would kind of be a double whammy
    to the Patent and Trademark Office. So I am certainly hoping
    that we can come to a budget as opposed to end up with
    sequestration.
        How we protect against that, I think that falls under----
        Mr. Honda. The administration?
        Secretary Pritzker. We do not have that control. That falls
    under----
        Mr. Honda. Well it was OMB that decided, as far as I
    understand. And since you are part of the administration I
    would hope that----
        Secretary Pritzker. I will fight, I will----
        Mr. Honda [continuing]. The term that is nuts is, you know,
    communicated to the administration. Because it is nuts. I mean
    it is, first it is fee-based. So those who are wanting their
    patents processed. And it is an economic engine for more jobs
    and for the economy. So I would hope that we start that
    discussion within the administration in the case of
    sequestration that we have that firewall built in early.
        Secretary Pritzker. Congressman, you are probably more
    knowledgeable about this than I am because fortunately I have
    basically lived with a budget as far as I have understood it.
    And so if it is up to me to argue that with OMB, I will argue
    like all get it. I would love the support of you all. And if it
    is up to you I sure hope we can work this out. So I look
    forward to not finding ourselves in that situation because I do
    think it is nuts.
        Mr. Honda. I think not only California but Texas is also
    impacted by patents, so.
        Mr. Culberson. We are in the middle of a vote. We have got
    13 minutes, and I would like to recognize Mr. Kilmer.

                     HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLANS

        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Madam
    Secretary for being here. And thanks for coming out to
    Washington State recently. We loved having you.
        I wanted to follow up on some of the points that Ms.
    Herrera Beutler had brought up, specifically with regard to
    NOAA. NOAA obviously pays a big role in our salmon recovery
    efforts and the Marine Fisheries Services has an obligation to
    ensure that programs comply with the Endangered Species Act.
    And one of the ways in which it does that is through the
    Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans. And without approval of
    those I am concerned that the hatchery managers are subject to
    significant risk of litigation which could potentially have
    very severe implications for our recovery efforts, for federal
    tribal trust obligations, and for the $9 billion West Coast
    Fishery. So I have heard a number of concerns from stakeholder
    about concerns that NMFS lacks the work force that it needs to
    process these plans in a timely manner and I wanted to get a
    sense from you what steps is NMFS taking to address the issue?
        Secretary Pritzker. So this year we are seeking to increase
    the number of staff devoted to the hatchery plans review from
    two to six, and we are also reprioritizing some of the existing
    staff to assist with the reviews and analysis. So we are taking
    it very seriously to be able to try and address these
    challenges.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. It is certainly a big area of
    concern in our area.

                      INTERAGENCY TRADE ENFORCEMENT CENTER

        I also wanted to ask about the International Trade
    Administration. The President's budget calls for a $6 million
    increase in funding to the Interagency Trade Enforcement
    Center, a multiagency effort to address unfair trade practices
    and barriers the impede U.S. exports. So how has that
    Interagency Trade Enforcement Center affected the
    administration's ability to identify and challenge unfair trade
    practices? And how will that funding increase affect the
    ability of American made goods and services to remain
    competitive internationally?
        Secretary Pritzker. So what ITEC does is it really helps us
    identify areas for enforcement and then also does research for
    cases during enforcement. And what we need is we need more
    language proficient trade analysts. We need more subject matter
    experts, so that the budget calls for 15 new positions. And you
    know, fundamentally in a world where we have more trade
    agreements we need more enforcement because we have folks that
    are trying to avoid and evade our trade agreements.

                                 IT PROCUREMENT

        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. You touched on, with my time
    remaining, you touched on IT issues. There are a number of
    members of Congress, myself among them, who are very interested
    in IT procurement reform. Your department and a lot of
    departments are significant purchasers of technology. But I
    think there is concern about whether there is adequate
    coordination between bureaus on what is procured. And so your
    department and other departments often will purchase products
    that they already own, or do not benefit from economies of
    scale, lack interoperability among products. So are there any
    internal initiatives that you can share with us that would
    eliminate some of the redundancy in IT programs and ensure, you
    know, a more coordinated and standard based approach to IT
    procurement?
        Secretary Pritzker. Yes, thank you for asking. You know
    Congressman, when I arrived our IT situation was, pretty good
    at the bureaus but really pretty awful at the Office of the
    Secretary and in kind of the central office, if you will. We
    have been fortunate to be able to bring in a new CIO and he has
    really put together a plan overhauling not just our security
    risk management but also our procurement. So he is working with
    our Chief Financial Officer, who is sitting behind me, to
    understand what are our opportunities for bulk buying of
    equipment, of software, of different programs. And in fact I
    have already seen in certain software that we have needed to
    use for customer management, that process come into effect. I
    am not saying we are where we need to be, I am suggesting that
    we have a really strong initiative in place to really better
    manage this effort. But we have work to do.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. And I yield back. Thank you,
    Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much. I really just want to
    zero in on one area where I think we will wrap up after this.
        Mr. Fattah. That is correct. And I have one ten-second
    area.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        Mr. Fattah. Do you want me to go first?
        Mr. Culberson. Go ahead, sure.
        Mr. Fattah. As we discussed when we met, I am very
    interested in working with you to pursue the neurotechnology
    sector as an industry. I am going to be in Israel next week, in
    Tel Aviv, at the BrainTech Israel Conference. But there is a
    growing industry internationally, but America leads, and we
    should continue to focus on how to develop these businesses
    focused on brain related health issues. And I look forward to
    an opportunity as you indicated for us to put together some of
    the industry representatives with you to talk about what we can
    do as a country to work in this space. All right? Thank you
    very much.
        Secretary Pritzker. I look forward to that.

                          NTIA'S ROLE IN THE INTERNET

        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Chaka. I want to ask about the
    Internet. The National Telecommunication and Information
    Administration has contracted with the Internet Corporation for
    Assigned Names and Numbers since as I recall almost the
    beginning of the Internet when the Defense Department first ran
    it, but it has always been controlled by the United States.
    This is an American owned company. And the administration
    recently came out with a proposal to shift that over to a
    global multi-stakeholder model. What would be the role of
    foreign governments and international organizations like the
    United Nations in the new planned model?
        Secretary Pritzker. Mr. Chairman, the goal of this is not
    to be a government run effort, this is meant to be a multi-
    stakeholder effort. And just let me step back for a minute. Our
    role, NTIA's role, has been one of stewardship. We are
    committed to a free and open Internet. And what we have done is
    set up. I met in fact this week with the head of ICANN. We laid
    down a set of criteria that are absolutely essential to be met
    before we would give up our stewardship role at this point. One
    is it has got to be a reliable multi-stakeholder model that is
    not government-led. It has got to be able to do its function of
    providing a secure, stable, and resilient Internet domain name
    process. It has got to be able to service its customers. It has
    got to be able to support an open and free Internet. So we are
    waiting now for their proposal back as to how they would do
    that and also how they would assure that governments are not
    going to highjack the Internet.
        Mr. Culberson. But a multi, when you say multi-stakeholder,
    that includes either foreign companies or foreign governments'
    involvement either directly or indirectly?
        Secretary Pritzker. Multi-stakeholder is just what it
    sounds like. It is a broad group of constituents in the
    Internet world but it is not meant----
        Mr. Culberson. International?
        Secretary Pritzker. Yes, it is international.
        Mr. Culberson. International, that is what I was concerned
    about.
        Secretary Pritzker. Right.
        Mr. Culberson. Because the Chinese, of course, are
    aggressively censoring the Internet. I am strongly opposed to
    this FCC regulation that just came out, I am deeply concerned
    that this regulation that the FCC has just come out with is
    going to put the government in a position to regulate the
    Internet like a utility and the Internet has thrived because it
    is free and unregulated. What role would countries like China
    have, or companies owned and operated within China have in the
    administration of the Internet under this proposal?
        Secretary Pritzker. So Mr. Chairman, that is what we are
    waiting for a proposal to understand is----
        Mr. Culberson. From?
        Secretary Pritzker. From ICANN. Our role is in the IANA
    transition. IANA is the domain name process. We supervise that
    process. ICANN actually runs that process today and we have a
    supervisory contract with them. And what we are suggesting is
    that we would ultimately let that contract expire, unless the
    criteria that we have set up are put in place. And we are
    waiting for ICANN, which is who does the role now, to give us a
    proposal that would satisfy us that the Internet cannot be
    hijacked by foreign countries or foreign companies, and that
    the Internet remains free and open.
        Mr. Culberson. I just want to make sure I understood. The
    proposal you have asked them to come forward with--you have
    asked them to come up with a proposal that involves foreign-
    owned companies?
        Secretary Pritzker. There will be foreign players, yes.
    There will also be domestic players involved.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay. Thank you. That is what I wanted to
    establish. I will have additional questions I know for the
    record. If, of course, Mr. Fattah, you have additional
    questions?
        Mr. Fattah. No. But I do think on this Internet matter,
    just so we can get some clarity at some point, we should just
    do a meeting and have a briefing----
        Secretary Pritzker. Happy to----
        Mr. Culberson. Good idea.
        Mr. Fattah [continuing]. So that all of us can understand
    exactly what is going on. Because I think----
        Secretary Pritzker. I would be delighted to have the
    opportunity----
        Mr. Fattah. Right. So that we can----
        Mr. Culberson. There is a lot of concern.
        Mr. Fattah. Right. Yes.
        Secretary Pritzker [continuing]. To bring myself and my
    experts here and we go through it in detail.
        Mr. Fattah. But the chairman's offices will arrange it. But
    we will----
        Mr. Culberson. Sure, we will set it up.
        Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Just have a meeting, not a
    hearing, and get to the details.
        Mr. Culberson. Because there is a lot of concern. Our
    constituents, Judge, I know yours are as well concerned about
    this.
        Secretary Pritzker. Chairman, I share your concern. So this
    is not something that we are going to let happen, whereas I
    said there is not going to be a hostile takeover of the
    Internet.
        Mr. Culberson. Well I assure you, Congress will help make
    sure that does not happen too.
        Secretary Pritzker. Good. Thank you.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much for your time and your
    service to the country, and the hearing is adjourned.

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                             Wednesday, March 18, 2015.

                NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

                                    WITNESS

    KATHRYN SULLIVAN, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
        ADMINISTRATION
        Mr. Culberson. The House Appropriations Committee for
    Commerce, Justice, and Science will come to order.
        And I want to welcome everyone to this morning's hearing
    with Dr. Kathy Sullivan, the Under Secretary of Commerce for
    Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator.
        We deeply appreciate your service to the country, Dr.
    Sullivan. We look forward to hearing from you and asking
    questions about your budget for the coming year.
        And we have a particularly difficult budget year
    recognizing the immense importance of the work that NOAA does
    from weather forecasting to ocean research. We want to make
    sure we get our weather satellite system, and make sure there
    are no gaps in coverage there, of course.
        But it is an extremely difficult budget year and we are, as
    good stewards of our taxpayers' hard-earned tax dollars, going
    to have to be sure we are limiting our investments to our top
    priorities, while recognizing that you have asked for about a
    ten percent increase above the current fiscal year.
        In your budget request for 2016, you are asking for $5.9
    billion, an increase of about $540 million dollars. We will
    certainly do our best to be sure that top priorities of NOAA
    are funded, but, I want to make sure it is clear for the record
    with every one of our other witnesses, that we are facing a
    very difficult budget environment and many of the assumptions
    that the President makes in his budget are not going to happen
    such as tax increases and fee increases, et cetera. These are
    just simply not realistic.
        But we will, of course, do everything we can to protect the
    important work that NOAA is doing. Weather forecasting is so
    vital, and the work that you are doing in ocean mapping and
    exploration is absolutely essential. And we will do our very
    best to protect you.
        The work that we do has always been bipartisan in nature.
    This subcommittee's devotion and support for the sciences and
    scientific research, space exploration, weather forecasting,
    and law enforcement is a long tradition of the subcommittee.
        It has been a privilege for me to be a part of it since I
    first got on the Appropriations Committee and particularly to
    succeed my mentor and dear good friend, Frank Wolf, who we all
    have great memories of and I do my best every day that I have
    got this job to live up to the high standard Frank Wolf set.
        It is a privilege to have you with us here today. And I
    would like to recognize my good friend, Mr. Fattah, for any
    opening statement he would like to make.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Fattah. I want to thank the chairman for hosting you
    and this hearing is an important part of our decision-making
    process. So I want to say a number of things.
        One is that you have a distinction, you know, in terms of
    not just your service at NOAA but as one of the first women
    astronauts and walking in space, so you are an important
    example of the impact science can have in the life of our
    Nation.
        NOAA is a critically important agency and I have been over
    to visit at the National Weather Service. I got a chance to
    keynote or talk at the conference that was held on severe
    weather events. We have a lot going on not just in terms of
    your normal work but the challenges related to weather and the
    historic high in terms of severe weather events.
        The work that NOAA has done to make advancements in weather
    forecasting has helped save lives and protect property
    throughout the country, and also it is critically important for
    navigating our waters for commerce and for troop deployments.
    We need information through NOAA. And the work of the
    Administration to create an ocean policy, I think, has been
    very important.
        I was at their coastal zone conference in Chicago a few
    years back where I got a chance to speak, but more importantly
    to learn about the important efforts of NOAA all the way to and
    including the Guard Club of America and their tremendous
    support. They were just here on The Hill a few weeks ago
    talking to Members and making it abundantly clear these 11,000
    volunteers, how important your work is.
        So I want to welcome you. Look forward to your testimony.
        And I thank the chairman. And, again, I apologize for being
    a couple minutes late. But I was with Tom Cole and he said he
    would give me a slip if I needed one. But we were trying to
    conclude work on Labor HHS. So thank you, Chair.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
        Mr. Fattah. All right.
        Mr. Culberson. That is impressive.
        Mr. Fattah. Well, conclude today's activities, yes.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Sullivan, it is a pleasure to have you here with us and
    we will without objection submit your full statement for the
    record in its entirety, and welcome your summarization of your
    testimony. And we are pleased to have you here today and would
    recognize you for your presentation to the subcommittee. Thank
    you, ma'am.
        Ms. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fattah, and
    Members of the subcommittee. I am quite pleased to be here
    today and talk about NOAA's fiscal year 2016 budget request.
        I would agree with both the chairman and the ranking
    member's assessment that NOAA is one of the most valuable
    service agencies in the United States Government. Through our
    observations, our forecasts, and assessments, we strive to
    provide the foresight and information that people need to live
    wisely and well on this dynamic planet. At NOAA, we call this
    information environmental intelligence and producing it is at
    the core of our mission.
        Americans from our citizens to our military to our
    businesses rely upon this environmental intelligence and the
    services that NOAA provides every single day from forecasting
    extreme weather events to providing data that help ensure safe
    navigation, sustaining and promoting economically viable
    fisheries, and protecting endangered species.
        We leverage our capabilities across all of the different
    scientific disciplines involved to support the Nation in
    preparedness, response, and recovery.
        Our fiscal year 2016 budget builds on the foundation that
    was established with the support of this committee and the
    Congress. It sustains our efforts to put critical information
    into the hands of the public. Each of the increases in our
    request is a carefully chosen targeted investment in an area
    that is most vital for NOAA to meet the growing demand we hear
    from the public. I would like to touch briefly on the four main
    priority areas of our request.
        First, this request invests in observational infrastructure
    improvements that are needed to effectively execute NOAA's
    diverse mission portfolio and protect public safety and welfare
    now and into the future. To ensure the continuity of our at sea
    data collection capability, one of the most important requests
    in our budget is funding for the construction of an ocean
    survey vessel that is capable of advanced oceanographic
    research in coastal and deep ocean areas.
        NOAA's current fleet will decline from the current 16
    vessels to just eight by 2028 without continued investment. We
    will continue to partner as we do now robustly with the private
    sector to meet our ship time needs, but a combination of
    contracts, partnerships, and a robust NOAA fleet is clearly a
    must if we are to continue to provide the critical reliable
    data that businesses and the American people depend upon.
        NOAA must also ensure the continuity of satellite
    operations to provide the National Weather Service with the
    data needed for forecasts that protect lives and property. The
    fiscal year 2016 budget initiates development of a Polar
    follow-on satellite system that will reduce the potential for
    gap in these critical observing systems and enhance our ability
    to provide timely and accurate weather forecasts now and into
    the future.
        Second, this budget proposes to equip communities to face
    increasingly frequent natural disasters and confront the long-
    term adverse environmental changes that are seen. 2014 was the
    warmest year on record with eight weather and climate
    disasters, each of which had losses totaling $1 billion. Each
    of these events causes widespread damage and devastates
    families, businesses, and communities.
        This budget invests in the services and information to
    support the communities' own efforts to assess their risks and
    minimize their losses in advance and in the aftermath of such
    events.
        For example, it invests in actionable coastal intelligence
    tools such as water level data for improved storm surge
    predictions and nautical charts. It spurs important research to
    help farmers and coastal communities prepare for and mitigate
    drought and flooding and it will strengthen and expand the U.S.
    seafood industry by tapping into a $100 billion aquacultural
    global market for which this country currently only makes up a
    one percent share.
        Third, this budget makes investments to ensure that America
    has a National Weather Service that is second to none. Weather
    and climate impact approximately one-third of our Nation's GDP.
    It can cost billions of dollars and claim thousands of lives
    per year.
        NOAA continues its commitment to build a weather ready
    Nation and provide citizens with the most timely, accurate, and
    well-communicated forecast information.
        Specifically this budget invests in several targeted areas
    needed to improve weather service capability and service
    delivery to meet key user needs. This includes improving the
    geographic accuracy for hazardous weather and improving the
    prediction of precipitation and temperature outlooks for the
    three to four-week range, a time frame that is essential for
    emergency managers to prepare for and mitigate these extreme
    events.
        And, finally, this budget aims to improve our agency's core
    operations. Every day NOAA employees strive to execute our
    mission with discipline and consistency and timeliness.
    However, we cannot perform our core functions at the highest
    level when our support services cannot keep pace with the
    growing demand.
        And in recent years, our support functions have fallen
    drastically behind. This threatens our ability to recruit,
    retain, and reward the best talent possible and to ensure our
    customers receive the best service possible. It compromises our
    ability to engage with the private sector and academia and to
    provide you with the quality and timeliness of accountability
    reporting that you rightly expect.
        Our fiscal year 2016 request for corporate services is
    smaller but similar to what we requested in fiscal year 2015
    and will focus on improving corporate service functions, in
    particular in our workforce and acquisition and grants arena.
        Overall, NOAA's fiscal year 2016 budget request reflects
    the commitment of Secretary Pritzker that she and I have made
    to the President to growing a strong economy that is built to
    last while being fiscally responsible and focusing on priority
    initiatives.
        I am proud to serve with this vital component of the United
    States Government helping to maximize United States
    competitiveness, enable economic growth, foster science and
    technological leadership, and promote environmental
    stewardship.
        I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and
    Members of this committee as well as partners and our
    constituents to achieve the goals that I have articulated
    through the implementation of this budget. And I thank you for
    this opportunity to make a comment.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Dr. Sullivan. We appreciate your
    testimony and your leadership of the agency.
        And as a father of a daughter who is keenly interested in
    the sciences, I would, if I could, just like to open by asking
    you to tell the committee and anyone out there listening,
    particularly young girls who are thinking about going into the
    sciences, what led you to major in geology and go on to join
    NASA. Tell us what led you into the sciences, what inspired
    you, and talk to us a little about any barriers that you
    encountered as a woman, if any, and what you did to overcome
    those.
        Ms. Sullivan. Well, it is very kind of you to inquire, Mr.
    Chairman. I was driven from a very young age by a strong
    curiosity, basically a strong geographic curiosity about
    virtually every aspect of geography, landscapes, climate,
    critters, peoples, cultures.
        And, frankly, if you poked me as a little girl and asked me
    what my dream was, it was to figure out how someone bought me
    airline tickets so I could actually get to go to all these
    exotic places and learn firsthand about those phenomena and
    those people and those places.
        I first began thinking I would parlay a strength I have in
    foreign languages into a career like that and so actually chose
    my college as a language and linguistics major.
        Mr. Culberson. What was your focus and what language?
        Ms. Sullivan. I was already fluent in French and German and
    I wanted to go into Russian. And happily that college had the
    wisdom to require me as an arts and language major to take
    three science courses which I thought was a terrible idea at
    the time.
        They won and I discovered geology and oceanography and saw
    in the lives and the work of my young professors, all of whom
    were male, but I admired their curiosity. I admired their spunk
    getting out into the field. They invited us into the passion
    that they felt for understanding this planet and how it works
    and for turning that information, the scientific data into
    information that could really help people live better.
        Mr. Culberson. Dr. Robert Ballard's specialty is geology.
        Ms. Sullivan. Well, and young Dr. Robert Ballard and I went
    to sea together in 1974 on the cruise that began his arc of
    fame. He was at that time a very wet-behind-the-ears post-doc
    who was, frankly, doing all the grunt work for the big names
    who were aboard----
        Mr. Culberson. Right.
        Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. The cruise. I was even more
    junior to Bob, so I got to do the even grimier grunt work, but
    that was quite a remarkable voyage in its own right. And it was
    those sorts of experiences, the chance to live overseas in
    Norway for a year for my junior year that reshifted my focus
    towards geology and oceanography, towards the North Atlantic in
    particular which is why I studied in Canada.
        Barriers to overcome, I was blessed to have parents that
    inoculated me through their confidence and their composure that
    any interest their child has is an interest that is valid for
    that youngster to pursue. And the peanut gallery does not get
    to edit those choices, but also strong enough to tell me, you
    know, you have got to work hard at the things you care about.
    Mastery is an important thing unless you just want to make it
    your hobby.
        And so that gave me, I think, some ability to proceed on an
    ignorance is bliss basis. If my work was good, I just managed
    to largely ignore people who thought it was odd that I should
    be doing this.
        You know, it is challenging and you certainly can meet a
    boss or a mentor or supervisor who more actively tries to hold
    you back. I was fortunate to not meet any really malicious
    people who aimed to hold me back, but there were plenty who
    challenged me hard.
        And I think it is fair to say that those of us women in the
    early days of oceanography and geology and the astronaut corps,
    I think we certainly had to reach to a higher level to be
    accredited as basically capable. You know, that is not a bad
    thing. It does make you stronger.
        Mr. Culberson. It does indeed make you stronger and it is a
    great story. And I saw that you were on the mission that
    deployed the Hubble Space Telescope which continues to--
        Ms. Sullivan. The 25th anniversary this coming month.
        Mr. Culberson. Yeah. Continues to give tremendous benefits
    to all of humanity.
        And the Space Program in particular, I know it is a vital
    part of the work that you do at NOAA and we are, all of us on
    the committee, concerned. We want to make sure there is as
    little a gap as possible in our coverage of satellites.
        There was some early problems with the management of the
    Polar weather satellite. We have, all of us on the committee,
    we reviewed the inspector general's report who points out the
    potential gap in data between the current on-orbit Polar
    weather satellite, the NPP, should it fail or if there is a
    launch failure for the next Polar satellite.
        Congress included $111 million in Hurricane Sandy
    supplemental to address this gap and the overall lack of
    program robustness. So we essentially fully funded NOAA's
    weather satellite procurement request for the last several
    years.
        What distinct actions has NOAA taken to address the
    potential gap and what is your best estimate on the length of
    the gap that might occur and what could we do, if anything, to
    move up the launch of the JPSS-1?
        Ms. Sullivan. Thanks for that question.
        We have done a number of things. One is, really along with
    our partners at NASA, we looked carefully at how we are
    managing the current primary satellite, the NPP satellite,
    making sure that we are working well within margins, we are not
    over-straining systems, doing everything we possibly can within
    the operations of that satellite itself to up the likelihood
    that it will last to and beyond its design life.
        That is all going to be statistics. You can make a guess.
    Mr. Fattah can make a guess. Mrs. Herrera Beutler can make a
    guess. And a micrometeorite could hit it tomorrow or----
        Mr. Culberson. Right.
        Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. It could run for a long time. So
    we are doing that. We are doing everything we can to extend the
    life of NPP.
        We scrubbed the JPSS-1 procurement schedule very
    assiduously again with our NASA colleagues and our vendors. We
    have pulled that to the left as far as it is technically
    possible to do. The big constraint there are the long lead
    parts and the intricacy of assembling the primary instruments
    that make the key vertical profiles of the atmosphere. There is
    just only so much that our vendors tell us they can compress
    that given the realities of their supply chains.
        Thirdly, you will recall we mounted an array of activities
    with, in particular, the Sandy supplemental funds aimed at
    inoculating ourselves in every other way we could against a
    loss of data. So factors that feed into that are improvements
    in our operational super-computing capacity at the Weather
    Service, improvements in what is called data assimilation, the
    mathematics by which you pull the data into the system. That
    actually can play a significant role in the skill, the final
    result of a model.
        We have been doing some assessments of whether short-fill
    temporary data sources, how might they make up for a loss of
    JPSS satellite from purchasing more aircraft data. We buy data
    from commercial suppliers of measurements from airplanes, for
    example.
        The key contributor there is the COSMIC radio occultation
    system. There is a COSMIC version 1 in orbit now but well past
    its design life and our focus on securing all 12 of the COSMIC-
    2 sensors goes very directly to the notion that they can play a
    significant role should we lose Polar satellite data.
        Mr. Culberson. What is your best estimate today of the
    potential gap and when is your best estimate on when you can
    launch and what, if anything, can we do to help speed that up?
        Ms. Sullivan. JPSS-1 has been meeting every budget and
    schedule target consistently for the last 24 months. The
    program has retired those management risks that were a problem
    in the 2009, 2010, 2011 time frame. Our GAO colleagues concur
    in that assessment. It is now a stable and well-managed
    program. It is on track to launch in the very beginning of
    calendar 2017.
        I would have to pick a random number, Mr. Culberson. You
    would have to decide what probability of a failure do you want
    me to calculate the number on. And you can get a range from 12
    to 14----
        Mr. Culberson. Your best personal estimate.
        Ms. Sullivan. Depending how you cull the statistics, you
    could say it is a 12 to 14 or 18 month. And there are more
    cautious or worried people who would say, oh, it could be 36 or
    48 months. It entirely depends on what----
        Mr. Culberson. Sure.
        Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. Probability. If you want to tell
    me I want a 90 percent probability or 80 or 40 or a 30, that
    gap length will vary significantly. So it is a pretty random
    exercise to try to pick a gap length.
        Mr. Culberson. It sounds like from your answer there is not
    much we could do to speed that up. The supply chain, your
    vendors tell you there is only so much they can do. Not much
    then this subcommittee could to do to help you speed up or make
    that launch date any earlier than early 2017?
        Ms. Sullivan. We have turned over every rock and we have
    asked them point blank if we could provide an additional slug
    of money, can we change this. And they tell us they cannot.
    They do not have the wherewithal to stand up----
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. Separate parallel lines. The
    important thing to do in our view is to move out with this
    budget and establish the Polar follow-on program because it is
    that. It is breaking out of this one-at-a-time procurement
    cycle and moving towards a more economically effective multiple
    satellite purchase that will prevent us from kicking this gap
    further down the road and having the same problem at JPSS-2 and
    ever thereafter.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
        Mr. Fattah.
        Mr. Fattah. I think it was Dr. Harris, Bernard Harris who
    wrote the book Dream Walker, and it talks about walking in
    space. And he said that when you are out there and you are
    facing earth, it is warmer. And when you are facing away, it is
    colder.
        I hope you know it is warm in here. When you are here, we
    want to help you do what you want to do and what you need to do
    on behalf of the country.
        And the work of NOAA, this satellite gap that the chairman
    raised, as we know, because the committee looked at this early
    on, this was set in place well before your tenure, well before
    this Administration came into being. But it is a problem that
    we have to help solve.
        And as you say that the best-case scenario is for the life
    of the existing satellite to move as well as it can within the
    probabilities of some type of failure, catastrophic or
    otherwise, until the new satellite can launch, but in terms of
    going forward in terms of not being--I guess there are two
    sides of this.
        One is the satellite repair, you know, the need for
    funding, and we funded this in NASA, some effort to start to
    look at how we can extend lives of existing satellites, because
    we got a lot of satellites floating around out there.
        But also your point is correctly taken which is that one of
    the things the committee can do even as we look at this in the
    rearview mirror, this gap that none of us had anything to do
    with, is to make sure that we do not repeat the same mistake
    and that we forward fund and take the necessary steps to make
    sure that--because these satellites are critical to our
    weather.
        And as I understand when we talk about severe weather
    events, these billion dollar plus events, our ability to
    project where these incidents are going to take place has
    improved dramatically and, therefore, our warning systems in
    terms of moving people, we have saved lives and also because we
    know more about what is going to happen, we are in just a much
    better position. So it is a worthwhile investment.
        And I know that the committee did some work in terms of
    tsunami warning systems and maybe you could talk to us about
    where we are with the investments that we have made there and
    whether there is any additional work we need to do in that
    trade space.
        Ms. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
        We have made great strides forward in weather forecast
    capability. Earlier this year, we were able to step up the
    operational super-computing capacity times three and sharpen
    the resolution of our models from 13 kilometers to three
    kilometers.
        You know, if you are Craig Fugate or a county emergency
    manager, that boils down to now being able to give you a
    projection of where the key severe weather and storms are going
    to be that is down to the street and block level, not to just
    the city level. Tremendous step forward.
        On tsunamis, what we have been able to do most recently----
        Mr. Fattah. I would love the chairman to hear this.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. I am sorry. That is me.
        Mr. Fattah. It is okay.
        It is important that you just make sure you get this so the
    chairman can hear.
        Ms. Sullivan. Thank you.
        I had commented we have stepped our operational super-
    computing capacity----
        Mr. Culberson. Up three times.
        Ms. Sullivan. Up three times and that is what our model
    was, resolution, get down to storm scale, so we are pinpointing
    a storm in a neighborhood, not roughly a storm somewhere over
    your city. That is a tremendous improvement for emergency
    management folks.
        Mr. Culberson. And the resolution has probably gotten
    better, too, because you are able to use----
        Ms. Sullivan. From 13 kilometers to three kilometers, but
    that is about the computer power that lets us put a finer grid
    cell into the model. That has been a huge step forward.
        That model when we ran it in parallel with the derecho a
    couple of years ago, we had a ten-hour warning on the derecho
    which is what led us to get the emergency management----
        Mr. Culberson. How do you pronounce it?
        Ms. Sullivan. Derecho.
        Mr. Culberson. Interesting. Okay.
        Ms. Sullivan. Mrs. Herrera Beutler will correct my
    pronunciation if I am off.
        Mr. Culberson. Well, as a linguist, you know, I figured----
        Ms. Sullivan. Well, yeah.
        Mr. Culberson. You got it right.
        Ms. Sullivan. With respect to tsunami warnings, one of our
    key concerns there had been the buoy. We have buoys on the deep
    sea floor of the Pacific and Indian and Atlantic oceans that
    measure the tsunami when the tsunami is about a half an inch
    high in the middle of the ocean. This sensor on the sea floor
    15,000 feet below can detect it and help us triangulate where
    it is going and how it is going to develop.
        And they are far away out in the middle of the ocean and
    they are in deep water. It takes very specially equipped ships
    to be able to service them. And their in-service rate had
    fallen off because of declines in ship time due largely to the
    fuel price increases. We have been able to get that tsunami
    buoy network back up to its 80 percent operational target, so--
    --
        Mr. Culberson. On the west coast?
        Ms. Sullivan. Throughout the entire system.
        Mr. Culberson. Eighty percent?
        Ms. Sullivan. Yeah, 80 percent. So, you know, that has been
    a real success. And we have both our Anchorage and our Hawaii
    forecast centers that model the whole globe. You have to model
    the whole globe to do tsunami forecasting, the entire global
    ocean. That can be done anywhere. We do it in Anchorage and we
    do it in Hawaii.
        The Hawaii center is linked to the International Tsunami
    Warning Center so that our international partners like the
    Indonesians or the Indians, the Malaysians collaborate and they
    take the warnings and propagate them through their emergency
    system to protect their citizens.
        Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Jolly.
        Mr. Jolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I apologize. I am going to bore you with Snapper.
        Dr. Sullivan, thank you.
        Mr. Culberson. We are interested in Snapper in Texas as
    well.
        Mr. Jolly. Thank you for being here.
        I am going to be very honest. I need your help, your
    leadership on the Snapper issue. The past several years have
    been incredibly controversial and it is going to get so much
    more controversial tomorrow with the publication of the new
    rule.
        I understand that balancing the fish stock, balancing the
    accountability of commercial for hire and recreational. Some
    Members choose to go all in with one sector. I do not. The
    first thing I did when I got elected was I put together a
    council in my district which includes NMFS, NOAA, and other
    agencies, as you know, of all three sectors to try to figure
    out where the sectors could actually agree we needed
    improvement.
        And the one area hands down every single sector agrees on
    is data. Nobody believes the data. Nobody believes the data.
    Magnuson requires the use of best science in determination
    closures. We have seen Snapper go from 75 days to nine days and
    I am pretty sure after tomorrow's rule publication will go to
    six days, but nobody believes the data behind the rules.
        And so as these rules are published and create such
    controversy, it is the underlying data behind that that if we
    can improve the data collection and we can meet the
    requirements of Magnuson, if you can then justify those
    closures and the stakeholders believe the data, okay, that is
    fine. But there is such suspicion about the data that it
    creates the controversy behind the rules.
        And so my question for you is on your view of how we are
    achieving best science, how are you achieving best science
    ahead of any rule decisions determining closures to comply with
    Magnuson?
        Mr. Culberson. And could you talk about the rule itself
    that they are going to publish tomorrow?
        Mr. Jolly. So tomorrow's rule, well, perhaps if you want to
    explain the rule, it essentially is going to reduce, you are
    going to create a buffer zone to reduce the quota number or
    data number on what you allow for days by 20 percent to ensure
    there is no overage. So essentially you are taking what had
    been a hundred percent pool and reducing it to 80 to determine
    closures which is part of the concern of recreational.
        Mr. Culberson. And based on what data which is a really
    important question also when it comes to----
        Mr. Jolly. Sure.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Weather data for global
    warming.
        Mr. Jolly. And I will also share, and it is an
    acknowledgment of the challenge you face, it is easy to get
    compliance and accountability from commercial because of the
    way it is regulated. It is slightly easier with for-hire,
    recreational it is very difficult to determine their
    accountability. The challenge it creates, though, is in musical
    chairs when the music stops, recreational are the last people
    standing and they have no ability for redress.
        So how are you complying with Magnuson's requirement of
    best science?
        Ms. Sullivan. It is a complex issue and a complex question,
    but as you note, it is a very important one and a very
    challenging one in particular in the Gulf. Just as a backdrop,
    although it is counterintuitive, part of what we are dealing
    with here is a cognitive dissonance that comes from the success
    that actually has been achieved in the Gulf in actually
    rebuilding the stock. There are more snapper and they are
    larger and they are being seen now in places where they have
    not been seen for decades. And all of that is thanks to the
    discipline and the self-sacrifice of constituents, including
    the recreational fisher----
        Mr. Jolly. If I may, though, that creates a circular
    argument. And I have had this conversation, because if you
    declare the success of the past management plan because now we
    have more snapper than ever, why are the days going down?
        Ms. Sullivan. Well, yes. So there is where the apparent
    inconsistency comes in. And the catch limits for snapper are
    set on weight and so, when you get bigger fish, fewer fish
    total up to that weight sooner. And that has had this sort of
    ironic and counterintuitive consequence of shortening the
    number of days, because the weight quota is met faster with the
    bigger fish. I completely sympathize with the sort of clash
    that creates for your folks down in the Gulf.
        Mr. Culberson. And in Texas. I am keenly interested in this
    question. So do not be constrained, Mr. Jolly, by that----
        Mr. Jolly. I have got a solution for you----
        Mr. Culberson. Yes.
        Mr. Jolly. Okay.
        Ms. Sullivan. I know it goes all across around the Gulf
    states.
        Mr. Culberson. And you are going to hear about salmon from
    the West Coast.
        Ms. Sullivan. I suspected that might be the case.
        With respect to data, and our Southeast region is actually
    a good example of this, we have completely open data calls.
    Anybody, any party can bring data, and it is everyone
    adjudicates and debates which data meet the quality standards
    that the council has agreed must be met for anybody's data to
    be accepted. If one of my guys brings a study in that does not
    meet those standards, it does not get included in the data that
    will go into the assessment.
        So we do use outside data, we rely on it quite a lot.
        Mr. Jolly. Well, you make the call for data, but I can tell
    you those who try to participate feel as though they really do
    not have a seat at the table, that it is not considered.
        Mr. Culberson. Is the whole process transparent and is the
    data out there for independent verification?
        Ms. Sullivan. It is, yes.
        Mr. Jolly. So let me ask you a question and I realize the
    time is up.
        Mr. Culberson. This is important.
        Mr. Jolly. Let me ask you your opinion on a model that has
    come out of my council. And understand, the council includes
    all sectors. We have had representatives from your agency, from
    NMFS, from state regulators sit at the table as well with us to
    brainstorm on things. Staying out of the controversy of days
    and catch shares, if the issue is data, that everybody agrees
    on, everybody is suspicious of, they feel like they do not have
    a seat at the table, they can submit proposals, they get
    rejected, how about this model.
        The agency currently has cooperative research institutes.
    What if under the jurisdiction of NMFS, so within the
    jurisdiction and control of your agency, there was a
    cooperative research institute that existed with personnel, as
    well as funding to let out competitively awarded, peer-reviewed
    research contracts? So that rather than making the decision
    when the data is presented, you are actually making the
    decision on proposals submitted by third-party data collectors.
    It could be major research universities, it could be commercial
    fishermen who have a GPS, iPhone data system that works, it
    could be recreational. One, it would bring them to the table.
    It would be their opportunity to participate and, if they chose
    not to, well, then shame on them.
        But to have a cooperative research institute under Mr.
    Crabtree's jurisdiction to let out competitive contracts to
    research universities, recreational angler groups, commercial,
    and others that met peer-reviewed processes, let out the
    contracts. That information then is owned by NMFS and we know
    has to then be incorporated, because they have approved the
    manner in which it is being collected. Would that be a way to
    satisfy the----
        Ms. Sullivan. We do fund, we do fund. And I know Mr.
    Crabtree, I can get the statistics for you and give you a more
    detailed briefing. That is the purpose of NMFS's cooperative
    research. We do not have to establish and pay the overhead of
    having an institute per se, because the cooperative research
    budget lines that we have within NMFS are intended to do
    exactly that. I would be happy to get the detailed data on how
    much cooperative research is being done associated with snapper
    across the Gulf.
        Whoever does that cooperative research and whoever collects
    those data on the back end, the data have to pass a peer review
    to be accepted. So, I mean, my guys could go out and do a bad
    job on a cruise too. We do not want their data going in----
        Mr. Jolly. Sure.
        Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. Un-quality checked.
        Mr. Culberson. So you like Mr. Jolly's proposal?
        Ms. Sullivan. I would prefer to not put extra overhead
    expenses in this setting up an institute per se with all the
    administrivia that might come along with that.
        Mr. Culberson. But you like his idea?
        Ms. Sullivan. But I would like to bring back the data on
    what cooperative research is actually currently being done with
    respect to snapper in the Gulf. I do not know those figures, I
    do not know the dollar values or the participants.
        Mr. Jolly. And being incorporated into the closure
    decisions.
        Ms. Sullivan. It is certainly worth looking at.
        Mr. Jolly. Because----
        Ms. Sullivan. That is exactly the----
        Mr. Jolly. Because here is the other thing I think we would
    accomplish with that. We would eliminate the suspicion by the
    sector participants, particularly recreational, who believe
    today--and I know you know this, but I live it--they do not
    believe that they have a seat at the table. They believe they
    see more fish than they have ever seen before, and they see a
    constant reduction annually of the days they are allowed to
    fish and it does not make sense. And the more people I hear
    from the agency who say our plan is working, again, then I ask
    the question, are you declaring success? Because if you are
    declaring success, then tomorrow's rule is not necessary.
        And so there are more fish than ever and yet our
    recreational guys--and listen, this means something in
    communities on quality of life of course, but it also means
    things for our economy. This is a very fragile economic model
    and it is destructive to the quality of life to coastal
    communities.
        And so I started by saying I need your help and I mean that
    to set a tone that I am not beating up on the agency, but I am
    telling you what is being implemented right now is broken. And
    I have tried to find a solution that is--we have gotten to this
    cooperative research institute idea. And I will be honest, I
    appreciate that you have said there is cooperative research
    going on. From this committee's perspective and from compliance
    with Magnuson, unless you can demonstrate the teeth behind that
    and our ability to provide accountability and oversight of the
    third-party data that is including everybody, I still would
    want to push for something that establishes a cooperative
    research institute that we know is accountable.
        So, Dr. Sullivan, I appreciate very much your willingness
    to engage in this conversation.
        Ms. Sullivan. Very much willing to follow up with you, Mr.
    Jolly.
        Mr. Jolly. Thank you.
        Mr. Culberson. And I would like to offer, maybe we can sit
    down together and have a follow-up meeting on this, because it
    is a keen interest to me as well and in Texas. And Washington
    State and the west coast have got similar concerns that are
    maybe not identical, but they have also got some real serious
    concerns about fisheries, because it is so important to their
    economy as well. So I will indulge you guys next.
        Mr. Fattah. Well, there are a few fishermen and women in
    the New England area too. I know there is a lot of interest in
    these catch share things.
        Mr. Culberson. Right, that is right.
        Mr. Fattah. So we would be glad to participate.
        Mr. Culberson. In fact, water quality has improved so much
    around the Gulf Coast. We are seeing porpoises and improvements
    in stocks in areas, like you said, we have not seen them
    before.
        Data collection is so vital, to make sure the data is
    accurate. I cannot find in your submitted statement, I heard
    you say that this is the warmest year on record. Where is that
    and what are you referring to?
        Ms. Sullivan. Those are the global atmospheric
    temperatures.
        Mr. Culberson. Is that in your summary--I cannot figure out
    where it is--is that something that you added?
        Ms. Sullivan. I would have to page through my written
    testimony, that was in my oral statements.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay. The data has to be accurate. I mean,
    that is the most important thing. As long as we have got good
    data, that is something we can all work with. And I think that
    is one of the biggest concerns, whether it be with the climate
    or with fisheries or with anything else that we do. Whether it
    comes to the National Science Foundation, NASA, or NOAA, we
    just need good data to make good decisions. We have got to be
    certain the data is accurate.
        So I concur completely. And we ran a little over, but that
    is okay. And when it comes to salmon and the west coast, you
    guys can do the same thing. So Mr. Kilmer.
        Mr. Fattah. Well, the issue there is whether you are going
    with the natural hatcheries or--and you have got a lot going on
    up there in Washington State.
        Mr. Culberson. Right. Thank you.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Dr.
    Sullivan.
        I do want to talk about salmon, but I want to start on
    coastal resiliency issues. I represent a district with a whole
    ton of coastline and, as a consequence, we are challenged by
    everything from storms to tsunamis to you name it. And in fact
    I have got three tribes in our district that are in the process
    of trying to move to higher ground because of persistent
    challenges.
        In fiscal year 2015, NOAA received an additional $5 million
    to expand its regional coastal resilience grants programs. And
    I just want to get a sense of, one, do you have a sense of when
    the details of that funding opportunity are going to be made
    public? And to what extent will the state coastal zone
    management programs be engaged as part of that effort?
        And then in addition, it seems like a lot of the funding is
    primarily targeted at capacity building and planning. Are we
    doing enough to actually provide resources on the ground to
    these communities, you know, that currently lack the capacity
    to actually address if there is going to be a massive storm or
    a tsunami or whatnot?
        And then I will just also throw in while I am asking you
    questions, how do you see that work being done through this
    proposal complementing the existing resiliency work being done
    by the Integrated Ocean Observing System and the Sea Grant
    Programs?
        Ms. Sullivan. Thank you for those questions.
        Mr. Kilmer. You bet.
        Ms. Sullivan. I do not have the exact date at my fingertips
    of when we will have that FFO out. I know it is in final
    stages, so I do expect it very shortly. And the regional ocean
    partnerships, the coastal zone programs, all I think could be
    competitive under the terms that I think will be the final
    terms of it. But it is soon and we will be happy to get back to
    you when we have got the exact date on that.
        Your next question was about the capacity and, you know, I
    have really seen that vividly as I have traveled around. I was
    in Hoboken on the second anniversary of Sandy, talking with the
    mayor there about what are they doing, how are they trying to
    get up on the curve of the kind of challenges they have there
    where they can get flooded from every side and up through the
    ground.
        I have been down in New Orleans and met with that city's
    mayor and resilience manager. And just a couple weeks ago
    stopped by New York to talk with both the Bloomberg and the
    Rockefeller foundations that are also trying to move some of
    their financial capacity and expertise out to do just what you
    say. To help communities build the capacity within their
    municipal governments to do smarter planning, to be more aware
    of the vulnerabilities they have, to have the kind of
    information tools, which again start with data and start with
    sound maps.
        And key to those maps along the coastal zones are of course
    the coastal bathymetry, a solid and accurate bathymetry, water
    level data, the kind of data that NOAA provides from our
    coastal intelligence arena.
        The scale of the need is huge and I cannot begin to say
    that we are doing enough yet to really meet what we hear and
    see from communities as demand within NOAA. Our budget request
    this year has a couple of asks in it that reflect that. A
    couple million dollars to provide an AmeriCorps kind of service
    capacity out in the field to get out to those communities and
    help them begin to start up their own efforts. An expansion of
    the regional coastal resilience grants from five, which was
    barely enough to begin taking the lessons learned and practices
    from the Sandy area out beyond New York, New Jersey, to 45. And
    uses we would intend with these funds are right on the points
    that we heard loud and clear from the state and local and
    tribal leaders who came together in the President's task force
    in the wake of Sandy.
        The whole Federal family wanted to be sure that we were not
    talking to ourselves about what the needs are and what the real
    gaps in their capability are, but we actually heard from them
    about what do you most need from the Federal Government to help
    you. And when it comes to NOAA, what they most need are the
    kind of environmental intelligence data that we provide that
    have very simple first-order tools that are sort of their
    starting set tools, and that bit of technical support that lets
    them begin to develop the fluency and the competency they need
    to take those tools and go forward and plan and work within
    their community.
        Mr. Kilmer. I want to make sure to ask about some of the
    salmon recovery efforts and I know Ms. Herrera Beutler will
    also be chiming in on this.
        I wanted to raise two concerns, one about the $3 million
    cut to the salmon management activities account and the
    targeted Mitchell Act hatcheries in particular. I think if you
    talk to folks on the ground in our neck of the woods they would
    disagree with the assessment that that level of funding would
    enable to meet NOAA's obligation. And I do not understand and
    perhaps you can speak to it, how do we actually improve our
    hatcheries and ensure species recovery when we are moving
    backwards in terms of funding?
        And then in addition, when Secretary Pritzker spoke in
    front of the committee, I asked her about the ongoing
    challenges facing our hatcheries, which need approved Hatchery
    Genetic Management Plans, HGMPs, to ensure compliance under the
    Endangered Species Act. And she said that they were increasing
    staff from two to six. And I certainly appreciate that, but we
    have got a backlog of a hundred HGMPs that have been submitted
    for review and approval. We have already seen some hatcheries
    that are operating without sufficient HGMPs be subject to
    litigation and even get shut down. And that affects our tribes
    and it affects the recovery efforts and it affects our
    fisheries.
        So how long does it take to review and approve one
    individual HGMP and is there any estimate to how long it is
    going to take with six staff to complete this backlog?
        Ms. Sullivan. We do really appreciate this question and we
    very much understand your concerns about the Mitchell Act
    hatcheries. They are a mainstay of salmon and tribal treaty
    rights in the Columbia River, and we appreciate the points you
    are making about the economy. We have requested level funding
    for these hatcheries for many years and we do believe that that
    level of funding meets our basic obligations.
        We appreciate the data on the ground. Folks see more need
    and more interest. But I assure you we are committed to working
    closely with your partners on the ground, but the level that we
    request we are confident does satisfy our basic obligations.
        With respect to the genetic plans, we are going to increase
    our staff and redirect resources to go from two to six. My
    understanding is that that should let us clear 40 genetic
    plans, so we could get through that backlog within a couple of
    years. But it is part of a larger picture. If you look at our
    endangered species consultation, our genetic management plan
    consultations, our essential fish habitat consultations, the
    fact of the matter is that our staff levels are very woefully
    shy of what it would take to really move any of those forward
    in a timely fashion.
        On our Southeast region, for example, we have a total of 15
    staff that are facing a backlog of 550 permanent actions on
    which we are responsible for endangered species and fish
    habitat consultation. That is a tremendous strain and a morale
    drain on my team, which I care about. But more importantly,
    that makes those permits an impediment to viable and valid
    economic activity in that region.
        And so that is why you will see in this budget request a
    request for increased consultative capacity, because we are
    trying to get ourselves out of precisely these backlog holes
    that you are referring to.
        Mr. Kilmer. It is a really big deal.
        Ms. Sullivan. It is a big deal.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. I recognize the young lady from Washington
    State.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. You know, I was going to start with
    sea lions, but I will kind of piggyback off of the Mitchell
    Act, because I have asked about HGMPs as well. And you talked
    about level funding, but NOAA requests a decrease of $3 million
    in the salmon management activities account and those
    reductions target Mitchell Act hatcheries. So that is not level
    funding, that is a reduction. And even under level funding, we
    know that the number of fish released is decreasing as costs
    escalate. Moreover, the funding is needed to ensure these
    hatcheries are maintained.
        Just this last week, an estimated 200,000 coho salmon fry
    died in my district at the Kalama Falls Hatchery in Cowlitz
    County after a generator pump failed. And I am not sure of the
    age of the pump, but it is very reflective of deferred
    maintenance action and aging infrastructure on our Mitchell Act
    facilities due to funding shortfalls. So 200,000 coho fry is a
    big deal.
        And despite all this, you know, I have asked this question,
    I think the gentleman from Washington has also asked this
    question. NOAA states in their budget document they are able to
    meet their obligation for operation and maintenance, and that
    their obligation will be fulfilled with regard to hatcheries. I
    am really hoping this is not the beginning, but the reason we
    raise it is we are very, very concerned. I would expect you to
    ask for an increase if that is the biggest issue, but instead
    you are asking for a decrease.
        Ms. Sullivan. Well, I think if you look at the President's
    budget request over the years those, my understanding is, have
    been level at the level we are asking for this year. I think
    the Congress has supplemented that from year to year. But I
    would be happy to go back and look at that figure and look at
    the trends and get you the detailed information.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. Well, I mean, we have put obviously
    more money into some of the salmon recovery activities. Even
    before I was on the subcommittee, just on the full committee,
    we worked really hard with the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery
    Fund and were able to restore funding there. But we need it to
    be your priority as well, I guess.
        Switching over, I wanted to show--this is what I got the
    Chairman in trouble for--I was trying to show him something
    that I would love to show everyone. We can pass it around,
    there is only a couple of us, but I wanted to make sure you saw
    it.
        Those are sea lions and seals. That is the mouth of the
    Columbia River on February 15th. This goes to my ports up and
    down the Columbia. Between just the mouth and the Port of
    Portland, so that obviously does not go all the way inland,
    there are an estimated 7,000 sea lions and seals, and they are
    gorging on our salmon that we spend a lot of money, time and
    heartache trying to protect because it is important to us. Any
    kind of dock they will sit on.
        A couple years ago there was about six or seven of them
    that had died and it was when--and I am going to lead into
    this--the immediate assumption in the paper was that someone
    had like, you know, passionate tribesmen or recreational
    fishers had killed them. What later we found out was they
    engorged themselves and they died.
        Mr. Culberson. Overate.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. Yeah, on salmon. I do not know if you
    have ever fished in the Columbia River, but it is really
    discouraging to commercial, recreational fishers when you get
    one on the line and only the head comes up. Or you see
    prehistoric sturgeon lying along the banks with one bite taken
    out of the middle.
        I mean, it is a real problem, which is why I introduced the
    Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act. And
    it allows for an increased take, lethal removal of some of
    these animals. At most, it would be 92 a year. You are looking
    at about 7,000. So we are not in any way going to harm the
    population.
        But I guess I wanted to know if NOAA has a prediction on
    how big these populations have grown? Have you determined the
    size of the population on the Columbia River system and what it
    could support? And is there an adequate sea lion population
    size?
        Ms. Sullivan. I do not have those detailed figures at my
    fingertips, Mrs. Herrera Beutler. The broad trend is clear and
    your images show it very graphically of a tremendous recovery
    over the past three decades. I would be happy to go double
    check with our NMFS folks and get a briefing brought up to you,
    bring it myself, if you would like, on exactly what the
    population numbers are and if they have got an equilibrium
    population estimate based on what we see happening with the
    ocean conditions off the northwest coast.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. I would be happy to have that. What I
    am most interested in, so part of the reason we had to
    introduce this bill, is right now the agencies do have the
    authority to lethally remove some of these animals and we do
    not feel like it is happening quickly enough. The tribes agree,
    the commercial and recreational fishers agree, the community
    agrees, and even a lot of conservationists agree that we are
    losing an endangered population because of what seems like an
    in-historic or un-historic population of sea lions, that we
    need your help.
        Mr. Culberson. So in people's memory, they have never seen
    this many sea lions before.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. No. And we used to get amazing salmon
    runs. Our efforts, our recovery efforts are working. We are
    seeing record runs of all different types. That is why we want
    to continue the hatchery programs, it is all working. The spill
    we do over the dams, the mitigation, it is working. But now we
    have attracted these animals from California and they just sit
    there and gorge. It is a real problem.
        Mr. Culberson. Why are they washing up on beaches in
    California starving to death?
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. Well, I don't know. They are talking
    to each other, apparently, and they are saying, hey, the
    Pacific Northwest is an entree for endangered salmon, come have
    your fill. Yeah.
        So with that, I do look forward to your help on this. This
    is something that is not going to go away.
        Ms. Sullivan. I am glad to do that.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you.
        Mr. Culberson. Mrs. Roby.
        Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
    here today.
        As you know, all regions of our country, from blizzards in
    the Midwest to earthquakes on the west coast and hurricanes in
    the southern and eastern United States, our country has to be
    mindful and prepared for when weather-related disasters do
    unfortunately occur. And without forecasts and models and up-
    to-date predictions on the timing and strength of these natural
    disasters, Americans would be completely caught off guard. So I
    want to thank you for all you do for our nation's citizens, for
    the safety and infrastructure and natural landscapes.
        Hurricanes and all that are packed along with them, high
    winds, possible flooding, the usual spinoff, tornadoes are one
    of the most severe weather-related disasters that my
    constituents in Alabama's Second Congressional District have to
    be mindful of during the summer and fall months. So if you can
    share with me the results and major findings of the first
    successful launch of the unmanned aircraft system directly into
    the eye of the hurricane last year, if you could talk about
    that a little bit.
        And then my follow-up question to that is, do you feel that
    this should be repeated? And, if so, does the budget--do you
    request money to do so in this year's budget?
        So if you could just talk about that a little bit and how
    it has had a positive impact.
        Ms. Sullivan. Thank you for that question, Mrs. Roby.
        Data from actual measurements of the conditions inside a
    hurricane are very critical to the accuracy of track
    forecasting. And on a research front, as you know very well, we
    have had much better success scientifically improving track
    forecasts over the last couple decades. The error cones are
    much narrower now than they were 20 years ago.
        Getting the intensity right and getting shifts in
    intensity, jumps in intensity, has been a much more challenging
    problem. The science has not cracked that nut yet. Data
    measurements inside active storms are key to both of those.
    That is why we operate the two P-3 aircraft that we do that
    have tail Doppler radar and other instruments that can fly at
    various levels right through the heart of the storm at
    different points in time to characterize it.
        The experiment we did with the--I have just lost the name
    of the little vehicle--anyway, the small unmanned aircraft that
    we deployed out of a sonobuoy tube. Its wings pop out and it
    navigated itself down through the storm. So a sonobuoy we
    dropped out before just plummets, basically, right straight
    down through. What we were interested in with this device is it
    has some capability to navigate and actually fly around, not
    just fall straight through, and how might that help us better
    characterize the lower couple of thousand feet of the storm.
        Our P-3s do not fly below, I think it is 3,000 feet, it
    might be 4, but for obvious safety reasons there is an altitude
    they stay at or above. And the lowest level of the storm, where
    you have got all the friction with the ocean and the picking up
    of the moisture, the transfer of energy from the ocean to the
    hurricane, that is clearly a pretty critical part of the storm
    and it is impossible to sample it.
        We have done two experiments in the last couple years. One
    is we took a self-propelled ocean glider, which we are also
    experimenting with, the kind of unmanned systems we are doing
    small-scale pilots with to see how they might help improve our
    mission. And two seasons ago we had one of them move in sort of
    a picket line underneath a storm, so we could get some
    measurements as the storm went over it. They move really slow,
    you have got to put them out or put enough of them out that the
    storm goes over some of them. So that is a bit of a logistics
    challenge. In this case, dropping this little device through
    and letting it fly around a bit, it survived down to the sea
    surface, it did get us some very low-level winds.
        And that is the snapshot summary that I have. I would be
    happy to get our research teams to come up and give you some
    more information on that, if you would like.
        First experiments can be intriguing. We of course need to
    do a couple more runs and then we could really understand how
    many of these would it take to make a meaningful data
    contribution. What do the prices and the operations really come
    up to all in cost? Does it prove to be cost efficient or not?
    So I would say right now both the ocean glider and the small
    UAV are in the tantalizing--not even yet in the promising
    stage, but in the tantalizing stage. And we will continue to
    work on a pilot scale through the next hurricane season or so.
        Mrs. Roby. Okay. And just real quick, I see the yellow
    light. Shifting gears to tornadoes, which also is something
    that we deal with quite frequently in Alabama every year and
    have unfortunately had some pretty devastating tornadoes in
    recent history that we have lost a lot of life. So it is a big
    deal. And in the last year's appropriation bill you were
    provided with funding to collaborate with the National Science
    Foundation and it said, quote, `` to initiate a project to
    understand how environmental factors that are characteristic of
    the southeastern United States affect the formation, intensity
    and storm path of tornadoes in the region.''
        In this year's budget request, my understanding is that you
    have asked to terminate this and it is Vortex Southeast
    Project. And I can take it for the record, but I just want to
    know more specifics about did that project ever really begin
    and why are you terminating it, and what assurances can you
    provide this committee that you guys are going to continue to
    really study tornadoes in the southeast part of our country.
        Ms. Sullivan. Let me commit to come back up and give you a
    full briefing on that and the whole array of things that we are
    doing centered on tornado forecasting. I assure you, it remains
    a front-and-center focus of ours given the hazards and the loss
    of life that you have reflected.
        Mrs. Roby. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I went over. I yield back.
        Mr. Culberson. You only went over a little bit, thank you,
    that is fine. I want to ask a little bit about the Polar
    Satellite Follow-On because you have requested $380 million in
    new funding for this. And the out year budgets for this program
    are substantial, growing to nearly $600 million in two years.
    If you could describe for us what the funding would buy in
    terms of risk reduction, robustness for the Joint Polar
    Satellite System, and then the, earlier you mentioned
    efficiencies, I believe, in acquiring systems simultaneously.
    Talk to us a little bit more about that, if you could?
        Ms. Sullivan. Certainly. As you may recall we had an
    independent review team come by about a year and a half ago
    now, Tom Young and Tom Warman, real established experts in
    large satellite procurement, and do a very rigorous assessment
    of the Joint Polar Satellite System. They had been tracking it
    as it came out of the NPOESS era and they wire brushed us
    really properly, but also thoroughly, over the fact that we
    were buying these systems in about as dumb a way as you
    possibly could. You would buy one, you would do all the design
    and engineering, you would get all the supply chain spun up,
    produce one, and say thank you very much and let that all decay
    back. And then a few years later you go, oh, I meant I needed
    another one. And you would incur all of those expenses again.
    And it is exactly the wrong way to buy any large complex
    system, but certainly satellites.
        They also worked with us to better understand how we needed
    to wrap our head around not just the gap, but the robustness
    that is what gets you out of having a gap.
        Mr. Culberson. So NOAA is actually designing and building
    the spacecraft, overseeing the design and construction of the
    spacecraft?
        Ms. Sullivan. NOAA holds the observing requirements and the
    budget authority for the spacecraft and we work hand in glove
    with NASA to actually do the development and execution of the
    design. There is no need to duplicate the satellite acquisition
    expertise that NASA has. So we rely on them as the acquisition
    agent.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay. So NASA is actually the lead on this?
        Ms. Sullivan. NOAA is the lead; NASA is our acquisition
    partner.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        Ms. Sullivan. So the Polar Follow-On, we looked at the
    JPSS-1 and -2 program, which is the current program of record
    as established. We looked at the timing that we had managed to
    set for that based on our gap mitigation efforts and scrubbing
    that all to the left. And then we looked at the existing
    spacecraft, the structure that you are going to bolt the
    instruments onto, and the instrument contracts and said how
    much, how quickly could we get to robustness? Robustness means
    the satellite system we depend upon for our weather forecasts
    can tolerate one failure and still support weather forecasting
    and you could restore its capacity within about a year. That is
    the typical space architecture definition of robustness. And
    your greatest risk of losing that is when you are launching a
    satellite because that is the highest risk moment in the life
    of a satellite. So a robust architecture has the next satellite
    in sequence ready right close to a launch date----
        Mr. Culberson. Sure.
        Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. To cover that big risk. You do
    not actually launch it right then, you launch it when you are
    getting towards the outer edge of the age. But you separate
    your production cadence from your launch cadence. And the PFO
    program is the best path we could craft to move to that kind of
    an approach. Number one, it establishes congressional
    authorization for satellites beyond the JPSS-2 satellite. And
    if you look at the lead time it takes to build our instruments,
    if we do not start right about now on those next two spacecraft
    we will be repeating the prospect of a big gap----
        Mr. Culberson. Right.
        Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. As we are looking at now.
        Mr. Culberson. I want to dive into this more with you in
    separate meetings----
        Ms. Sullivan. Okay.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Because I understand you are
    working hand in glove with NASA but I want to understand more
    about how that process works. Because it seems to me logically
    you ought to just let NASA build the spacecraft for you and
    NOAA obviously be the customer and provide funding. But NASA--
    --
        Ms. Sullivan. And that----
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Does a pretty good, NASA does a
    pretty good job.
        Ms. Sullivan. They do a very good job. In this particular
    mission, Mr. Chairman, where there is such tight integration
    from the satellite specifics to the actual model input and the
    model architecture, that vertical alignment of responsibility
    and the ability to look end to end, from engineering decisions
    you might make on the satellite to implications for a very
    large and complex national modeling architecture on which the
    weather forecast accuracy critically depends, that, that end to
    end mission alignment in this case makes very, very good sense.
        Mr. Culberson. What is the Earth Observing Nanosatellite-
    Microwave instrument, and is that critical to weather
    forecasting? It, is obviously brand new, does that introduce
    any unnecessary risk? And what process did you go through to
    determine it was an appropriate investment?
        Ms. Sullivan. That EON-Microwave plays a couple of roles.
    It opens a pathway at fairly low expense towards what could be
    a smaller, lighter, less expensive microwave sounder. The two
    instruments that the weather forecast system depends on
    critically, both are called sounders. They make profiles of
    temperature and moisture in the atmosphere, they just work in
    different portions of the spectrum. The microwave one is the
    all weather workhorse. So this conceivably could take the
    microwave sounder of today and make it much smaller and more
    complex. It comes out of Lincoln Laboratories and our systems
    engineering folks consulting with NASA and other partners as we
    were scouting the horizon for what might be new architectures
    we should be thinking of for down the road, noted that,
    evaluated it highly. So it gets us two things. If it proves
    out, it could be an avenue towards less expensive, good,
    competent microwave sounders. And secondly, it is on a time
    path with Lincoln Labs that it could also play a significant
    role as a gap mitigating effort in its own right. We are
    talking with NASA about co-investing in that because it is an
    interesting observing technology from their point of view as
    well.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Mr. Fattah.
        Mr. Fattah. To go closer to your own work, in part, earlier
    in your career, one of the budget items is something around
    $150 million for a new vessel. Can you talk to us about the
    import of this and what it would be used for?
        Ms. Sullivan. It is a very high priority for us this year.
    NOAA currently has a fleet of 16 ships. In oceanographic ships
    you can easily think of them as basically small, medium, and
    large based on how close to shore and how long offshore their
    mission requires them to stay. So if you are going out in the
    middle of the Pacific Ocean to work on those tsunami buoys, you
    need a fairly large vessel with a big deck and heavy winches,
    and the ability to stay out at sea a long time. If you are
    doing coastal nearshore fisheries work, you can work with a
    much smaller vessel. We spent a good amount of effort these
    last couple of years looking very critically at the age of our
    current fleet. Vessels at sea have to be certified to operate
    under various maritime rating authorities or they have to be
    retired. We have laid up seven, I think it is seven ships since
    about 2003. So we are losing ship capacity now.
        When we stack up the observations, the scientific observing
    requirements that all of our different missions drive, we
    already do not have a fleet anywhere near substantial enough to
    meet those which is why we rely so much on charter and other
    partners. But the important point is as we looked downstream
    and said where are we going to be down the road, given the time
    it takes to procure a ship? We, half of our current ships will
    have aged out and be offline, laid up, or tied up alongside, or
    turned into razor blades by 2028. That is not very far down the
    road. And the group that is going to age out first is our mid-
    to ocean-class vessels because they are the oldest in the line.
    So that is what drives the timing of this ask, is to prevent
    that erosion of the fleet in the 2028 time frame. This class of
    ship is driven and our request is driven by where we are going
    to have the gap first.
        And the other factor involved here is we propose to use an
    existing Navy design. And NAVSEA, the procurement arm for Navy
    ships, has a production line for this class of vessel still
    open. If we can seize this opportunity now we can save the
    taxpayers something on the order of $10 million, actually
    probably a higher number because if you delay and have to
    refresh the design and rehire the folks and restart the
    production line, that number probably goes higher than ten by
    the time you are all done. So again, as, you know, as with our
    space systems, we are not DARPA, we are not the cutting edge
    systems guys. We don't try to be the first movers on big
    cutting edge systems. We try to parlay into existing
    acquisitions and systems and programs in the interest of cost
    efficiency whenever we can.
        Mr. Fattah. One other question. The other budget item is a
    $3 million increase, this is a partnership in part with Brazil
    and the Air Force on a radio oscillation weather satellite.
        Ms. Sullivan. COSMIC, radio occultation, in Taiwan.
        Mr. Fattah. Yes, COSMIC-2, yes. Yes, I am sorry.
        Ms. Sullivan. That is all right. There is an existing U.S.-
    Taiwan partnership that has a set of sensors in orbit now
    called COSMIC-1. And this is actually a very clever technique
    that was developed that observed that as GPS satellites send
    all their time signals back and forth to each other, the signal
    bends a little bit on its path from satellite to satellite
    based on the physical properties of the atmosphere. And you get
    some smarter scientists and clever mathematicians together and
    they figured out how to extract from that bending angle
    information about moisture and temperature in the atmosphere,
    essentially a sounding. This sounding method cannot penetrate
    all the levels of the atmosphere that our normal sounders do,
    it cannot fully replace true vertical soundings. But it does
    provide a helpful correction. It has improved the quality of
    the forecast by stripping out biases in the other data. It
    ranks very highly when you stack up all the different kinds of
    data that contribute to the accuracy of weather forecasts. It
    is in the, it is in the top, certainly in the top ten.
        So we are requesting $3 million to continue with COSMIC-2.
    The current system is beyond its design life. It has proven its
    value. We would like to replace that system with COSMIC-2 and
    continue to retrieve those sounders.
        Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, let me just put on the record
    that you provide a lot of services but you do not, unlike some
    of our economic competitors we do not charge for these
    services, weather services, other information that's provided
    to the private sector, companies like AccuWeather, and to
    benefit you know all of our T.V. stations and others benefit
    from this service that is provided through the National Weather
    Service. And you also provide navigation information to, for
    navigation of the seas, and so on. Do you, in terms of the work
    that you do, there is a lot of benefit to the American, to
    American enterprise. If you could just spend a minute just
    talking about how NOAA has an impact on our economy? I guess is
    the way I would phrase it, generally.
        Ms. Sullivan. Thank you for that opportunity, Mr. Fattah.
    Yes, the model here is one that considers the, let me called it
    the foundational data, I mean, vertical profiles of the
    atmosphere, fundamental measurements of the ocean bottom, to
    treat those foundational data as public goods. And so anybody,
    a college student, a kid with a cool idea for an app,
    AccuWeather, The Weather Company, anybody can get at those data
    without any barrier to entry and capitalize on them as they see
    fit. So the data become a tremendously powerful open innovation
    platform. You are well aware of the scale of the private sector
    weather enterprise, because with this model by design NOAA
    stops at the foundational data. We do not try to be the spiffy
    guys that read the news, read the weather to you on T.V., or
    compete with the private sector for apps and advanced
    analytics. So, you know, The Weather Company when it was sold
    to GE went for about $4 billion, Climate Corporation, which is
    based on public good USDA and NOAA data, when it sold to
    Monsanto was sold for $1 billion. Our electronic chart data
    when I was at NOAA as the Chief Scientist, we printed the
    charts on gigantic printing presses in the basement of the main
    Commerce Building. Nowadays we just send the data raw from the
    ship, quality control, and then out to third party companies
    that do the, they package it into an electronic chart display,
    if you are going out to sea. They, all of your Garmin systems,
    if you are using offshore nav, they are using the NOAA data or
    they will publish you the chart book if you prefer to have the
    hard copy or want to have the backup. So the notion of, the
    notion of foundational data about the planet as public goods,
    that make sure that public safety never becomes a fee for
    service proposition but is always a fundamental assurance of
    government, and that serve as this really vibrant, open-ended--
    --
        Mr. Fattah. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am not arguing that we
    change it. I just wanted to make sure that we make the point,
    that it is different from, say, you know, Germany, or other
    countries, where this information is sold.
        Ms. Sullivan. Or where the government service takes roles
    that the private sector here takes.
        Mr. Fattah. Right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. Very quick question, Mr. Jolly.
        Mr. Jolly. No real additional questions, other than I
    recalled sitting here an invitation, a letter I sent to you
    last year extending an invitation for the research vessel Nancy
    Foster to at least temporarily port down at St. Petersburg Bay.
    We have a cluster there, a marine science research cluster
    there from USF Marine Sciences to NMFS, to Fish and Wildlife,
    to the U.S. Coast Guard Stanford Research Institute. It is a
    center of excellence in marine and weather science research and
    they would welcome with open arms at least a temporary port of
    call from the Nancy Foster if you were to find interest or an
    ability to do so.
        Ms. Sullivan. One of the joys of my life is how popular my
    ships are.
        Mr. Jolly. I bet. I bet.
        Ms. Sullivan. In communities around the shoreline. But I do
    know that welcome mat is out, and it is a very, very impressive
    cluster of expertise.
        Mr. Jolly. Very good. I appreciate it. Thank you.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Why not contract out more of this
    work? I am not a big traveler. One of the few trips I have ever
    taken has been out to go see Dr. Ballard, on the Nautilus. They
    do extraordinary work.
        Ms. Sullivan. They do.
        Mr. Culberson. And the private sector is, I think the
    universities around the country would leap at the chance if
    NOAA was a customer and was offering to, I know Texas A&M, for
    example, has a wonderful oceanographic research vessel. Why not
    contract out more of this work, rather than invest in
    purchasing new ships which can be tremendously expensive and
    costly to maintain? When, I am just a big believer in the
    yellow pages test.
        Ms. Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. If you can find a service in the yellow
    pages that the government does, we should contract it out as
    much as we possibly can to provide better service at a better
    price for the taxpayers.
        Ms. Sullivan. We currently contract out 50 percent of our
    charting, and about 50 percent of our fisheries research. I can
    get you the precise figures. And even about a third of our
    Tower A Deep Sea, which is the, you know, the oddest one
    because there, I have looked at the yellow pages, not a whole
    lot of listings for guys that want to go out to 15,000 foot of
    water and haul up buoys. So we, those are the roughly current
    percentages in those sectors now, and as I am sure you know our
    ocean exploration program co-funds Dr. Ballard's vessel. When--
    --
        Mr. Culberson. With great success, very----
        Ms. Sullivan. With great success. And when we put the
    evaluation together that led us to bring the ocean survey
    vessel request forward to you here, we did that side by side
    with the NSF folks who fund the ships and support the ships
    such as the ones at A&M and with the Coast Guard to make sure
    that we were not asking for an asset or a capacity that already
    is out there.
        The reality is if you look at, if you look at the National
    Science Foundation's proposal pressure, the scientific demands
    for ocean going research that they face as well as the
    scientific demands that we face, those combined far exceed
    their ships plus our ships plus everything else. So the demand
    remains much larger than either the federal civilian
    oceanographic fleet or the NOAA fleet or both of them
    combined----
        Mr. Culberson. Well, the existing fleet. I just wondered
    whether you have, because I had the same question of NSF. Years
    ago I remember the Bush administration tried to transfer the
    responsibility for building and maintaining the ships that go
    to the Antarctic to the National Science Foundation from the
    Coast Guard. NSF has got enough on their plate. So I fought
    hard to get that out of NSF. So I had the same question of the
    NSF.
        Ms. Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. If the money was out there and you were
    proposing to do this, have you ever looked at, looking forward,
    encouraging the private sector if there is a pot of money out
    there, we are willing to be a customer, there is X amount of
    money available. Have you seen any interest from the private
    sector or universities to----
        Ms. Sullivan. Well we have seen it in those areas where we
    have a good constant need, because that is a stable enough
    demand function----
        Mr. Culberson. Right.
        Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. That they can look at it. And
    that is why we are up to 50 percent, slightly north of 50
    percent, on both our mapping and charting and our, and our
    fisheries research vessels.
        Mr. Culberson. And the buoy, the maintenance of the tsunami
    detection system, you said you are up to about 80 percent, and
    that is with NOAA vessels?
        Ms. Sullivan. That is the in service, the data availability
    is at 80 percent. The TOGA TAO buoys that give us the El Nino
    seasonal outlooks, we do about a third of that maintenance work
    with private sector vessels. We do, I do not know the
    percentage but I could check into it for you, we have made
    international partnerships with other nations that benefit from
    the tsunami network to draw them into servicing buoys that are
    closer to their waters so that we are not bearing the cost of
    those long transits.
        Mr. Culberson. I will follow up with you on that. But I
    will also be following up on you, I am very concerned about the
    report that came out in November that hackers from Communist
    China had breached the computer systems at NOAA and essentially
    the report was in AP that four of your Web sites were
    compromised by an internet source, attacked. And my
    predecessor, Chairman Wolf, discovered that the attack
    originated in China and came only a couple of days after the
    Communist Chinese had also hacked into the U.S. Postal Service
    computers and, U.S. Postal Service's computers and compromised
    information from some of its customers and employees. How long
    was NOAA's system down? I understood they actually took over
    control of some of NOAA's weather satellites. And could you
    talk to us a little bit more about what happened?
        Ms. Sullivan. They certainly did not take over control of
    our weather satellites. I do not know where that misinformation
    may have come from.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        Ms. Sullivan. They did compromise some of our Web sites and
    it took us several days, I would have to get you the details
    and we will bring you a full briefing on that.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        Ms. Sullivan. Some of the information is sensitive because
    of threat information and things like that but----
        Mr. Culberson. We will sit down and visit about it. I know
    Mr. Fattah is concerned about this, we all are concerned about
    it as well.
        Ms. Sullivan. We will be happy to bring you a report on
    that.
        Mr. Culberson. And I also want to visit with you about the
    report that, let us see, when is this? This is Inspector
    General Report 1425A that talks about the risks posed by the
    inconsistent implementation of mobile device protections
    increases the likelihood of malware infection. I want to go
    through some of that with you as well.
        Ms. Sullivan. Sure.
        Mr. Culberson. Because cyber is so important, and it is of
    keen interest not just to NOAA but obviously throughout the
    federal government. And it continues to look like the Chinese
    have been particularly bad actors in this area and we want to
    make sure that we are doing all we can to help protect you.
        Ms. Sullivan. It is a dynamic and challenging threat
    environment and we would be happy to visit with you further on
    that. It is a priority of mine, as it is of the Secretary's and
    the President's.
        Mr. Culberson. I deeply appreciate your service to the
    country. I will also be following up with you on making sure
    that the data is accurate in terms of making sure--where, I
    still cannot find in your testimony where you said this is the
    warmest year on record. Warmest year on record where?
        Ms. Sullivan. It was in my oral statement and we can get
    you those statistics. The global----
        Mr. Culberson. I mean----
        Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. The global atmospheric average.
        Mr. Culberson. It was the warmest year on record throughout
    the entire planet, or in the United States, or where?
        Ms. Sullivan. Average across the globe----
        Mr. Culberson. Average across the globe.
        Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. Atmospheric temperature.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay. I am keenly interested in following up
    with that because as Mr. Jolly pointed out we just want to make
    sure we get accurate data. And I was alarmed to see that there
    was, there has been in a lot of documentation that estimates,
    that weather data has been estimated or extrapolated and
    averaged up. I just want to make sure we have got accurate data
    to make good decisions. I do appreciate your service to the
    country and we look forward to following up with you on these
    and other matters, and we will submit any additional questions
    for the record. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. And the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.

         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                              Wednesday, March 4, 2015.

                 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

                                    WITNESS

    CHARLES F. BOLDEN, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
        ADMINISTRATION

                           Chairman's Opening Remarks

        Mr. Culberson. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Justice, and Science will come to order.
        Before we begin, I wonder if I could take a moment, General
    Bolden, to recognize and thank Mike Ringler who has been our
    chief clerk on the committee for many, many years and a Rock of
    Gibraltar for all of us.
        It has been a real privilege, Mike, for us to work with
    you, for me to work with you. You have taught us all so much
    and we are going to miss you. And you have served the country
    and this committee so well. We are really genuinely going to
    miss you and I wish you all the best.
        Thank you for everything you have done for the country and
    the Congress and this committee. I really mean it. Thank you.
    Thank you. We are going to miss you.
        Mr. Fattah. And if the chairman would yield----
        Mr. Culberson. Yes.
        Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Let me also add that it has been
    an absolute pleasure to work with you and we have gotten a lot
    done together and helped a great many people. So thank you and
    we wish you well. I understand you found a perfect place in a
    perfect state to pursue further career activities. Thank you.
        Mr. Culberson. Back to Pennsylvania as soon as he could.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, I also want to add my words.
        Mike, you have been a real gentleman and fair, and to me,
    that word is very, very important, fair, balanced. Unlike a TV
    station, you have really been balanced. And I appreciate that
    and I wish you all the best. And, you know, we keep losing good
    people and other people keep gaining good people. And so good
    luck, and am I supposed to say go Yankees or that upsets you?
        Mr. Ringler. Go Pirates.
        Mr. Serrano. Okay. Congratulations.
        Mr. Ringler. Thanks very much.
        Mr. Culberson. Today is also significant because it is Bob
    Bonner's 20th, I believe, anniversary of helping with the
    minority staff.
        Mr. Fattah. Congratulations.
        Mr. Culberson. And it is a real tribute to both of you
    guys.
        Mr. Serrano. And I think it is important that you singled
    him out also because he is going to have a long suffering
    season with the Phillies, so, you know, it is going to be very
    painful for Bob.
        Mr. Culberson. Well, we have always had a bipartisan bill
    and tremendous cooperation and support on the committee. It is
    a tribute to both of you guys and the great work that you have
    done, but also it is a real privilege for us all to work
    together on such noble, good causes as NASA and law enforcement
    and scientific research and keeping the United States at the
    cutting edge. It is something all of us on this subcommittee
    share a passion for and you guys have been essential to its
    success and we really appreciate it.
        In fact, when I was asked to serve on the Appropriations
    Committee back in December of 2002 going into my second term, I
    was at a dinner with Tom DeLay who was my neighbor to the
    south. He was becoming majority leader. He said I will give up
    my seat on appropriations if you will take it.
        And I was reluctant. I do not like to spend money if I can
    avoid it. I said unless it is science or NASA or National
    Defense, the answer is probably no. And he said you are hired.
    It has been a great assignment. I asked to serve on this
    subcommittee so that I could be here to help the National
    Science Foundation and NASA.
        So it is a genuine privilege and something I want to, you
    know, thank the people in my district in Texas and the Members
    of this committee. It is just a privilege to be here to serve
    as chairman, to follow in Frank Wolf's footsteps who has done
    so much for so many years to help NASA and the scientific
    community.
        Frank was a real mentor to me and it is an extraordinary
    privilege for me to serve as chairman and to have you here
    today, General Bolden. You are a true American hero, great
    inspiration I know to a lot of young people all over the
    country. You are a role model for young people I know all over
    the country.
        We all admire you immensely. Just deeply appreciate your
    service to the country and the marine corps, as an astronaut
    and the administrator for NASA. We admire you immensely, sir,
    and it is just a real privilege for me to be here today, for
    all of us to be here to help you achieve your mission of making
    sure the United States maintains its leadership in the world as
    the best space program, manned and unmanned on the planet.
        The President's budget is asking for $18.5 billion for NASA
    which is an increase of $519 million above the current fiscal
    year. And we have a very difficult budget environment, as you
    know, sir, but there is strong support of this subcommittee for
    your mission.
        We want to make sure that you have the resources you need
    and the freedom that you need and support to do what is on your
    plate. You have got a lot on your plate and never seem to have
    enough resources. It is an ongoing problem.
        In this particularly difficult budget environment, we have
    also got to make sure we are fully funding the FBI, the other
    Federal law enforcement programs. We have got, of course, the
    Department of Commerce, the National Science Foundation, NIST,
    and adequately funding all of these programs and others within
    this budget environment is going to be very, very challenging.
        We do not yet know how the House budget is going to shape
    up, but we can feel pretty confident that the President's
    budget recommendation is one that we are simply not going to be
    able to achieve because it assumes a lot of tax increases which
    certainly are not going to happen.
        But I know from my work on this subcommittee that you are
    going to find all of us arm in arm in making sure that NASA
    gets the support that you need, sir, to do your job.
        We will be using the timer today to make sure, if we could,
    that everyone is recognized in a timely fashion. And I would be
    privileged at this time to recognize my good friend, Chaka
    Fattah, for any comments he would like to make.

                         Ranking Member Opening Remarks

        Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the
    administrator.
        The chairman is absolutely correct about the inspiration
    you provide. I know you made a visit to Philadelphia to
    Overbrook High School which graduated one of your great
    astronauts, Guion Bluford, and you spoke with the students
    there and, you know, I am sure even to this day is an
    inspiration to all there in the Overbrook community.
        Now, I was just out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, my
    second visit. I was there a while back with you when the Mars
    rover landed after eight and a half months of travel. We were
    on the control room floor and there was such a celebration
    because it showed again that the premier entity in the world in
    terms of space exploration and flight is NASA and to land the
    rover there.
        And I got a chance to see in my last visit two weeks ago or
    so, you know, some of the work that is still being done on a
    daily basis at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. And I know that
    NASA's most valuable control assets are in Texas, but you do
    have a little operation in Florida and in California.
        So I did get a chance to visit with your national
    headquarters staff here also and I have learned so much about
    what is going on. And there have been some miscues, I think, in
    some notion when we retired the shuttle fleet that somehow
    America was out of the business of leading in space. The truth
    is that we still lead in space.
        And you have some active missions that are going on right
    now and I would hope that as part of your testimony, you could
    just share a minute or two about what NASA is doing right now
    in space because as we deal with the numbers, sometimes we lose
    a sense of what this is really all about and our exploration of
    space, our development of space.
        And yesterday I got a chance to spend some time with the
    Commercial Spaceflight Federation for their board meeting and
    their dinner last night. So I know you had another celebration
    of very significant import into the work that you have been
    engaged in.
        So we welcome you to the committee. We want to hear about
    your proposed budget and we want to work with you. And the
    chairman, there could not be a more committed person, I think,
    in the Congress to the success of NASA. We have had many
    conversations and I think you have a true advocate. We are
    going to work together to create a bipartisan product that can
    help NASA continue to achieve.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Culberson. General Bolden, we welcome your testimony.
    Your entire statement, of course, will be entered into the
    record without objection and we welcome your testimony, sir.
    And, again, thank you for your service to the country.

                        Administrator's Opening Remarks

        General Bolden. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I
    want to just take a quick moment to echo everyone's sentiments
    to Mike Ringler. I am glad you broke the ice because I did not
    want to say anything and spill the beans if nobody knew it. But
    it has been a great pleasure working with Mike and we are going
    to miss him.
        So, Mike, best of luck from all of us at NASA.
        I want to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, also on becoming
    the chairman of this committee because I do know through the
    years of our conversations how much it means to you and how
    serious you are about the duties of this committee. So I think
    we are very fortunate to have you in that position. I also
    thank you, as I mentioned earlier, for your recent visits to
    several of our facilities out on the West Coast and look
    forward to hosting you out there some more.
        Mr. Chairman, to you and the Members of the subcommittee,
    the President is proposing, as you mentioned, a fiscal year
    2016 budget of $18.5 billion for NASA that builds on the 2015
    appropriation and the significant investments the
    Administration and the Congress have made in America's space
    program over the past six years.
        Thanks to the hard work of our NASA team and partners all
    across America, we have made a lot of progress on our journey
    to Mars. In fact, we have gotten farther on this path to
    sending humans to Mars than at any point in NASA's history. And
    this budget will keep us moving forward.
        The support of this subcommittee and the Congress are
    essential to this journey. The International Space Station
    (ISS) is the critical first step in this work. It is our
    springboard to the rest of the solar system and we are
    committed to extending space station operations to at least
    2024. Thanks to the grit, determination, and American
    ingenuity, we have returned ISS cargo resupply missions to the
    United States, insourcing these jobs and creating a new private
    market in low earth orbit.
        Under a plan outlined by the Administration early in its
    term, we have also awarded two American companies, SpaceX and
    Boeing, fixed price contracts to safely and cost effectively
    transport our astronauts to the International Space Station
    from U.S. soil. This will end our sole reliance on Russia. It
    is critical that we receive the funding requested for 2016 so
    that we can meet our 2017 target date and stop writing checks
    to the Russian Space Agency.
        Our newest, most powerful rocket ever developed, the Space
    Launch System (SLS) has moved from formulation to development,
    something no other exploration class vehicle has achieved since
    the agency built the space shuttle.
        The Orion spacecraft performed flawlessly on its first
    flight to space this past December. The SLS and Exploration
    Ground Systems (EGS) are on track for launch capability
    readiness by November of 2018 and the teams are hard at work on
    completing the technical and design reviews for Orion.
        Our budget also funds a robust science program with dozens
    of operating missions studying our solar system and universe.
    New Horizons is preparing for its arrival at Pluto in July and
    Dawn is now approaching the dwarf planet Ceres.
        Before we send humans to Mars, robots are paving the way.
    We are at work on a Mars rover for 2020 and have begun planning
    a mission to explore Jupiter's fascinating moon, Europa.
        NASA is a leader in Earth science and our constantly
    expanding view of our planet from space is helping us better
    understand and prepare for these changes. NASA has 21 research
    missions studying Earth. In the last year alone, we launched an
    unprecedented five more. We also are at work on humanity's
    first voyage to our home star, a mission that will repeatedly
    pass through the sun's outer atmosphere.
        NASA's Hubble, Chandra and Kepler space telescopes explore
    the universe beyond our solar system. Hubble's successor, the
    James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), is taking shape right now
    out in Maryland and a new mission is in development to extend
    Kepler's pioneering work in finding planets.
        Technology drives science, exploration, and our journey to
    Mars. With the President's request, NASA will continue to
    maintain a steady pipeline of technology to ensure that we
    continue to lead the world in space exploration and scientific
    discovery.
        NASA is also with you when you fly and we are committed to
    transforming aviation particularly as we just celebrated the
    100th anniversary of the NACA last night at the National Air
    and Space Museum. But we intend to dramatically reduce the
    environmental impact, maintain safety in more crowded skies,
    and pave the way toward a revolutionary aircraft shapes and
    propulsion systems.
        Mr. Chairman, America's space program is not just alive. It
    is thriving. The strong support we receive from this
    subcommittee is making that happen. I particularly appreciate
    the generous fiscal year 2015 appropriation.
        As the President said in his state of the union address,
    and I quote, ``We are pushing out into the solar system not
    just to visit but to stay, part of a re-energized space program
    that will send American astronauts to Mars,'' unquote.
        NASA looks forward to working with the Congress to make
    this vision a reality. I would be pleased to respond to your
    questions.

                    INSPECTOR GENERAL OR GAO RECOMMENDATIONS

        Mr. Culberson. General Bolden, thank you.
        Before I go into some specific areas, we started our
    hearing schedule this year with the inspectors general because
    they always do a good job of identifying inefficiencies and
    ways to save money and particularly in light of the tough
    budget environment we are going to be facing this year and how
    everyone on this subcommittee, as I said earlier, are strong
    supporters of NASA.
        I miss having our friend, Adam Schiff, here. He is now the
    ranking member on the Intelligence Committee. And I know he is
    here in spirit and will certainly be working with us to help
    support the recommendations of this subcommittee for NASA.
        But if you could, talk to us a minute about any specific
    example where NASA has implemented Inspector General or GAO
    recommendations to save money or create efficiencies.
        General Bolden. Sir, I would be very glad to do so. Since
    the Inspector General's report and also thanks to this
    committee, I think everyone knows that we contracted for a
    study by NAPA which was done last year. They gave us 27
    recommendations with reference to Foreign National Access
    Management (FNAM). We took all of those recommendations to
    heart and are well on the way to complying with them.
        We have made structural changes in our governance at the
    Agency and we see through our construction of facilities
    program that our buildings are becoming leaner, and I mean that
    in terms of the acronym for energy efficient. We now have LEED
    buildings across the Nation that is showing that we are trying
    to save money through our facilities as we reduce our footprint
    and in the place of excessive infrastructure replace it with
    very efficient buildings.
        If you talk more about governance, the Chief Information
    Officer (CIO) and many of the other critical people in
    positions at NASA headquarters now report directly to me, so
    they are my direct reports. So in that manner, we are
    streamlining the way that we conduct project management.
        I would point out that over the past six years since I have
    been the NASA administrator, we are very proud to say that most
    programs have come in on cost and on schedule which in the past
    was somewhat rare. So I think that the results that we have
    seen in the last six years say that we have taken everything to
    heart from the IG and from this committee.

                           OTHER COST SAVING MEASURES

        Mr. Culberson. Other than reducing the property footprint
    and streamlining project management, what other steps have you
    taken to implement, for example, cost saving measures that were
    recommended either by GAO or the Inspector General?
        General Bolden. We have done a number of efforts and I
    would take it for the record to bring you a compilation----
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        General Bolden [continuing]. Of the things that we have
    done. But I just tried to give you a few of those----
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        General Bolden [continuing]. Top line efforts.
        [The information follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                          ACCESS TO FOREIGN NATIONALS

        Mr. Culberson. Terrific. And also I want to be sure to
    follow up with you on limiting the access of foreign nationals,
    particularly the Chinese, to NASA flight centers. There is, I
    think, an ongoing problem with the ability of Chinese nationals
    that are working at universities on a research project gaining
    access to flight centers and we want to make sure that that
    does not continue to happen.
        Program management, project management is something
    Inspector General Paul Martin also talked to us about and has
    pointed out that there is a--excuse me. He talked specifically
    about better program management and four major challenges that
    he identified in his report.
        He identified that there was an underestimation of
    technical complexity and how that impacted cost and risk.
    Funding stability is, of course, a continuing problem, limited
    opportunity for program managers, development, and moving
    people around.
        Talk to us a little more, if you could, about the way that
    NASA has responded to his recommendations on project
    management.
        General Bolden. I think what Paul was talking about was
    past practices where when we estimated cost and we estimated
    schedule, we were optimistic. When I talked about the fact that
    over the last six years we have brought in programs and
    projects on time and on schedule, it speaks to that directly.
        We spend more time training our program and project
    managers with formal training. We now have a formal position
    that is called the Chief Knowledge Officer at NASA headquarters
    who takes lessons learned from past programs and projects and
    that is taught to incoming program and project managers so that
    they understand the mistakes and the errors of program and
    project management in the past.
        We now have a process that all of our programs go through
    which formalizes our estimation of cost and schedule. We have
    set a threshold of 70 percent certainty for cost and schedule
    as a threshold for us. Since we have done that, I think if you
    look at our science programs, that is what enabled us to bring
    things like MAVEN or some of the others in if not under cost,
    actually on cost. I think that is what Paul was addressing.

                                 CYBERSECURITY

        Mr. Culberson. He also suggested giving your information
    technology administrator full responsibility, and I hope that
    you are following through on that recommendation.
        General Bolden. Yes, sir. The comment that I made earlier
    about making the CIO for the Agency a direct report to me, I
    think that is what Paul was talking about. So the CIO--is that
    what you are talking about?
        Mr. Culberson. On cyber because there is a lot of concern
    about the vulnerability of NASA applications.
        General Bolden. I understand.
        Mr. Culberson. You obviously have a very big public
    footprint, as you should, but all of those applications, all
    those apps that are out there for people's phones and all the
    public Web sites open you up to hacking. And he was concerned
    that your information and technology director does not have the
    authority that he needs as in other agencies. That is what I am
    talking about.
        General Bolden. And that was the reference that I made to,
    and you used the term information technology----
        Mr. Culberson. I may not be using the right----
        General Bolden [continuing]. That is my Chief Information
    Officer.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        General Bolden. So the Chief Information Officer is a
    direct report to me, to the administrator, which means----
        Mr. Culberson. In terms of the scope of his authority, I
    hope you are taking his recommendation to heart to give that
    individual more authority.
        General Bolden. Yes. The fact that he reports to me means
    that he makes policy for the Agency since I make policy for the
    Agency. So he has direct responsibility and control over IT
    infrastructure across the enterprise. So all of the CIOs at the
    individual centers subsequently report to him.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        General Bolden. The only area that we have not done what
    the IG recommended was incorporating program IT systems under
    the chief information officer and we are looking at that. But
    in my opinion right now given what we have and given the funds
    we have, that might be a bridge too far because what we are
    talking about would be he would have responsibility for
    maintaining the Information Technology programs on the
    International Space Station or on Mars Curiosity or MAVEN. And
    that is something that I am not sure that any agency of the
    government has done that yet. We are looking at it. I am not
    saying we will not do it, but we are not there yet. So we have
    got a long way to go before we incorporate all of the----
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        General Bolden [continuing]. Program and project IT
    infrastructure and assets under the Chief Information Officer.
        Mr. Culberson. I will follow up with you.
        General Bolden. But for everything else, he has the hammer.
        Mr. Culberson. I will follow up with you individually on
    that.
        General Bolden. Okay.

                           PLUTONIUM-238 AVAILABILITY

        Mr. Culberson. Let me ask about one other, getting into a
    specific area, and then I want to recognize my good friend, Mr.
    Fattah, about plutonium production because we want to make sure
    that you have got the plutonium necessary for future missions.
        The budget request is for $15 million for NASA to pay the
    Department of Energy to produce a supply of plutonium. And I
    understand that we are approaching the end of the life span for
    the machines that actually make the plutonium cakes, whatever
    they are called, that actually make the pellets, I assume.
        Talk to us about that and the availability of plutonium for
    future missions, in particular the Europa mission and outer
    planets missions.
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I will say you make an
    assumption that I want to not let you make and that is that
    Europa will be a nuclear powered mission. We are looking at----
        Mr. Culberson. Still in the design phase?
        General Bolden. Yes, sir. I just want to make sure that no
    one in my organization had led you to believe that----
        Mr. Culberson. No.
        General Bolden [continuing]. We had made a decision yet----
        Mr. Culberson. Still in the design phase. It is good to
    have that option.
        General Bolden [continuing]. On the power system for
    Europa.
        Mr. Culberson. You are going to need that option for deep--
        General Bolden. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Space outer planets?
        General Bolden. But in answer to your question for all NASA
    outer planets missions, for Mars 2020 and others that we
    currently have in our inventory in planning, we will have
    sufficient plutonium-238 to carry out those missions.
        We continue to work with the Department of Energy (DOE) as
    you mentioned, as you alluded. A problem there on the DOE side
    is just the facilities and the condition of the facilities. We
    continue to work at an intermediate management level with the
    Department of Energy to make sure that the funds that we
    provide to them will, in fact, partially be used to make sure
    that the facilities are there so that they can make the
    plutonium that we need.
        They are the producer of plutonium-238. Right now to my
    knowledge, NASA is the only user of plutonium-238, so it is
    very important to us that they get it right.
        Mr. Culberson. If you could, would your folks get us a
    recommendation on what is necessary to make sure that that
    machinery is----
        General Bolden. We will do that, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Brought up to speed so you have
    got it for----
        General Bolden. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. What I think we will ultimately
    need, a robust outer planets program?
        General Bolden. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Culberson. Let me recognize my good friend, Mr. Fattah.

                         OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

        Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        So this is follow-up on what the chairman was talking about
    in terms of plutonium. And this is at Oak Ridge National Lab,
    the plutonium, the 238 production, right?
        General Bolden. I will take it for the record----
        [The information follows:]

         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fattah. All right. Yeah.
        General Bolden [continuing]. To find out exactly where it
    is done.
        Mr. Fattah. So I think that----
        General Bolden. I should know, but I do not.
        Mr. Fattah. I have done some work in this space and I think
    that you are correct that NASA is the only consumer, but it is
    a commitment on DOE's part to make sure you have what you need.

                        EXPLORATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

        General Bolden. Yes.
        Mr. Fattah. But let me go to the big aspiration here which
    is flight into deep space, out of lower Earth orbit for humans.
    And you talked about the great work that is being done now on
    the launch system and where you are.
        There is some sense, and it is only because of your
    success, that perhaps we can move the timetable and maybe that
    is not the case, and these are probably people who are not as
    intimately familiar with the work that you are doing, but if
    you could comment for a minute on how you see the time line,
    that would be good.
        General Bolden. Congressman, I will do my best. The
    President has set a rough outline for us in demanding that we
    provide a way to put humans with an asteroid by 2025, but most
    importantly that we be on Mars or in the Martian system in the
    2030s.
        And with that direction in mind and bipartisan agreement by
    the Congress, we have a long-range program in existence today
    to which we are marching and that calls for several things.
        America is still the leader in space and I am glad to hear
    Members of the committee acknowledge that because it is
    important for all of us to understand that. There is no close
    competitor to be quite honest.
        But in order for us to stay the leader in space, there are
    a number of things we have to do and deep space exploration is
    one of them, but we have to make sure that we have a very
    robust low earth orbit infrastructure that will be run by
    American industry eventually or non-government entities so
    critical to that is the completion of the commercial crew
    program that we now have scheduled to actually fly in 2017. We
    have brought about commercial cargo and that has proven to be
    successful. I think by the end of this year, you will see how
    resilient it is when Orbital Sciences flies a Cygnus on a
    vehicle other than their own vehicle. So when you are buying a
    service and the service provider provides it, even when a part
    of their system goes away, that talks about resilience.
        Mr. Fattah. I was on the floor of SpaceX out in California
    looking as they put the Falcon 9 together, and it is amazing
    that this industry that NASA has spawned is so robust now.
        You have Boeing. You have SpaceX, low Earth orbit, the
    commercial crew. What is in the President's budget is $1.2, I
    think, 4, right----
        General Bolden. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Fattah [continuing]. $1.24 billion?
        General Bolden. One digit farther I can go.

                            EXPLORATION BEYOND EARTH

        Mr. Fattah. Yeah. And is that sufficient to continue to--I
    know you have some other pieces of that. You have the advanced
    exploration system at about 231.4 and then you have the
    opportunity flight program which is another opportunity to seed
    this industry and I think 15 plus.
        So can you talk about whether that is sufficient to do the
    work that needs to be done in low Earth orbit so that you can
    focus on-- and the committee really likes to talk about going
    to Mars.
        General Bolden. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Fattah. Asteroids, you know, is not really, I think,
    the thing that grabs our attention----
        General Bolden. That is okay.
        Mr. Fattah [continuing]. In total.
        General Bolden. That is okay.
        Mr. Fattah. It hits you. Go ahead.
        General Bolden. That is okay.
        Mr. Fattah. Go ahead, Mr. Administrator, yeah.
        General Bolden. Congressman Fattah, again, I appreciate
    your reference to the total picture because that is what is
    really important. And I talked about commercial crew and cargo.
    $1.2 billion that we requested in the 2016 budget for
    commercial crew is essential if we are to bring in the two
    providers with their capability to carry crew to orbit by 2017.
        The second leg of the stool is actually the International
    Space Station and that is an area that I need to ensure that we
    do not shortchange, that we do not look at it as a bank and
    begin to pull money out of International Space Station
    operations because when we use it as a bank, usually the first
    place we go is cargo flights, fewer cargo flights which
    eventually could put the crew in jeopardy because we are not
    able to get stuff there.
        The third leg that you refer to is SLS and Orion and once
    we have a robust lower earth orbit environment, then we use SLS
    and Orion to take us, first of all, back to cislunar space.
    That is around the moon over the 10-year period of the 20s. So
    beginning in the earliest part that we can of the 20s, we will
    put Orion on the SLS and send it to cislunar space for multiple
    flights and then on to Mars.
        So it is the three-legged stool that is absolutely critical
    that you are talking about.
        Mr. Fattah. The red light is on. The red light is on, but
    if the chairman would----
        Mr. Culberson. Go ahead, please.

              INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION--INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS

        Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Yield. I think you got the
    Russians' attention in some other respects. They took a
    decision this week to announce that they were joining a
    decision that you had already made a year or so ago about
    extending the life and their presence in cooperation relative
    to the International Space Station.
        Could you just share with the committee where we are with
    all of our international partners now that Russia has made this
    decision?
        General Bolden. And I would just caution what you hear
    coming out of Russia is not always what they intended to say. I
    am encouraged that they now have, in fact, in their
    reorganization, because they are going through reorganization
    just as we are, they now have what is called the Roscosmos
    Science and Technology Council. So that is a brand new entity
    that was put in place when they put Roscosmos under the
    umbrella of their whole space industry organization and it is
    much more complicated than I want to try to explain to people.
    We were encouraged when Yuri Koptchev who I consider to be,
    because he is a former colleague of mine, who I consider----
        Mr. Fattah. You did a mission with him, right?
        General Bolden. No. This is not the astronaut. This was the
    former head of the Russian Space Agency, of Roscosmos. It was
    Mr. Koptchev who actually could be considered the Russian
    father of the International Space Station because he and a
    predecessor of mine, Dan Goldin, were the two people who were
    most responsible for getting the station started, if you will.
    He is the head of the Roscosmos Science and Technology Council
    (STC) and it was that council that met and said that it was
    their position that Russia should remain committed to the
    International Space Station and that they should remain
    committed through 2024 before they go off and start talking
    about taking pieces off and establishing their own lower earth
    orbit infrastructure. So I think that is what you refer to.
        I would say one more thing because you commented about
    international partners. Everyone should take note of the three
    space walks that were completed this past week. You know, Butch
    Wilmore and Terry Virts did three absolutely amazing space
    walks which in themselves were great.
        Mr. Fattah. Five hours?
        General Bolden. They were long. Each of them was in the
    neighborhood of six to eight hours. But what was most important
    was that that completed the installation of the international
    docking adapter which it gives the International Space Station
    now the capability of accepting any vehicle from any partner
    that wants to bring crew to the International Space Station.
        So we are now ready to receive. There may be a few puts and
    takes we have got to do, but the station is now ready to
    receive Boeing, SpaceX, any American company that wants to fly
    a vehicle to the International Space Station.
        The international part I wanted to point out for everybody,
    the intra-vehicle crew member, and I have been one, that is the
    hardest thing on the whole thing. The intra-vehicle crew
    member, the person inside choreographing all three space walks
    was Samantha Cristoferetti who is an Italian astronaut.
        So if you do not think that our partners are doing their
    part and that they are excited about this, that was a true
    international effort to set up American industry to be able to
    service the International Space Station with crews, and that
    was incredible.
        Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding for those
    additional few seconds.
        Mr. Culberson. Let me recognize Mr. Jenkins at this time.

            INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION (IV&V) FACILITY

        Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning, Mr. Administrator.
        General Bolden. Good morning.
        Mr. Jenkins. I am from down the home of the rocket boys and
    Homer Hickam, West Virginia. So I would like to spend just my
    brief minute or two bringing us back to earth a little bit
    about some of your work and what NASA does and obviously as
    participating in grant funding and projects in my State of West
    Virginia.
        The chairman brought up the IG's work. I would like to
    maybe get your take a little bit on the NASA Independent
    Verification and Validation (IV&V) Facility program up in
    Fairmont, West Virginia, critically important to our state,
    your feelings about that program and its value.
        General Bolden. Independent Verification and Validation
    (IV&V) Facility has been of critical value to us since its
    beginnings. It is an asset that we use to do safety assurance
    evaluations and the like. And there are a number of other
    things that go on there.
        I think the IG, if I remember his comments, you know, some
    people took it to mean that he was recommending that we get out
    of IV&V or out of the facility. And that is not something that
    is, you know, immediately on our plate. As we look at our
    assets and our capabilities, we are looking at what we should
    do with each, but IV&V is a critical facility.
        Mr. Jenkins. Would you mind sharing, to the extent you are
    able to or maybe a follow-up, some of the details behind the
    importance and, as you say, the value propositions that come
    out of that facility and what we do?
        General Bolden. IV&V or independent verification and
    validation is a process that NASA uses. I think most industries
    use it, but NASA uses the process to look at dominantly
    software to make sure that we can put faults and failures and
    all kinds of stuff into the program and make sure that it
    responds appropriately, that it does not trip the software such
    that it just loses its mind, if you will. So IV&V does not do
    the critical software evaluations for the International Space
    Station, but it does critical software evaluations for some of
    our other activities. So that is the kind of work you do. You
    cannot just say, we are going to close down the one in West
    Virginia and go do it somewhere else because it takes time. You
    have got the talent, the brain power, and you have got the
    facilities that are there.
        Mr. Jenkins. And when you make mention that some may have
    interpreted IG as suggesting, that leads me to believe that
    maybe--have you had a follow-up discussion with the IG and
    maybe the way it was written or interpreted, that maybe that is
    a conclusion that should not have been suggested?
        General Bolden. I do not change the IG's mind. What I do is
    I respond to the IG's report. What we do is we cooperate with
    them as they formulate the report and we give them as much as
    we can in hopes that the report will not reflect something that
    we think is inaccurate. But we do respond. If they give us
    recommendations or findings or the like, then we respond back
    to them. So I do not remember exactly what our responses were,
    but I think we told the IG that we appreciated very much the
    recommendation. However, these are the actions that we are
    taking right now.
        As the chairman mentioned, the IG, the IG's report to me is
    not a directive. That is a report of a finding by an Inspector
    General. The Office of the Inspector General does not direct
    the Agency to do anything. As the CEO of the agency, if I want
    to assume the risk, then I just tell the IG I really appreciate
    this point. I think you may be correct, but I am willing to
    assume that risk at this time.
        Mr. Jenkins. The second and final area of interest to me is
    again your financial support. I just spoke last night to the
    EPSCoR program and had the honor of introducing NASA's former
    chief scientist who is now head of the National Science
    Foundation. Your support for undergraduate research, STEM
    programs--today happens to be Undergraduate Research Day in
    West Virginia that a lot of bright-minded students make
    presentations.
        NASA's investment in education through the consortium, the
    space consortium and all, can you share with me and the
    committee some of the values of that effort and as part of your
    budget?
        General Bolden. I do not think we can put enough money into
    the work that NASA does towards STEM education. I say that not
    lightly to be quite honest. I think you can always use more.
        However, I do say all the time that NASA spends 16 and if
    we get the requested President's budget, we will devote $18.5
    billion to STEM education in this country because there is
    nothing that we do in the Agency, there is no office, no
    department, no anything that does not have some impact on STEM
    education, whether it is just employees acting as mentors or
    providing NASA content to a school or something of that nature
    that does not get counted in an education budget, but we have
    $16.8 billion that we apply towards STEM education. It is an
    incredible value.
        Mr. Jenkins. Major General, thank you.
        General Bolden. Thank you.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Jenkins.
        Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

             EDUCATION AND OUTREACH PROGRAMS--NASA EXPLORER SCHOOLS

        Mr. Culberson. And after we go through the Members, I want
    to be sure to recognize our colleague, Mr. Schiff, for a
    statement after the Members that were here first are
    recognized.
        So I want to go at this time to Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much.
        I admire, respect, and love my ranking member, but he
    almost gave me a heart attack when he said asteroids were not
    important since one of my questions is going to be about the
    Arecibo Puerto Rican observatory.
        And let me first tell you, sir, that one of the best
    experiences I have had as a Member of this committee has been
    not only to have been twice the ranking member under Hal Rogers
    and Frank Wolf but also the work that we have done in our
    districts. And I wanted to speak to you about that.
        The last time we had an event that was a wonderful event,
    we had flown the Puerto Rican flag on one of the flights. Then
    we had flown the Dominican flag on one of the flights. And
    astronauts came down to the community college and presented
    both flags. And the room was full of kids and community people
    and it was just a wonderful, wonderful event.
        And then there have been many times when astronauts have
    come into the classroom to speak and it is one of those few
    times where you do not have to worry about the children paying
    attention because, you know, they are, oh, you went up in space
    and they are captured.
        So where is that program at? Those visits to schools, do
    you continue them? Has the budget hurt you, you know, in doing
    that kind of work because I think it is great and I support it
    totally?
        General Bolden. Congressman, I think during the period of
    more active pursuit of sequester, I think everybody knows, it
    is common knowledge that travel in Federal agencies was
    significantly curtailed. So during that period of time, we did
    have to cut back on school visits and the like from astronauts
    and NASA employees. However, over the last year or so, we have
    relatively restored our school visits and our other kinds of
    outreach activities to some normalcy.
        I was privileged to visit Puerto Rico earlier this year and
    actually had a chance to--you mentioned Arecibo, but had an
    opportunity to go out to the observatory there and walk on the
    telescope, on the disk and everything else and talk to students
    in Puerto Rico. There is nothing that promotes interest in STEM
    education, as you have said, like a hands-on experience for
    students.
        Mr. Serrano. Absolutely.
        General Bolden. Mr. Jenkins, well, somebody mentioned,
    although he is not from Huntsville, but down in Huntsville, it
    used to be called the moon buggy challenge and it is now called
    the NASA Human Exploration Rover Challenge, but we have
    students from all over the world----
        Mr. Serrano. Right.
        General Bolden [continued]. Who come to compete in that and
    build buggies from bicycle parts and other kinds of things. So
    we still continue our outreach programs.

                              ARECIBO OBSERVATORY

        Mr. Serrano. And I encourage you to do so. And I will be a
    Member of this committee that will push for that because I
    think those are wonderful programs and a wonderful way for
    NASA, and NASA is one of those agencies that does not hurt
    anybody. On the contrary, it just brings joy and solidifies our
    future.
        Let me move on to the observatory. The observatory is
    funded mostly by NSF, as you know, and NASA plays a major role.
    And a couple years ago, they were actually talking not only of
    backing off from helping the observatory but even getting rid
    of it.
        And not this committee, I wish I could say this committee,
    but it was scientists who wrote especially in a report that
    said that Arecibo played a major role in keeping an eye on
    things that have to be kept an eye on. So, of course, I am in
    support of keeping it open. I know the chairman is also and so
    is Mr. Honda and the ranking member and other people.
        What is the status right now at least from NASA's point of
    view and as to your knowledge, although that is a question for
    them? Is NSF still thinking about, although they have backed
    away from that, doing something?
        General Bolden. I cannot answer what Dr. Cordova and the
    NSF, what their position is right now, but I can say that NASA,
    currently, provides in the neighborhood of $3 million each year
    for support at Arecibo. But I will take it for the record and
    get that specific amount to you.
        So we continue to push for the telescope and its
    availability. In fact, one of the reasons that I went to Puerto
    Rico was because I had heard about it, but I had never seen it
    and I wanted to go meet the people there. And they are
    incredibly enthusiastic about what they do.
        So I think it is value. The unfortunate thing is it is not
    a NASA asset. It is a National Science Foundation asset. It is
    like McMurdo Bay in Antarctica. It is like many of the research
    facilities around the world the way that responsibility is
    divided up. NASA frequently is the dominant player at our
    international research facilities, but they do not belong to
    us.
        Mr. Serrano. Right.
        General Bolden. They belong to other agencies of the
    government and we do not have a say in whether or not they
    close them or open them.
        Mr. Serrano. Right.
        General Bolden. But we generally----
        Mr. Serrano. My time is up, but I hope that we can work
    together for the part that NASA plays in keeping Arecibo open.
    And it is a good thing to see that the chairman has always been
    a supporter. The man that has always been a supporter of
    Arecibo is now chairman of the committee and the ranking member
    has always been supportive. So we will continue to work on it.
        General Bolden. And, sir, I will try to get for the record,
    we will contact the NSF and see if they can provide us a
    comment since I do not----
        Mr. Serrano. Well, turn it over to you and then we will
    take good care of you.
        General Bolden. No, no, no, no, no. I am not asking for
    more on my plate. I do not need more.
        Mr. Culberson. What is the $3 million a year for?
        General Bolden. Let me find out specifically what it is
    for, but I think most of it is for programs and instruments
    and----
        [The information follows:]

                           Arecibo Radio Observatory

        NASA's Planetary Science Near Earth Object (NEO) Program uses the
    National Science Foundation's Arecibo Radio Observatory for its
    planetary radar capability, particularly for this asset's critical
    ability to characterize Earth approaching asteroids and precisely
    determine their orbits, size, shape and rotation dynamics. Radar
    studies of the Moon, other planets and their moons are conducted as
    well. Often the Arecibo facility is used in cooperation with NASA's own
    Goldstone Solar System Radar facility to provide even higher precision
    data on these objects.
        There are two components to NASA's current funding of Arecibo,
    contractually with the Universities Space Research Association, which
    has the cooperative agreement with NSF to manage and operate the
    Observatory. The first is a five-year grant (FY 2012-2016) of about $2M
    per year ($2.074M in FY 2015, but increasing slightly each year to
    maintain purchasing power) to operate and maintain the radar and
    perform a crucial baseline of observations on NEOs and the planets for
    NASA's planetary science programs. The second is a NEO Observations
    Program science grant for $1.5M per year for 4 years (2013 through
    2016) to obtain additional collection and analyses of radar
    observations on all accessible near Earth asteroids.

        Mr. Culberson. Instrument time?
        General Bolden. Instrument time or instrument
    modernization, because although the facility belongs to NSF, we
    frequently will have----
        Mr. Culberson. Your customer?
        General Bolden [continued]. Investigators who go in and
    actually build instruments that are used at the observatory.
        Mr. Culberson. I know they need an upgrade on----
        General Bolden. They do.
        Mr. Culberson [continued]. A lot of their equipment and----
        General Bolden. Right.
        Mr. Culberson [continued]. Some maintenance. I know that
    one of the cables had a problem. But, nevertheless, we are----
        General Bolden. It was working when I was there, but it is
    not in great shape.
        Mr. Serrano. I think it was the cable James Bond hung from
    when they made the movie there. [Laughter].
        Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, I think the Member can be assured
    that we are interested. This is part of a series of
    observatories around the world that are critically important to
    NASA's success.
        Mr. Culberson. Absolutely.
        Mr. Fattah. Also to deal with asteroids that might be
    coming our way.
        Mr. Culberson. Absolutely. Thank you.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Culberson. Mr. Kilmer.

                            SMALL SATELLITE PROGRAMS

        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will just echo
    Mr. Serrano's enthusiasm for the NASA Explorer Schools. We have
    got one in my district and it was certainly one of the
    highlights.
        I had a question regarding small satellites. That is one of
    the fastest growing segments of the space industry, high
    relevance for science and national security and commercial
    industry. And NASA has really helped advance development and
    demonstration of technologies in all sorts of arenas, whether
    it be communications, navigation, propulsion, power, science
    instrument capabilities. So how do we expand and accelerate
    those types of cost-effective investments and how do we ensure
    that NASA's program is taking full advantage of investments
    that are also being made by industry and by the Defense
    Department?
        General Bolden. We collaborate with the Defense Department,
    the NRO, industry, academia and everybody in trying to promote
    the use of small satellites and a specific type of small
    satellite called CubeSat. We work with our international
    partners. There is now a private entity, and I just drew a
    blank on what the name of the company is, that provides the
    program that gets CubeSats to the International Space Station
    for distribution or for deployment from the Japanese Experiment
    Module. We have the CubeSat deployment mechanism on the
    Japanese Experiment Module and it is the only one that has an
    airlock. So they can actually bring the deployer inside, load
    it up with CubeSats, put it back out and then deploy them. So
    it is a program that we really push.
        The Ames Research Center out in Mountain View, California
    tends to be the center of effort for CubeSat development in
    small sats for a number of reasons. They are in the heart of
    Silicon Valley and so they have a way of getting not just
    American students, but students all over the world interested
    in this. I just came back from a trip to South America and in
    the four countries I visited one of the things that we could
    talk about with them in trying to expand the number of
    international what we call non-traditional partners was the use
    of CubeSats, teaching students to use CubeSat to do very basic
    things, and it allows them to become partners.

                          INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. You mentioned the space station, I
    wanted to ask about that program. To some degree, it can be
    viewed as too big to fail. What recourse does NASA have if
    commercial crew contractors are unable to meet the 2017
    milestone of sending astronauts to the space station from
    American soil or if program funds are exhausted?
        General Bolden. Nothing is too big to fail, in my
    estimation. However, there are some things that are critical
    for the success of keeping America number one in space, the
    International Space Station is one of those. It is a very
    unique facility, it is a one-of-a-kind facility, it is a mini
    United Nations, and it is a place where we do technology
    development and human research. It is critical, I don't even
    want to think about what happens if the Russians decide that
    they want to change the way they operate with us. That is what
    makes it so critical that we receive full funding for
    Commercial Crew so that we can guarantee that it is not NASA,
    not the U.S. Government, not money that kept American industry
    from delivering. I have faith in American industry, I always
    have. I talked about, when we put a plan together, work it with
    them and say we can do something, we do it on time and on cost.
        I have no reason to believe that SpaceX and Boeing will not
    be able to bring in their programs in 2017 as they have
    planned. They have given us milestones, they get paid for
    milestones. Those are firm fixed-price contracts, so we know
    that it will not overrun, because any additional money over and
    above what they think it is going to cost the company has to
    fund. So you would have to find Boeing or SpaceX deciding that
    it is no longer fiscally viable for the company, the
    corporation, for them not to deliver.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks. I see I am near time up. So I will
    submit some other questions for the record and thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Fattah. If the Chairman would yield for a minute. For
    instance, because I don't want there to be unnecessary concern,
    SpaceX has met the first milestone, right?
        General Bolden. Oh, SpaceX has met several milestones on
    the Commercial Crew milestone list.
        Mr. Fattah. Okay. And Boeing?
        General Bolden. And Boeing, they both have.
        Mr. Fattah. Right. So, I mean, there is not that I am aware
    of any concern that we will not be able to meet this time line
    as long as we can meet the budget number.
        Mr. Kilmer. That is the key, right?
        General Bolden. And that was the point I tried to make,
    Congressman Fattah, was industry is going to perform as long as
    the government does not renege on its promise to pay. We
    promised that we would pay them $6.2 billion combined and,
    unless we renege on that, then I think Boeing and SpaceX will
    deliver.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer.
        Mr. Honda.

            STRATOSPHERIC OBSERVATORY FOR INFRARED ASTRONOMY (SOFIA)

        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, welcome, Mr.
    Administrator. It is great to see you here and it is great to
    have an administrator that has got a science background and
    knows what the hell you are talking about. [Laughter.]
        You know, sometimes we have leaders that are more of a
    bookkeeper than of looking at funding programs based upon its
    mission and we have gone through that period now. It is good to
    have you. And I understand that we already had a comment about
    the 100th year celebration, so I will not say anything about
    that. But I know that NASA Ames Center Director Pete Worden is
    retiring and it is going to be a great loss to us, but it is
    going to be good for the private industry. And I guess that is
    going to be tough to find someone that is going to replace him
    and fill his shoes, but I think that we are here to support
    that kind of a direction that we find someone that will enhance
    Ames and NASA and keep the A in NASA going.
        One of the questions I had was that the Administration's
    handling of the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared
    Astronomy, better known as SOFIA, in the President's 2016
    budget notes that NASA plans to hold a senior review for SOFIA
    in the spring of 2016. And, as you know, SOFIA just became
    fully operational in February of 2014 and was in Germany for a
    good portion of last year undergoing a heavy maintenance visit.
    Now, this senior review is usually after four years of
    operation and I guess my question is, why is it so early?
    Because it gives the sense that NASA will be setting up SOFIA
    to fail when it only had approximately one year rather than the
    four years fully to, you know, open its wings and, you know,
    have its contribution better known. Can you address yourself to
    that?
        General Bolden. Congressman, when I approached the folks in
    our Science Mission Directorate I learned one of our assets
    with which I am very familiar, the Hubble Space Telescope
    actually underwent senior review much earlier than it was
    scheduled to because we wanted to make sure that we had good
    definition on the out-year programs for it, because that is
    basically what we are trying to do with SOFIA. We are trying to
    take a look at its performance to date. Had we flown SOFIA when
    we were originally scheduled to fly it, we would have been well
    beyond a normal senior review at this time. But because of
    issues with the development of SOFIA and getting it to
    operational condition, then we are somewhat behind in where we
    would have been. But the senior review is to make a
    determination of what its future missions should be, how we
    balance the schedule for its flights, to evaluate whether or
    not the science community thinks that we can fly fewer flights
    and get the same amount of data that we wanted before. So it is
    not a review that I look at as a reason or something trying to
    justify shutting down SOFIA. SOFIA is funded in our 2015 bill
    thanks to this committee and we requested funding for it in the
    2016 request.
        Mr. Honda. So the life and its expectation is to continue,
    it is just you are doing this review with the understanding
    that there may be a lot of stuff that has already been--could
    be done, but usually you would have waited a few more years,
    but you have some confidence in its performance.
        General Bolden. I have confidence in SOFIA's performance to
    date and I have confidence in--what I do not know, because it
    is out of my area of expertise, is what does the science
    community feel the relative value of SOFIA is for other assets
    that gather the same type of data. SOFIA is somewhat unique, to
    be quite honest, because it is an in-the-atmosphere observatory
    that I understand looks in different wavelengths than many
    other of the assets that we have, whether in space or on the
    ground. But the science community is always looking at how do
    they get the most efficient results from the experiments they
    have. This goes back to, how long do you fly anything?
        Mr. Honda. Okay.
        General Bolden. But I am not concerned about SOFIA's
    performance.

                         PROTECTING THE NASA WORKFORCE

        Mr. Honda. Okay. I appreciate that. And one of the concerns
    I have about NASA is that over the years we have lost staffing,
    civil servants, if you will, and it does not feel like we are
    setting up a system where we want to attract and retain our
    employees at NASA. And so I guess the question is, well, what
    are you doing to protect the NASA workforce and ensure that the
    NASA Centers have the ability to hire and retain the best and
    the brightest scientists? Because that is our human, you know,
    treasure that we have that we have built up over the years. And
    from looking at continuing programs like STEM and everything
    else like that, these are the folks that have the deepest
    experience to be able to talk to youngsters.
        General Bolden. Congressman, at the risk of offending the
    committee, I am going to take a chance.
        Mr. Honda. Go ahead.
        General Bolden. The reductions in force that you see are
    not things that we do voluntarily. This Congress believes that
    all of the nation's problems rest with civil servants. That is
    the workforce you are talking about. We are not talking about
    contractors. When the Congress says that the problem is
    government employees, that is the people sitting behind me,
    that is what you are talking about. That is the people at Ames
    and at Armstrong and all over this country. You do not get
    something for nothing. If you want us to cut the size of
    government, you are talking about cutting people.
        Mr. Honda. Okay.
        General Bolden. And I understand what you are saying, but
    that is a contributor to the problem that we are. When we
    looked at sequestration, you are talking about people.
        Mr. Honda. I agree with you and I think that this is a
    message that needs to resonate among members of Congress and
    those who are in positions to make sure that we do not go in
    that direction, and that we understand clearly that you get
    what you pay for. And based upon the comments I heard this
    morning about the value of centers and how it is run and who
    runs it, that we should take that position when we look at
    budget and planning in the future and making sure that we do
    not vilify civil servants, but we embrace them and make sure
    that we understand their full value. And that cuts across the
    entire gamut and I am sure that my colleagues on this
    subcommittee agrees with that point, is that we have to put up
    the fight to protect the assets that we have right now and
    especially the human assets.
        General Bolden. Thank you.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Honda. We have been joined by
    Chairman Aderholt, another strong advocate and supporter of
    NASA and our manned program as I am, and it is my pleasure to
    introduce at this time the gentleman from Alabama. Mr.
    Aderholt.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Mr. Administrator, good to have
    you here.
        General Bolden. Thank you.

                         EXPLORATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

        Mr. Aderholt. First of all, let me apologize for my voice.
    I am overcoming a sore throat and I was in a hearing with
    Chairman Rogers this morning. I have been chairing the Ag
    Subcommittee Appropriations and we had the FDA Commissioner in
    this morning. And he said it reminded him of what Mark Twain
    said about Wagner's music, he said it is not as bad as it
    sounds. So that is sort of why--I am not as bad as it sounds.
    But anyway, I just have a couple of questions. Thank you for
    being here. And I appreciate Chairman Culberson for letting me
    slip in here and ask a few questions.
        I want to ask one question about the SLS program and then a
    second very short question, and then the remaining I will
    submit for the record. But I am glad to hear the integration
    plan for SLS, Orion and ground operations are underway at
    headquarters. Slipping beyond the 2018 for the EM-1 flight is a
    little more disconcerting. As you know, on the EM-1 flight, we
    use an upper stage known as ICPS. I do not know of a definite
    budget plan in NASA's out years for the flights beyond EM-1,
    but it seems to me that there must be a firm decision soon on
    whether to human rate the ICPS. And I am wondering if not human
    rating the ICPS and instead human rating the new upper stage
    for use on the EM-2 mission could save taxpayer dollars.
    Progress soon on the upper stage might allow for options as we
    plan large science missions such as the Europa Clipper. We
    could also use the power of the upper stage to cut the flight
    time by half or more and get the data back to our scientists
    faster. I just wanted to turn it over to you on what your
    thoughts are on this approach.
        General Bolden. Yes, sir. As I was commenting earlier
    before you came in, our approach to keep us as the leaders in
    space is to try to put together a program in its totality. When
    you talk about human exploration or about exploration of our
    solar system and let's just not even--human and robotic
    exploration, our program calls for being able to get humans
    first of all into cislunar space, but that is not the only
    thing we want to do. We want to be able to go on to Mars. So
    the reason that it has taken us to this point to be able to
    give you all the answers that you want on SLS and Orion is
    because we are looking at how we get the totality of the
    program in place. How do we get multiple flights out of SLS and
    Orion? If I focus on the very first flight, which happens to be
    unmanned, and that is where my focus is, then I could easily
    lose sight of what I need for the downstream flight. So we find
    that it is more economical and it is much more efficient if we
    plan for a block of flights, the program. Such that, if you
    gave me more money, as you are probably going to ask, what
    would I do? I would buy down risk. What do I mean when I say
    buy down risk for SLS and Orion? I would go and have Bill
    Gerstenmaier, I would approve his purchase of pieces and parts
    for EM-3, -4, -5, farther down the line. So that when you go to
    SpaceX and you look on their floor, there are engines all over
    the place. There are engines for flights they do not have yet.
    That is the way they buy down risk, that is the way industry
    does it. You put assets in place so that you can carry out a
    program years in advance. So that is what I would do. I would
    not focus on trying to get EM-1 earlier, EM-2 earlier. We have
    a program in place that calls for them to fly at a particular
    date and we are not going to change that appreciably with more
    money.
        So I think an Exploration Upper Stage is what you are
    talking about, the EUS. The interim upper stage is something
    because we do not have the one that we really want to fly for
    all of our exploration missions, it is an interim upper stage
    that will allow us to fly the first mission, but that is not
    what we would ideally like to live with. But that again is, we
    will come back to the Congress and tell you what we need in a
    budget that will sustain us through multiple administrations
    and multiple congresses, as opposed to one flight.

                               ROCKET PROPULSION

        Mr. Aderholt. I see my time is slipping away, but let me
    ask this one last question before I have to go back to the
    subcommittee that I have been chairing now. The Marshall Space
    Flight Center, which you know is on the edge of my district,
    has a tremendous rocket propulsion skill base there. It has a
    rich history in propulsion projects going back to the days of
    Von Braun. The National Institute for Rocket Propulsion Systems
    or the NIRPS, as the acronym goes, is located at Marshall and I
    hear it is doing great things for the nation. Would you agree
    that it is doing good things?
        General Bolden. We affectionately call it NIRPS and NIRPS
    is doing great things. In fact if you all will allow me to use
    the acronym, just because it is easier. But the important thing
    about NIRPS was--and it was the brainchild of some of the
    engine folk at Marshall, because they saw how NASA was working
    on engine technology, DOD was working on engine technology,
    industry was working on engine technology. So what the
    institute attempts to do is to bring all the disparate bodies
    together to talk about national needs and so that is what is
    done there. We have buy-in from the Air Force, we have buy-in
    from industry. So everyone is represented when you go--if you
    were to go to Marshall and ask somebody, when was the last time
    the Air Force was in here or when was the last time industry
    was in here, they would probably tell you, well, we had a
    meeting yesterday and everybody was here. So that was its
    intent and I think it is vital for the future of propulsion for
    this nation.
        Mr. Aderholt. Good to hear. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr.
    Administrator, for being here and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Chairman Aderholt.
        Let me recognize the young lady from Alabama, Mrs. Roby.

                        EXPLORATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

        Mrs. Roby. Well, you get two in a row. So I want to
    continue with what my colleague from Alabama was talking about
    as it relates to Marshall Space Flight Center's activities. And
    across Alabama the impact is nearly 20,000 jobs, their total
    economic impact in the State of Alabama is $3.3 billion. In
    terms of procurement, almost 60 percent of Marshall dollars are
    spent in Alabama. The Space Launch System or SLS results in
    almost half the jobs related to Marshall. And in addition to
    that, the International Space Station is managed by folks at
    Marshall through the Payload Operations Center. Personnel
    manage experiments on the Station around the clock and they
    integrate the various components and manage the logistics
    involved in getting these payloads to the station. They develop
    systems at Marshall used for experiments in life support and
    the Oxygen and Water Recycling Unit is just one example of the
    ingenuity from the people at Marshall.
        So back to SLS and thank you for being here today. I know
    NASA intends to launch the first full-scale test flight by late
    2017 and I wanted you to take some time to comment about the
    needed steps and proper funding in this year's budget request
    and future requests that are needed to keep that launch date on
    time.
        General Bolden. Congresswoman----
        Mr. Culberson. Great question.
        General Bolden. Okay. I thought I answered it, but I will
    try it again. Before you came in, not since you came in.
        Mrs. Roby. Okay. Sorry. There are four hearings going on at
    the same time.
        General Bolden. No, no, no, because I obviously did not
    answer it as well as I thought I did. In response to your
    question, the one thing that all of us agree is that we have to
    maintain America's leadership in space. And what I attempted to
    do or what my team attempted to do when we gave this budget
    recommendation to the President and he sent it over here was
    there are three things that we want to do. We want to continue
    to fund our capability to launch American astronauts from
    American soil, so that's Commercial Crew, Commercial Cargo for
    cargo and the like. We want to be able to get the three legs of
    the stool in place for deep space exploration, that's
    Commercial Crew & Cargo, a low Earth orbit infrastructure, the
    International Space Station, and SLS and Orion. And the final
    thing we want to do is we want to make sure that we maintain
    our preeminence in science, technology and engineering. In
    order to do all those, my job is to try to parse the funds up
    that we request to you such that it supports a well planned
    program to get us to Point A, if you will, which is what you
    are talking about.
        First flight for us has already occurred, that was Orion on
    the 5th of December, 2014. So that was the first flight in our
    exploration program, very successful. It was not in its
    configuration for sending humans to deep space, but that was
    the first flight, very successful. The second flight for us
    will come some time after 2018, to be precise. The reason that
    I say some time after 2018 and we will tell this Congress much
    more precisely some time this summer when we finish with the
    next milestone on Orion itself.
        You may say, I asked you about SLS, why are you telling me
    about Orion? Because they are a pair. We are not talking about
    flying SLS without Orion for deep space exploration just yet.
    So when we know when Orion will be ready to fly, then we will
    know when we can fly an SLS-Orion pair. SLS ground systems are
    ready now for a launch-readiness date of late 2018, so that is
    in place. We do not have a launch-readiness date yet for Orion,
    so we will give you that.
        Mrs. Roby. What would be the most negative or detrimental
    thing that could contribute to not allowing you to reach these
    goals?
        General Bolden. Not to fund Commercial Crew and find that
    we have got to go back to the Russians and pay more money for
    Soyuz seats over and over and over again, because it would mean
    that the U.S. has given up on having its own capability to get
    its crews to low Earth orbit. If we do not have the low Earth
    orbit infrastructure that I talked about very early on in my
    testimony, there is no exploration program. It is a program, it
    is an integrated program, and it is really important for this
    committee to understand that. We found, Mr. Chairman, that
    there was a piece of the program we never even considered
    before we started looking at Europa and how do we speed that
    mission up. So potentially, and I have to be very careful
    because the Chairman wants me to say we are going to fly an
    SLS, we are not ready there yet. But if we do not have SLS and
    Orion supported by Commercial Crew & Cargo and a viable low
    Earth orbit infrastructure, there is no SLS Europa mission. I
    would not bring this committee a proposal that I build an SLS
    so that we can go to Europa, but I would bring this committee a
    proposal that says we have a program for a journey to Mars and
    here is the way that integrated program works. Here are the
    three legs that I have got to have in place, Commercial Crew &
    Cargo, I have got to have the International Space Station for
    some period of time now to buy down the risk there, and then I
    have got to have SLS and Orion. They are all necessary, but I
    do not need to spend all the money on all of them right now to
    get there.
        Mrs. Roby. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you. I recognize the new ranking
    member of the Intelligence Committee, and a valued member of
    this subcommittee who has reserved his seniority, my good
    friend Mr. Schiff from California for any statement he would
    like to make.

                               PLANETARY SCIENCE

        Mr. Schiff. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
    recognizing me and allowing me to attend this important
    hearing. I look forward to working with you, as well as the
    Administrator, to ensure NASA receives the necessary funding to
    fulfill its core missions. I may be on leave technically, but
    my heart is still very much with NASA and my commitment as
    well.
        In particular, I am hopeful that Congress can work with
    NASA to provide the funding for NASA's Planetary Science
    Division, so that we can continue to learn more about our solar
    system from Mars 2020 to a mission to Jupiter's exciting moon
    Europa. These missions must be fully funded and made a priority
    for both NASA and the Congress. I share the conviction that our
    Chairman has that we need to make every effort to fund the
    priorities of the Decadal Survey. These are the nation's top
    most scientific priorities and the potential for really
    revelatory discoveries is just so exciting. And so I stand
    shoulder-to-shoulder with our Chairman.
        And I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I could submit questions for
    the record, if I am permitted to do so.
        Mr. Culberson. We would be happy to do so.
        Mr. Schiff. But I thank the gentleman for allowing me to
    attend and for all of his great advocacy for planetary science
    and for all of NASA. I am happy to yield back.
        Mr. Culberson. We are going to continue to rely on your
    advice and guidance. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         NAME BRAND RECOGNITION SURVEY

        Mr. Culberson. It was a privilege to work with you and the
    California delegation and my good friend Mr. Fattah. This whole
    committee is devoted to ensuring that NASA has the resources
    and the support that you need, sir, to do your mission. And I
    think as Mr. Honda said, or Mr. Serrano, that everything NASA
    does is just pure good. That is actually a nice way to look at
    it. And I would frankly love to see if you could, or somebody
    in your shop, find that survey that Sean O'Keefe did. Remember
    he retained a firm in Baltimore to do a name brand recognition
    goodwill survey of NASA and discovered that after the United
    States Marine Corps, General Bolden, that NASA had the highest
    positive name ID of any entity of the Federal Government. Am I
    remembering that correctly? That is just extraordinary. And we
    are here to help you and support you.
        [The information follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                 CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR THE MANNED SPACE PROGRAM

        Mr. Culberson. And I would like to follow up on Ms. Roby's
    question and one that Mr. Aderholt asked, but first let me ask
    you a really important question that I have been meaning to
    ask, it deals with the manned space program. What is NASA's
    contingency plan in the event the Russians just say no more
    flights? Because obviously Vladimir Putin is reminiscent of Joe
    Stalin, he is very aggressive. We are going to continue to see
    the Russians attempt to expand their sphere of influence very
    aggressively and I do not see relations improving any time
    soon. If the Russians decide to just cancel our ability to use
    Russian vehicles to get to the International Space Station,
    what is your contingency plan?
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, it is important for me to
    state very clearly that while we are always looking at things
    that could go wrong, when you look at the realities on the
    ground, the relationship between NASA and Roscosmos remains
    very strong. Indications are that while our two governments and
    our political and diplomatic relations are not very good,
    indications when you look at fiscal dealings, availability of
    rocket engines, support for the International Space Station,
    continued support for launching crews and commitment to the
    International Space Station through 2024. In Russia that comes
    from the top. So the indications are that the rhetoric on the
    political side is not the same when you talk about space
    exploration.
        Mr. Culberson. Right. And that----
        General Bolden. However----
        Mr. Culberson. Right.
        General Bolden [continuing]. We are always making plans for
    contingencies should something go wrong.
        Mr. Culberson. That is my question.
        General Bolden. There are always--Mrs. Roby mentioned on a
    bad day, on your worst day, what happens? On the worst day, the
    Russians decide that they are no longer interested in space
    exploration and that----
        Mr. Culberson. Or carrying us to the space station.
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I know this is going to sound
    like I have some crystal ball or something. We are an
    incredibly valuable partner for them, we are an indispensable
    partner for them in space exploration. If they made a decision
    that they no longer wanted to carry us to the International
    Space Station, they have subsequently made a decision that they
    no longer want to operate the International Space Station. That
    is just simple. It is because we operate, we are responsible
    for the day-to-day operations control of the International
    Space Station. They provide propulsion, but we are planning
    right now for them to, at some point take away the propulsion
    module that is there right now and we have other means to do
    that----
        Mr. Culberson. But of course one of NASA's great strengths
    has always been that you plan for the unexpected.
        General Bolden. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Culberson. You always have redundant systems on your
    spacecraft, on the ground, you have the ability to fall back on
    another system if one fails.
        General Bolden. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. And we need to know, the Congress needs to
    know----

                    NASA'S BACKUP PLAN FOR HUMAN EXPLORATION

        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman----
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. What is your plan in the event
    the Russians say we are not flying Americans to the space
    station anymore? Please answer that directly. You have got to
    be planning. I know that Mike Griffin, for example, did not
    want to fly the mission to the Hubble because the high
    inclination of the orbit was very different from the space
    station----
        General Bolden. That was Sean O'Keefe.
        Mr. Culberson. Sean O'Keefe.
        General Bolden. I apologize for interrupting----
        Mr. Culberson. No, no, make sure I got it right.
        General Bolden [continuing]. But I do not want my friend
    Mike Griffin to get----
        Mr. Culberson. I vividly remember the Hubble needed to be
    serviced, but the concern was that if there was a problem we
    could not rescue those astronauts. And the agency always has a
    backup plan. So if you could, please, sir, tell us specifically
    what is your contingency plan? What is NASA's backup plan in
    the event the Russians say we are not flying Americans to the
    space station? Tell us you have one.
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, because this is a partnership
    and because Russian crew members would be equally at risk, our
    backup plan, if you want to talk about that, would be to
    mutually agree that the space station and space exploration is
    going to come to an end.
        Mr. Culberson. So you have no backup?
        General Bolden. We would make an orderly evacuation of the
    International Space Station. We have six seats, six crew
    members, all six guys. If you wanted to say, what happens on a
    really, really, really bad day? That the nations of the world
    decide that we are done with human space flight. You are
    forcing me into this answer, and I like to give you real
    answers and I do not want to try to BS anybody. If the nations
    of the world decided that human exploration is done, we have
    the capability to bring all six crew members home, because we
    have two vehicles, six seats, six crew members. That day----
        Mr. Fattah. That are on the space station now.
        General Bolden. That are on the space station.
        Mr. Fattah. Right. So we could evacuate the station if we
    need to.
        General Bolden. I do not anticipate that that day is going
    to come. I am not worried about getting people to the
    International Space Station as long as the Congress funds the
    President's budget at $1.2 billion in 2016, because we will
    have an American capability to get crews to the International
    Space Station. Getting them there is not the issue right now,
    or getting them back is not the issue.
        Mr. Culberson. I know we have got the ability to get them
    back, but----
        General Bolden. Getting them there. But that is the only
    issue, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. I urge you, it is vitally important that
    NASA have the--are you making contingency plans? Have you got
    people working on what if?
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, may I make sure I understand
    your question?
        Mr. Culberson. Yes. So how do we continue--in the event the
    Russians say we are not carrying anybody else to the space
    station, your only plan is to evacuate it?
        General Bolden. No, sir. And I thought I might confuse
    people. Let's take two things. Is the question what is the
    contingency plan to get people to the International Space
    Station, to get crews there?
        Mr. Culberson. I understand we can evacuate folks, that is
    always essential. We want to make sure we can rescue people,
    you have got a lifeboat capability to get them home. But if the
    Russians said they are not carrying Americans anymore to the
    space station before commercial reaches full capability, you
    have no backup plan to continue to fly Americans to the space
    station until the commercial folks get up and running?
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, that is the plan.
        Mr. Culberson. But you do not----
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, there is no capability to get
    anyone to the International Space Station today--well, there
    are two ways, but I do not use one--and that is Soyuz. That is
    the capability, that is the only capability any nation in the
    world has. So, to talk about what is the backup plan, what is
    the contingency plan, the backup plan, the very serious backup
    plan is to get moving and get Boeing and SpaceX certified, so
    that we can fly in 2017. That is the backup plan. Had we gotten
    the funding that was requested when I first became the NASA
    Administrator, we would have been all joyously going down to
    the Kennedy Space Center later this year to watch the first
    launch of some commercial spacecraft with our crew members on
    it. That day passed. I came to this committee and I said over
    and over, if we do not fund Commercial Crew----
        Mr. Culberson. Had NASA not cancelled the Constellation
    Program, we would be ready to fly within 12 months.
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, that is not correct.
        Mr. Culberson. If we----
        General Bolden. And, Mr. Chairman, whoever told you that,
    that is not correct.
        Mr. Culberson. It set us back.
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, any time you interrupt a
    program, it sets the nation back. So that is very true.
        Mr. Culberson. Regardless of who is the President and
    regardless of who planned it, it was just a setback. I just
    wanted to establish it for the record and turn it over to my
    good friend Mr. Fattah. But it is a deep concern that we do not
    have a contingency plan to get our folks up in the event that
    the Russians----
        Mr. Honda. Would the Chair yield just for a real quick
    second?
        Mr. Culberson. I am going to go to Mr. Fattah, it will be
    his time.
        Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield for a
    second.

                         FUNDING FOR THE SPACE PROGRAM

        Mr. Honda. Just real quick. I think we have to own the
    question that you are asking that if we want those kinds of
    things to happen we have to fund it. We have not funded it. I
    have been here 15 years, we have been cutting every year
    research and development, the kinds of program we had at NASA.

                           RUSSIA AND THE ISS PROGRAM

        Mr. Fattah. Right. So first and foremost, just to put this
    in context and not to belabor it, in terms of the space station
    for a large period of time, even when we had the shuttle, the
    Russians took astronauts to the space station, we used the
    shuttle to take cargo; is that correct as a general matter?
        General Bolden. After we lost Columbia in 2003, the
    conscious decision was made because the Columbia Accident
    Investigation Board said, get space station completed. We
    worked with the international partners and decided the most----
        Mr. Fattah. What I am saying is that----
        General Bolden. But we did carry crews, but we carried the
    construction crews.
        Mr. Fattah. Right.
        General Bolden. And we said we would use----
        Mr. Fattah. But the main way to get individual astronauts
    was through the Russians.
        General Bolden. Yes.
        Mr. Fattah. And when we had the problem with the Russians
    and Georgia's independence and the military in Chechnya, was
    there any interruption in our interactions with Russia at that
    time?
        General Bolden. No, sir.
        Mr. Fattah. Right. And now we have this new dustup around
    Ukraine, which is more than a dustup, you know, but it is a
    similar kind of issue. Has there been any interruption in
    Russia's cooperation with their part of this partnership?
        General Bolden. No, sir.
        Mr. Fattah. Right. So now they have also taken a decision
    this week that they want to extend the life of the
    International Space Station. They are late to that decision,
    but they have said something that is useful in that regard. But
    in the meantime the Administration took some action, right?
    Because this dismantlement of the shuttle was always going to--
    putting the shuttle to rest was always going to create this
    break in our ability, this was known before this Administration
    came into being. Well, it is being resolved through the
    ingenuity of American enterprise, because the Administration
    with the Congress has made a package of decisions about deep
    space human flight, Commercial Crew and low Earth orbit, and
    the investment in space technology, so that we can keep our
    preeminence in space, right? So that is where we are headed.
        I wanted to get back to this 238 plutonium. So when we
    close the Savannah plant--and I am shifting gears now, I went
    back to where we started at, right?
        General Bolden. Yes, sir.

                                 PLUTONIUM-238

        Mr. Fattah. When we closed the Savannah plant in '88, we
    got out of the plutonium business, we got to somewhere around--
    when you were in charge we had 35 kilograms of plutonium, the
    DOE says we are going to get something done at Oak Ridge. I
    went out to visit the plant at Oak Ridge and they have a $50
    million contract with NASA to do this. In the meantime, we also
    have a problem on the medical side of this with isotopes, which
    we do not have any domestic capability in this regard either,
    and the Department of Energy has launched an effort in that
    regard. But this is very important, because if we are going to
    power spaceships, we need this plutonium, right? So I just
    wanted to clear up the record, it is Oak Ridge. And we need to
    keep mindful of these connections between the subcommittees,
    because you can speak to your colleague to make sure that that
    program is robust. Right. But I thank you, we do not have to
    get into it.
        The bottom line is, we are in the lead now. Our lead is not
    absolute, it is relative. And if we want to stay in the lead,
    we have got to make these investments or, as some of my
    colleagues would say, we have to spend--because they get
    concerned if we use this word investment--spend money, because
    we cannot lead the world on the cheap. But thank you very much.
        General Bolden. Thank you.

                          CONTINGENCY PLAN AND FUNDING

        Mr. Fattah. And I yield back to the Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. You know how committed our committee has
    always been, we have always made sure to plus up and protect
    NASA's funding levels. And my mention of the cancellation of
    the Constellation, it is not political, it is a setback, no
    matter who is in the White House. And it is a real concern, the
    gap is a real concern. And I wish we did have a contingency, I
    wish there was some way for us to get there more quickly, and
    we will certainly do our best to help you do that.
        I recognize Mr. Honda.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you. And I share your concern, but I just
    think that, you know, part of the problem is that we have to
    fund these kinds of activities because the investment that we
    make comes back in many ways in terms of the return on the
    investment. And I think the subcommittee, we may have to be
    more adamant with the process of the authorization part, you
    know, I am just saying. On the International----
        Mr. Fattah. This is the way we are going to work this. I am
    going to work hand-in-hand with my Chairman and we are going to
    walk this mile together. And I think at the end of the day,
    there is one thing I am sure of, NASA is going to be in a
    better position than it otherwise would be.
        Mr. Honda. All right. And on that, I love the Europa
    mission and I think that----
        Mr. Culberson. That is music to his ears.

                             EUROPA CLIPPER MISSION

        Mr. Honda. And, you know, with that kind of probe that we
    want to be sending up there, we will have new insights on how
    our solar system has been formed and the environment on this
    icy world, and possibly even a probe for the potential for
    alien life down there. Perhaps not the way we know it, but
    there may be another form of alien life there. So the secondary
    payloads offer relatively--is relatively cheap, a low-risk
    opportunity for dramatically increased scientific capabilities
    of that mission. The secondary payload on the Europa mission
    could be used to fly through its geysers and water plumes to
    directly search for life in the plumes and under the surface.
        So what are NASA's plans to use secondary payloads on the
    Europa Clipper mission to hunt for that alien life?
        General Bolden. Congressman, I am going to take it for the
    record to get you a formal response. However, what really
    excites me is the mission to Europa has excited people all over
    the scientific community, because the geysers of which you
    speak, if I am correct, I think were first sighted by Hubble.
    But they are not repeated, so they are not consistent. So we
    are not sure that, we can--if you are going to send a secondary
    payload in to fly through a geyser, then you need to know when
    it is going to geyse. That is a word I just made up.
    [Laughter].
        We do not know how to figure that out just yet, so we are
    studying. The planetary scientists are really trying to help us
    understand, is there another instrument that gives us a better
    idea of their frequency because what you would like to do, and
    a college student could do this, was take a CubeSat. They call
    them swarms. So with a mission that you sent to Europa, whether
    it is the Clipper or anything else, you drop swarms off, and
    they just go down near the surface. Where you would not send a
    spacecraft there because the harsh radiation environment, it
    would not survive, you send these little CubeSats through, and
    they take all kinds of samples.
        [The information follows:]

                             Europa Clipper Mission

        At this time, nine instruments for NASA's Europa mission have been
    selected. The instrument suite seeks to investigate whether Jupiter's
    moon, Europa, could harbor conditions suitable for life and includes
    instruments that could examine particles ejected from Europa, such as
    plumes. Conceptual designs for a potential secondary payload will be
    considered during the mission's early formulation.
        Detailed information on the selected instruments can be found at:
    http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-europa-mission-begins-with-
    selection-of-science-instruments.

        Mr. Fattah. And I hope return one to Earth.
        General Bolden. So I think that is what you are talking
    about. And that is really exciting when you think about it. But
    that, again, is like everything, it comes from science and
    technology funds, and those are the funds that we continue to
    cut.

                    EVOLVING ISS INTO LEO COMMERCIAL MARKET

        Mr. Honda. And so we need to bolster it and to be able to
    move forward in areas that we want to move forward on.
    Determine through the Chair, and that is the start of the
    dialog with industry about how it may transition the
    International Space Station from a pure government operation to
    partial commercial ownership in this operation. Can you tell us
    today about what your plans are? And I understand that Russia's
    obligation is to 2024, so can you just give us some sort of
    explanation of what the plans might be?
        General Bolden. I will make it very quick. We were
    disappointed. We went out with a request for information from
    the industry, academia, everybody, that said we would like to
    use the International Space Station. I mean, it is only going
    to be there for a certain amount of time.
        Mr. Honda. Yeah.
        General Bolden. We would like for you to look at it and
    tell us how this gives you confidence that you can go off and
    position modules or other independent entities in low Earth
    orbit. This is the infrastructure that I talked about.
    Everybody said for the most part, ``Yeah, nice idea, but we
    like going for free. We like having NASA do it, and so we're
    not quite ready yet.'' We continue to pursue that however,
    because we think that with the discoveries that are being made
    now through CASIS, (a non-profit entity that we have put in
    place to help us go out and recruit people to fly on the
    International Space Station), that industry, academia,
    international partners will begin to see the value of not
    flying on the International Space Station, but what being in a
    micro-gravity environment provides. So we just have to be
    patient, but it was disappointing the first time we tried to do
    it.

                        RUSSIA'S LAUNCH SITE RELOCATION

        Mr. Honda. Very quickly, in the line of the Chairman's
    question, I understand Russia is sort of winding up their
    activities in Kazakhstan as a launch area, and they are going
    to move back to Russia. How does that impact our programs, and
    do we have a plan around that?
        General Bolden. It is like everything else, where we
    purchase a service. The service is getting our crews to orbit,
    and it makes no difference whether they launch from Siberia or
    whether they launch from Kazakhstan. It's a trip that the crew
    has to take, and that will not change. The crew lives and
    trains in Star City for long periods of time, and they have to
    get on an airplane and fly down to Kazakhstan three days prior
    to the launch. But it is the same thing we do in America. The
    crew trains and lives in Houston, and they get on an airplane
    three days ahead of time, and they fly down to the Kennedy
    Space Center.

                                LOW EARTH ORBIT

        But can I go back to the--because I don't want to leave
    anyone mistaken--when we talk about science and technology, the
    point that you made, it is critical, and we have to find better
    ways to encourage industry and other entities to want to be in
    low Earth orbit.
        We are going to fly what is called a Bigelow Expandable
    Activity Module (BEAM). It is a Bigelow. It is not inflatable.
    Mr. Bigelow would get really upset if I say that. It is an
    expandable module. This is an American entrepreneur who has had
    dreams of putting stuff in space for probably 30 years, and has
    the hardware in place if we can just find a way to get it
    there. So he has two modules that have been on orbit for more
    than five years now that were flown up on Russian spacecraft
    with no instrumentation. So we can look at it. We can see that
    they are still existing. We have no idea what is in it, whether
    the air is clean or whatever. We are going to take one of his
    smaller expandable modules and put it on the International
    Space Station later this year, and the crews are going to be
    able to go in and put logistics in there, play with it, do
    whatever. What we are hoping is that there will be other
    companies like some of these that are sitting on the back row
    over here--I will put them on the spot--who will say, ``That is
    a good idea. We want to do that also,'' and either buy a module
    from Mr. Bigelow or go build their own module and put it in
    another orbit. It does not have to be in the same orbit as the
    International Space Station.
        Mr. Honda. I think they should buy one from him. I mean, if
    he has put out 30 years of effort in it, he should get a pay
    off, you know.
        Mr. Bolden. I don't know whether----
        Mr. Honda. Anybody who builds their own, do not come see
    me. You know?
        General Bolden. He has built his own, and it has been a
    while. But that is what, Mr. Honda, that is what we have to do,
    and so we are taking the risk. We are saying we will fly you to
    the International Space Station, and we are going to put you
    there and then we are going to work with it and see what
    happens. Our hope is that other companies will see that this is
    a potential moneymaker, and they will take it and move off
    somewhere else. So I did not want to go without making a note
    that we were doing things.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you. General Bolden, I want to go back
    to the SLS.
        General Bolden. Yes, sir.

                LAUNCH ABORT SYSTEM AND THE SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM

        Mr. Culberson. Because I am concerned about the
    announcement that there has been slip in the launch date. There
    has been a delay. NASA has announced a delay in the second
    round of testing, a launch abort system. And the second round
    of testing looks like it is going to be held in 2018. I know
    that the budget request that the President submitted to the
    Congress asks for a 12 percent reduction in Orion and SLS
    funding, which concerns me because we have obviously got a
    serious deficiency in the ability to reach low Earth orbit. We
    certainly do not want to see any slippage in our ability to go
    beyond low Earth orbit, and I want to make sure the SLS program
    is robust, and that it achieves all of its milestones. We would
    like to get it in ahead of time.
        Could you talk to us about what is necessary, what does
    this subcommittee and the Congress need to do, to help the SLS
    prevent any more slippages? What can we do to help make sure
    there are no more slippages? Why was the first launch slipped
    by a year?
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, if I can address the launch
    abort system first. That is not a part of SLS. That's a part of
    Orion, and your statement is a surprise to me. I will take it,
    for the record, I will have to go back and find out. My
    impression, my information, was we were getting ready to do the
    test of a part of the launch abort system, at least the motors,
    right over in a facility in Maryland sometime this year. But I
    will go back and verify where we are there. So that had no
    impact on anything about SLS.
        What got us to where we are with SLS today when we say 2018
    is its readiness to fly, was we went through the very formal
    process of milestone evaluations and everything, and when that
    was presented to Robert Lightfoot at a formal session that we
    have on programmatic decision making, then it came out that we,
    on our funding profile, SLS would be ready in 2018 at a certain
    price. And so that was the first time that we really knew for
    certain what its earliest launch date could be. But that is
    only SLS in the ground system.
        [The information follows:]

         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        General Bolden. That is what we are saying.
        Mr. Culberson. And earlier I thought I heard you say at one
    point that an initial launch capability would be late 2018, and
    then I thought I also heard you say after 2018.
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, what I may have said, I may
    have confused things by referring to the system. I do not talk
    about launch of SLS. I talk about the launch of the integrated
    SLS and Orion to cislunar space. That means it is going to be
    EM-2. So that is what, when I talk about important, really
    important dates, because that is the way we are planning Orion.
    We are planning a launch availability of Orion for EM-2. Then
    we back away from that to say when EM-1 can be launched. You
    know, we are trying to figure out what is the earliest possible
    date that we can fly a human-rated mission on SLS and Orion.
    Once we determine that--and that is what will come to you all
    this summer.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay. This summer you will get that to us?
        General Bolden. The technical term for it is ``key decision
    point two.''
        Mr. Culberson. That's----
        General Bolden. Key decision point C.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        General Bolden. So KDP-C. And that will not be until this
    Spring or Summer. And once that occurs, we will come back in to
    you and say, ``Here is the decision from KDP-C.''
        Mr. Culberson. And NASA has told the subcommittee that
    increasing the fiscal year 2016 budget for SLS would not result
    in an advanced schedule or reduced life cycle cost for the
    program, and yet you have requested a 12 percent reduction in
    funding for Orion and SLS. That seems a little inconsistent. It
    seems to me we are not adequately funding SLS and Orion. How
    are you going to manage to stay on track if you are asking for
    a 12 percent reduction?
        General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, we think we are asking for
    adequate funds. We have a schedule that is built around what
    comes out of the key decision point milestones. The budget that
    we have in place today supports having the SLS, the launch
    vehicle, and the ground systems available in 2018, the present
    budget that we have in place today. We will have a budget
    request, that will be refined next year once we get the KDP-C
    for Orion, and I hope I am not confusing things here, but I
    will get clarification back to you.
        Mr. Culberson. So you anticipate you will be able to give
    us an estimate of your first crewed mission by this summer?
        General Bolden. Yes, sir.

                           DECADAL SURVEY PRIORITIES

        Mr. Culberson. Okay. Let me talk a minute about the Decadal
    survey priorities and see if my friend, Mr. Fattah has any
    follow up, we will probably submit the bulk of these for the
    record. The reason the Europa mission is so important is that
    it was the top priority of the Decadal survey last decade and
    the second priority this decade. And it, as you know, holds two
    to three times more liquid water than all the water on Earth
    and is the most likely place beyond Earth that if we are going
    to find life, it is most likely right there in our own
    backyard. That is why the planetary science community is so
    excited about it and why this committee has supported it so
    strongly.
        The mission is still in its early planning phases, but I
    would like to know, if you could, talk to us about the Decadal
    survey in general. Are you satisfied that NASA is following the
    direction of Congress in funding and flying the top priority of
    the planetary Decadal survey? And talk to us about some of the
    other Decadals. To me, that is the gold standard. That is what
    NASA should be flying, the best recommendations of the best
    minds in the scientific community, whether it be planetary,
    heliophysics, earth science, or astrophysics.
        General Bolden. Congressman, or Chairman, the best thing
    out of Decadal surveys is the fact that it does represent the
    thinking of the best minds in science, if you will, out of the
    National Research Council in a specific discipline. What we
    endeavor to do is follow the guidance of the Decadal survey,
    and we generally try to focus on the number one and number two
    areas there. We do not go down deep into the list, because the
    Decadal surveys give us multiple projects that can be flown.
        As the way the planetary said this past time when Steve
    Squyres chaired it was, in fact, he made it very specific. The
    Decadal survey was very clear. If NASA is going to fly a
    subsequent Mars Rover after Curiosity and it is not going to
    cache, then don't do it. I mean, they were very specific. Go to
    Europa. It did not say to go to Europa and do this. But we have
    decided that we can put enough funds in the budget to mount
    another charge on Mars with Mars 2020, which we intend will be
    a caching mission.
        Mr. Culberson. Yeah. The first step on that----
        General Bolden. We will put samples in place----
        Mr. Culberson. Right.
        General Bolden [continuing]. For a subsequent return to
    Earth and begin the formulation of a Europa mission. That is
    what we are doing. I hate the term robust, but in general
    terms, if you look at our planetary science program, Dawn is
    closing in on Ceres. We are still learning from the abundance
    of data that Dawn gathered in its year orbiting Vesta. New
    Horizons is closing in on Pluto and is already imaging Pluto.
    Juno will arrive at Saturn soon, and so--Jupiter, not Saturn,
    thank you very much.
        Mr. Culberson. Yeah, I thought that----
        General Bolden. No, no, no, that is, yeah. You are right.
        Mr. Culberston. It is Jupiter.
        General Bolden. But every planet and major dwarf planet in
    our solar system is either being investigated presently or
    going to be investigated in the next two years. I know there
    are people who believe we can do better than that, but I am not
    sure we will make the planetary science community happy if
    visiting every planet in the solar system is not good enough.
    We are now talking about understanding planets in other solar
    systems and other galaxies thanks to the work of Kepler. So we
    are expanding the areas of investigation for planetary
    scientists even beyond our own solar system. I think that is
    good. I think it is great. Whether it satisfies everybody or
    not, no it does not, and we never will. But it is like how much
    money do you need? It does not make any difference how much
    money you give me, I am going to tell you I need more.
        Mr. Culberson. Well, this was the first Decadal survey I
    think they had ever done where they used independent outside
    cost estimates. Steve Squyres was very adamant and quite
    correct in making sure that we had realistic outside
    independent cost estimates on each one of those missions so
    that Congress would have a good idea of what they would
    actually cost.
        Mr. Fattah, any follow up?

                         RANKING MEMBER CLOSING REMARKS

        Mr. Fattah. Just a closing comment, not a follow-up
    question. One is, I want to thank the Chairman, and I think the
    time clock thing is working. Except for me and you, it has been
    working great. And I want to thank the Administrator, not for
    all that you have done in terms of space exploration, but what
    you are doing in terms of preparing future generations.
        The Space Act Agreement with the Boys and Girls Clubs of
    America, four million young people, four thousand clubs all
    across the country, in getting these young people excited about
    STEM education in general, but doing that through having them
    learn about the exciting work of NASA, because that is how we
    get people who want to be mathematicians and engineers and
    everything that we need by getting them excited about this.
        And I said this to the Chairman in private one day that all
    of us do not have the benefit of having, you know, Cape
    Canaverals or NASA Mission Controls in our district, but all of
    us have these young people who want to live up to their God-
    given potential, and NASA is the best opportunity to get these
    young people excited about learning. So I want to thank you for
    all you have done.
        General Bolden. Absolutely.
        Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Culberson. Mr. Honda, any follow up?

                          PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

        Mr. Honda. Thank you. And in the words of Leonard Nimoy,
    live long and prosper. And if I may just ask one quick
    question, I was really----
        Mr. Fattah. That is more of a comment.
        Mr. Honda. I know, but I could not resist. I just wanted to
    share that, you know. I was really pleased to see NASA moving
    forward with the competition-based cargo and commercial crew.
    And I think that we are really concerned about that as a group.
    Now that contracts with the Boeing and SpaceX are in place and
    there is a clear path forward to restoring domestic crew space
    transportation by 2017, under-funding this program will delay
    crew flights and lead to continued reliance on Russia for
    access to the International Space Station. So as a commercial
    crew provider's focus on low Earth orbit, NASA would be able to
    shift its focus into deeper exploration of space.
        Can you just briefly discuss how the success of this
    public/private partnership is shaping how NASA would be using
    future missions to explore the solar system, and how do you
    envision more cooperation with the private companies to explore
    resources on the moon and near-Earth asteroids?
        General Bolden. Congressman, we have always felt that
    collaboration with private industry and entrepreneurs was the
    right way to go. Commercial crew and cargo, commercial cargo
    particularly, has demonstrated that that was in fact a good
    plan, a good thing to do. We are now looking at collaboration
    with industry and academia and entrepreneurial interest in
    putting things on the surface of the moon. I tell people all
    the time that we never left the moon. We have always been
    there. We have orbiting vehicles right now, but in the near
    future, and near is a relative term, my hope is that we will
    enable humans to go back to the surface of the moon. NASA does
    not have to be the organization doing it if we are implementing
    it and supporting it.
        We are going to be operating in cislunar space for ten
    years at least when we go to the proving ground. With multiple
    term trips back and forth to cislunar space, I think it is
    inconceivable to me that we would not partner with some
    entrepreneurial interest, or some industry, or some other
    international partner who wants to build a Rover and, lower it
    to the surface of the moon from the cislunar orbit in which we
    happen to be. It is inconceivable to me that that will not
    happen.
        Mr. Honda. It could be like expanding internet, you know,
    going to space and be that kind of thing. So, again, Mr.
    Chairman, live long and prosper.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Honda. There is no
    prohibition in current law against private companies mining----
        General Bolden. Oh, I do not, Mr.--I get asked that all the
    time, and I need to find an answer. I do not----
        Mr. Culberson. I do not believe there is. I think, of
    course, no nation----
        General Bolden. I do not think there is, and that is the
    problem. Everyone is concerned, and so one of the fastest
    growing areas in the field of law today is space law.
        Mr. Culberson. Well, no nation can claim sovereignty over a
    asteroid or the moon.
        General Bolden. I think you are right.
        Mr. Culberson. I think that we treat it just like
    Antarctica, however, though----
        Mr. Fattah. Well, no nation except if we claim it, right?

                           Chairman's Closing Remarks

        Mr. Culberston. I do think Mr. Honda raises a really
    interesting, good question that I think maybe in the future we
    need to think about NASA providing infrastructure and support
    to the private sector to reach out, and whether it be mine
    resources, make those resources as fuel stations for missions
    out to deep space in the same way the highway department
    provides infrastructure for commercial activity on Earth in the
    future.
        But we will certainly do everything we can to support you,
    and it is a real privilege for me to be in this position to
    help make some of those dreams of the future, of young people
    come true, Mr. Fattah and Mr. Honda, and something we have
    always worked together arm in arm in a bipartisan way.
        I have got a lot of questions I will follow up with you
    personally on as well as for the record. But it is a real
    privilege for me to be chairman of this subcommittee. And I
    hope as part of my legacy that I will, working with Mr. Fattah,
    find a way to make sure that NASA's budget request comes
    directly to us, you know, to bypass Office Management and
    Budget. We ought to hear directly from you as to what you need.
    We ought to give you the stability and support you need to do
    multi-year procurement so that you can build spacecraft and
    rockets the way the Navy builds aircraft carriers and
    submarines. Mr. Fattah?
        Mr. Fattah. I like the way you think, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. We----
        Mr. Fattah. Directly to us. That is----
        Mr. Culberson. We really do. We want to hear directly from
    you, and I hope also as a part of my legacy, our legacy
    together on this, I really want to see NASA focusing on those
    Decadal surveys. I really think that is the proper map,
    guideline, for future missions, relying on the best minds in
    the industry.
        It is the law today that NASA follow the planetary Decadal
    survey. I would like to work with you, Mr. Fattah, in trying to
    expand that to help make sure that NASA is following the
    recommendations of the Decadal surveys in heliophysics and
    earth sciences and astrophysics as well.
        And when it comes to the manned program, that is a bigger
    challenge, is how do you do a Decadal survey?
        Mr. Fattah. I will say this publicly, Mr. Chairman, I love
    the fact that there could be, one, a leadership role, someone
    on the other team, that says you want to focus on science as
    the guidepost. So it works for me. All right?
        Mr. Culberson. That is it. That is my North Star, is to
    make sure that we are following the recommendations of the best
    minds in the scientific community in each one of these areas of
    specialty.
        And then also I hope to not only to make sure that we get
    the SLS up and running, and get commercial up to low Earth
    orbit, but for the long term, I just want to leave you with
    this. I actually really think the asteroid redirect mission--I
    would encourage you to focus on the development of the next
    generation of rocket propulsion. That, to me, is the great
    value of that mission. The fact that we are still flying a
    rocket engine that has fundamentally been designed by Robert
    Goddard in the 1920s is just inexcusable.
        And the asteroid redirect mission, the great value there is
    that for these young people that NASA touches and inspires, I
    really hope it is part of my legacy in the time that my
    district continues to rehire me, that I am privileged to chair
    this subcommittee, that not only will we leave NASA with a
    robust low Earth and deep space, manned space flight
    capability, and a robotic planetary astrophysics/heliophysics
    and earth science program designed and recommended by the best
    minds in the industry, but also to leave for future generations
    development of the first interstellar rocket propulsion system
    that would carry us to Alpha Centauri and beyond.
        That can be done. It is within the realm of our ability,
    within the realm of the capability of the brilliant men and
    women that work for you, General Bolden. And I, with the
    support of my colleagues in the subcommittee, really would like
    you to be thinking about, when it comes to the asteroid
    redirect mission, focusing on development of the rocket
    propulsion system that will take us to Alpha Centauri. To go
    explore those exo-planets that are most like Earth, which
    appear to be far more common than we ever realized.
        I deeply appreciate it. Thank you for your indulgence and
    the extra time, and I look forward to following up with you
    individually and personally, as you can imagine. It will be in
    great detail and very specific. I am looking forward to coming
    to see you, sir, and thank you for your leadership and your
    service to the country, and the hearing is adjourned. Thank
    you.

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                               Tuesday, March 17, 2015.

                          NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

                                    WITNESS

    HON. FRANCE A. CORDOVA, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
        Mr. Culberson. The subcommittee will come to order. Thank
    you for your service to the country and to the scientific
    community. We have, all of us on this committee over the years
    have been strong supporters of the sciences and space
    exploration. It is one of the great joys that I have had in
    Congress to get to help, serve on this committee to help the
    National Science Foundation and to ensure that the United
    States stays at the cutting edge of scientific discovery in the
    world. The impact that has I think on our quality of life for
    this generation and generations to come is self-evident. It is
    a real privilege for me to be here as the chairman and to work
    with my Ranking Member Mr. Fattah and other members of the
    subcommittee to do everything we can to help you achieve that
    mission. Recognizing of course that we are in a very difficult
    budget year with very tough constraints on the Congress to
    fulfill all that is asked of us.
        We are entrusted with the task of allocating very scarce
    and precious, hard-earned tax dollars and it is vitally
    important, of course, that we be very careful to ensure that
    those hard-earned tax dollars are spent wisely and targeted
    very carefully. I can certainly think of few endeavors that are
    more noble or worthwhile than investing in the National Science
    Foundation. We do want to make sure, though, however, the money
    is well spent and not wasted. So I will probably spend some of
    my time in my questions talking about the Inspector General's
    report. I know you are still fairly new on the job. But I do
    have a lot of concerns about some of the things that the
    Inspector General pointed out and I want to go over some of
    those with you.
        Your request for this year, for 2016 is $7.7 billion, about
    a five percent increase of $379 million over the current fiscal
    year. And I know that my colleague Mr. Fattah and other members
    of the subcommittee feel as I do, that we certainly want to
    make sure that we help you. But again, it is really going to be
    a difficult, a difficult budget year.
        I am delighted to have you here, look forward to your
    testimony, and am happy to recognize my good friend Mr. Fattah
    for any opening statement he would like to make.
        Mr. Fattah. Well first of all let me thank the chairman for
    hosting this hearing. I think it is very, very important that
    the premier basic science and research entity in the world, we
    have an appropriate understanding of your budget and we can do
    that through this hearing. The work that is being done is
    critically important. And I want to put in some, and if you
    would as you talk today, in context what our friends around the
    world are doing. Right? So I was with Judith Rodin at the
    Rockefeller Foundation and she was saying that in China they
    just opened up 100 science only universities, and 200 math and
    science focused institutions. They have invested a great deal
    in basic scientific research. Now that is a big and plus
    populated country. But Singapore, which is a much smaller
    country, less people there than in the Philadelphia region,
    their National Science Foundation, which was built off of, you
    were the benchmark for it, they have invested over $7 billion.
    And this is a small, small, I mean, you know how big Texas is,
    right? I mean, 4.5 million people in Singapore. I mean, the
    fact that they could make such a huge investment.
        And then our friends in the European Union with Horizon
    2020, which is a seven-year effort, well over $80 billion
    euros, focused just in six areas. You know, marine science,
    neuroscience, which of course is my favorite, but agricultural
    science. So I am wondering when we think about America and we
    think about our leadership in the world, which was at one point
    absolute and now is relative. That is, that we still lead but
    there are people who are chomping at the bit and they want a
    piece of the action. In fact, Singapore has been hiring away
    some of our best scientists. So the head of the National Cancer
    Center, and his spouse, and on, and on, and on. I mean, they
    have been picking up pieces because they intend to be
    indispensable in the world. So I am wondering when you talk to
    us today about the work of the Science Foundation you could put
    it in context so that it is not just a matter, I do not see it
    as just a budget for an agency. I really see it as the
    indispensable lynchpin to this innovation ecosystem in our
    country. That if we do not invest in basic science research,
    none of the other things that we want to do as a country are
    going to be possible, including our national defense which is
    so very important. A lot of the breakthroughs in our ability to
    defend ourselves against the world's threats start at their
    core from work at the, that has been funded by the National
    Science Foundation.
        So welcome, I thank the chairman, and look forward to your
    testimony.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much. I certainly share Mr.
    Fattah's feelings. And I hope as a part of your testimony today
    you will talk to us about the other nations in the world and
    their investment. I think Mr. Fattah is exactly right, to focus
    our attention on that. Where are other nations in their
    investment in the sciences? In the pure sciences and
    engineering and where we are in relation to them.
        Of course your statement will be entered into the record in
    its entirety, without objection. And we welcome your testimony.
    And we want to encourage you, if you could, to keep it within
    about five minutes as a summary. So thank you very much and we
    look forward to hearing from you today. Thank you, ma'am.
        Dr. Cordova. Thank you, Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member
    Fattah, and members of the subcommittee. I see Congressman
    Jenkins, good to see you again. I am pleased to testify today
    on behalf of the National Science Foundation's fiscal year 2016
    budget submission.
        In my written testimony I have addressed specific aspects
    of our budget request, including funding for our four cross-
    directorate programs, ``Understanding the Brain,'' ``Risk and
    Preparedness for Disasters,'' ``The Interrelatedness of Food,
    Water, and Energy Science,'' and ``Expanding Efforts to Broaden
    Participation in STEM.'' NSF believes that this budget
    comprises a strong request that is responsive to the national
    interest in science as well as science in the national
    interest.
        In this, my oral testimony, I will address three more
    general questions. First, why do we fund what we fund? Namely,
    all fields of science and engineering, including the
    sociobehavioral and economic sciences. Secondly, how does our
    agency set priorities for funding? And third, what is NSF's
    long range plan, our vision for science? And Ranking Member
    Fattah, I will try to answer in one sentence your question
    about international and then perhaps we can follow that up in
    the rest of the testimony.
        On the first question, why do we fund what we fund? Let me
    quote President Harry Truman, ``I have just signed the National
    Science Foundation Act of 1950. This Act is of tremendous
    importance because it will add to our knowledge in every branch
    of science. I am confident that it will help to develop the
    best scientific brains in the nation. It will enable the United
    States to maintain its leadership in scientific matters and to
    exert a more vital force for peace.'' So he was addressing just
    what you were talking about, Congressman.
        NSF has long prided itself on adding to the knowledge base
    for all science and engineering. That is by statute not a
    narrow focus. Many of our important challenges require the
    perspectives and knowledge of both physical scientists and
    social and behavioral scientists. It is interesting to note
    that the last 51 Nobel Prize Winners in Economics have been
    supported by our Social, Behavioral and Economics Directorate.
    We believe that good research, often interdisciplinary in
    character, can inform us in the face of big scientific
    questions.
        On the second question of setting priorities, we start with
    input from the large community of scholars, scientists,
    engineers, and educators. This can come in the form of decadal
    surveys, which set priorities for a discipline. NSF sets its
    priorities in part through these surveys. Examples include the
    Decadal Survey in Astronomy, and the recent Ocean Science
    Decadal Survey. We also support studies by the National
    Academies and carefully weigh the advice of scientific
    societies, NSF sponsored workshops, and universities and
    research centers. We balance all this external input with the
    input of our talented staff at NSF and then carefully put our
    budgets together.
        Lastly on the third question, what is the ten-year plan for
    the National Science Foundation? I am reminded of a question
    posed to Condoleezza Rice, long before she became Secretary of
    State. She was asked what her strategic plan was for her
    future. She said that if she had made a strategic plan when she
    was young she would have been playing the piano at Nordstrom's.
    She was a gifted child pianist. The point is that some people,
    and for some agencies like the National Science Foundation
    which pursues the most fundamental research, planning needs to
    be highly flexible and adaptive to discoveries, insights, and
    advances that are unpredictable. It is limiting to plan for a
    future that cannot be envisioned. It is the opposite of what we
    were funded to do, which is to pursue great ideas of creative
    people.
        I am an astrophysicist. When I was in graduate school,
    there were no known planets orbiting other suns. There was no
    detection of the Higgs boson. We had not discovered yet dark
    energy, which we now know to comprise 75 percent of the matter
    energy content of the universe. How could we not have known?
    Because the basic science had not yet been done, and we could
    not have predicted where it would lead us. Can we make a ten-
    year plan for where our research in these wondrous new areas
    will lead us? We can, and do, plan very carefully in as much
    detail as our current knowledge permits.
        Our plan, which we update every four years, has been
    approved by the National Science Board. Additional details are
    filled in by those scientists and engineers who pursue
    fundamental research, wherever it leads. And exciting, new, and
    unexpected directions can be pursued precisely because of our
    flexibility.
        And now let me just take--is the red light on there? Does
    that say five? Just one second to open the door to discussing
    international collaborations. As the recent report from the
    American Academy of Arts and Sciences said, and they addressed
    this in ``Restoring the Foundation,'' that the U.S.' place has
    slipped to number ten in the world as far as the expenditure of
    R&D divided by GDP. And we used to be number one or two a
    decade or so ago. So there is a lot of good hard evidence for
    our concern, in spite of the fact that we do spend substantial
    monies in R&D, as you point out Congressman Fattah: the rest of
    the world is relatively spending more, their first derivative
    is just simply higher than ours. And they are bringing back
    students and professors that we have had at our universities
    and giving them good packages there.
        And everywhere we go around the world, and especially in
    Asia, we see the growth of universities and the growth of the
    investment. Just yesterday I was with the Prime Minister of
    Ireland, where we were celebrating St. Patrick's Day. And he
    was pointing out, as was his Minister of Science who leads
    their equivalent of the National Science Foundation, the
    substantial investment that Ireland has been making and that
    they have an enormous innovation product as a result of that
    and they are very, very proud of that. Much credit was given to
    the National Science Foundation for originally providing the
    model for that investment. So I look forward to your further
    questions in this and all areas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
    the opportunity to address you.

           INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORTS ON FACILITY CONSTRUCTION FUNDING

        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Dr. Cordova. And I
    want, if I could, to talk about the Inspector General's report
    from last September in particular. Because we are all of us in
    the subcommittee enthusiastic and very supportive of the work
    that you do, and the awarding of grants, and the work that you
    do in ensuring that the United States maintains its leadership
    role in the world in scientific research. Particularly in the
    pure sciences, which obviously include the earth sciences as
    well. But the budget environment in which we operate is so
    constrained that I am compelled to in the weeks ahead, follow
    up with a visit out to headquarters to talk to you about this.
    I am so concerned about what the Inspector General tells us
    about some of the deficiencies and the ability of the National
    Science Foundation to independently verify the cost of, for
    example the Daniel Inouye Solar Telescope, the Large Synoptic
    Survey Telescope.
        The Inspector General points out that after over four years
    of attempting to audit the proposed cost for construction of
    the telescopes there continues to be a lack of adequate
    documentation to determine if the costs are fair and
    reasonable. And the Inspector General also points out that the
    NSF's internal review, for example of the cost of the Large
    Synoptic Survey Telescope, it was not possible for you all to
    independently verify costs for any of the 136 proposal
    expenditures sampled, including approximately $145 million in
    direct materials. And after this critical report was issued the
    Inspector General points out the independent proposal and
    accounting system audits were clearly warranted to ensure the
    adequacy and proper accounting of the proposed costs, but
    instead of obtaining those audits NSF had a contractor perform
    a sufficiency review which is a less rigorous assessment than
    an audit. And in September, 2014 the Inspector General issued
    an alert memo expressing strong concern that NSF did not have
    sufficient information to establish a reasonable basis for the
    cost of the LSST project. They have been urging NSF for the
    last four years to strengthen accountability of your high
    dollar, high risk cooperative agreements for large
    construction, large facility construction projects. They point
    out, quite correctly, that you do indeed apply your highest
    level of attention and scrutiny to determine the scientific
    merits of the projects that you attempt to fund. But it is this
    independent assessment of the actual cost, to be able to verify
    that and strong audit procedures that the Inspector General has
    recommended apparently repeatedly. I understand you are still
    fairly new on the job but I would like to, in light of the
    difficult budget environment in which we operate, in light of
    this committee's strong support for the work that you do and
    our passion to help you do what you do, to assure our
    constituents that their money is being wisely spent, what have
    you done to comply with the Inspector General's
    recommendations?
        Dr. Cordova. I appreciate the question. And even though as
    you said I am relatively new, I have been on this from the
    first moment I stepped in the door, I can assure you. And from
    my previous positions heading up a couple of our nation's great
    universities, I take the responsibility of excellence in
    management as seriously as I do our mission to further the
    progress of science.
        I will just say a couple of general things and then address
    your specific questions. The Foundation is committed to working
    closely with the Inspector General and her office. I meet
    regularly with the Inspector General and we go over all the
    issues that are outstanding. I truly do believe, as you do,
    that it is only with the strong support of the Inspector
    General and Congress that oversight of taxpayers' resources can
    ultimately be achieved. And we are very appreciative of those
    efforts.
        I will also say in a general sense, and I will be happy to
    send the particulars, that many of the Inspector General's, in
    fact I would say most of their observations and recommendations
    we have followed. We have saved the taxpayer monies in our
    travel costs in the last couple of years, the way we are doing
    virtual panels. We have saved in a number of other areas and I
    can detail them.
        Dr. Cordova. Now on your specific issues. Sometimes as you
    know there is I.G. information that is given to Congress, and
    that information perhaps is not reviewed for a period after
    that even though NSF has responded to all the actions. So I
    will say, again in a general context, that it is important that
    we know exactly what you know from the I.G., when you know it,
    so that we can respond to you in a timely manner that yes, just
    two months ago we did such and such in response, or yesterday.
    In the case of one recent memo we did, we have issued our
    response, or we are going to in a couple of weeks. So there is
    kind of a timing issue here because we have been on all of the
    issues you have described and we have responded to each in
    turn.
        For example, with respect to the Large Synoptic Survey
    Telescope, NSF did apply a formal response to the alert memo on
    January 23rd of this year. With respect to two significant
    deficiencies, prior year's significant deficiency related to
    NSF's monitoring of construction type agreements, and NSF's
    practices, I can assure you we properly follow the OMB's newly
    clarified guidance pertaining to contingency funding and
    awards. This notwithstanding, NSF is going to continue to
    strengthen our controls for awarding and managing construction
    type cooperative agreements, exercise an enhanced surveillance
    in response to OIG concerns, and perhaps most importantly, we
    have with the great help and blessing of the National Science
    Board, represented today by its Chairman Dr. Dan Arvizu, who is
    sitting behind me. We have co-asked an external entity to
    provide us with a very thorough investigation, I would say
    ``study'', of our cooperative management vehicle. And we hope
    within a few months time to get the first phase of the study
    done. But it is a careful statement of work that addresses all
    of these concerns and really looks at the details. And we think
    that by putting it out in a very well recognized external
    entity they can address it properly.

                 IMPLEMENTING INSPECTOR GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

        Mr. Culberson. How about implementing the Inspector
    General's specific recommendations that you strengthen the
    accountability of your high dollar, high risk cooperative
    agreements and have essentially an independent proposal and
    accounting system audit in place? Have you begun to implement
    their recommendations that they have been recommending now for
    the last four years when it comes to your high dollar, high
    risk cooperative agreements for large construction projects?
        Dr. Cordova. Yes, we are. And I would be able to follow it
    up with more detail. But we have it in our policy manual for
    our large facilities. That office has a new leader and we have
    really strengthened the policies and procedures in that manual,
    Mr. Chairman. We are moving in that direction. Now that is not
    to say we do not have areas where we disagree with the IG's
    office about following exact guidance of the OMB. And that is
    why we are asking an external entity to study this. But we have
    really tightened up our procedures and policies. And very
    recently we gave 292 documents to demonstrate this to the
    Senate in response to their questions on these issues.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay, thanks. I will follow up on this with
    you. And I would love to come out and visit the headquarters
    and I want to learn more about what is going on with the moving
    of the headquarters. I want to recognize my good friend Mr.
    Fattah, thank you.
        Mr. Fattah. Thank you. I am in agreement with the chairman
    on almost everything but when he said that he was concerned
    about the telescope and he was going to come over to
    headquarters, he really lost me there. I thought he was saying
    that we would go to Hawaii and look at the telescope. So, see,
    so you know, maybe as he follows up, you know, there will be an
    opportunity for the subcommittee and we can go inspect this.
        But no, on a serious note, you know, I want to get to my
    point in a minute. But obviously we have a department in the
    federal government that has not been able to be audited. It is
    the largest recipient of discretionary money, the Department of
    Defense. It has never been able to sustain an audit. We have a
    bill I think now where we are saying they have to be audit
    ready by 2025. But today's budget that will be released will
    put another $90 billion into Defense. So it is, yes, Mr.
    Chairman?
        Mr. Culberson. I want to be sure to point out that the
    United States Marine Corps----
        Mr. Fattah. Yes, absolutely.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Was the first to accept
    generally accepted accounting procedures.
        Mr. Fattah. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. So they can be audited independently, and
    then the Navy followed suit. So the Marines are once again
    first on the beach.

                            UNDERSTANDING THE BRAIN

        Mr. Fattah. So they, in our lifetime we may get to a point
    where the $600 billion or so we spend in Defense will be
    auditable in any reasonable way. They lost $9 billion that they
    cannot account for in Afghanistan. Now in, it is gone. Right.
    So, I just want to make it clear, right? That these issues are
    important but everything is relative within the context of the
    world that we live in. And I appreciate the fact that we have
    IGs. I, with Chris Shays, was one of the early cosponsors of
    the bill that created the IG Act. But I think it is very
    important that they focus, that we need to make the main thing
    the main thing. Right? So and not get too, that sometimes I
    think some of their work is not as helpful to focusing on what
    is the driving impulse here, right? So I want to focus on what
    I think, and I think everybody in this room knows, that I
    believe is the main thing which is understanding the human
    brain. And the chairman is going to, we are going to have a
    hearing next week. But I see you list this as one of the cross-
    foundation investments. And I want to make a point.
        I was out at a university and saw a young lady who is 51,
    she has lost complete control of any part of her body. But she
    was able to move an artificial arm, give me a high five, give
    me a fist pump, using her thoughts. And this is out of some
    National Science Foundation research. Thirty years ago there
    was a scientist, who was the same one I met 30 years later. He
    got a grant from you because he said he wanted to see what
    happened in the brains of a chimpanzee when the chimp moved his
    arm. You know, what neurons fired off? And anyway, this
    research has been funded, and funded, and funded. And now it
    has interceded in the lives of people who are suffering from
    debilitating diseases, where their brains are completely there
    but their ability to control their body is not. So I want to
    say that the work of the Foundation is very important. And I
    want to, the point that I wanted to ask you about is it says in
    the, this ``Understanding the Human Brain'' that the
    administration's brain research, that sentence right there.
    Because the members of this committee, we think that the
    administration's brain research effort is really, has a
    paternity that is shared in with the Congress. That we created
    some language in 2011, I sent a member of the staff of this
    committee, Darek Newby, over to the National Science
    Foundation. He met unit by unit with the directorate around
    what was being done about the human brain. Out of that we
    passed some bipartisan language that created this brain
    initiative. And I just want, when the administration comes
    over, and I love the administration, is to make sure that they
    are aware that this is a, this is an effort that is joined in
    with the Congress. This is not something that the
    administration just decided to go do.
        And it is important because this administration, in 20
    months or so we will have a new administration. So it is
    important that you understand and the Foundation understands
    that the Congress, Chairman Rogers has been very interested in
    addiction issues. And the chairman and I, we have met numerous
    times on this issue. That is one of the reasons why we are
    holding a hearing on this. So I just want to make the point
    that this is not an executive branch activity solely. This is
    an activity that the United States Congress and the
    administration share in, understanding how important this is.
    So if you would like to respond, please.
        Dr. Cordova. Thank you. Yes, the administration's brain
    initiative that focuses on developing new neurotechnologies is
    part of, but only a part of, NSF's efforts going forward, and
    just a part of our Understanding the Brain cross-directorate
    initiative, which includes cognitive science and neuroscience,
    and always has. We have always funded brain research at the NSF
    at the basic level
        This time we are hoping with the new expanded initiative to
    involve engineering. I have the Head of Engineering here,
    Pramod Khargonekar, with me, and they are interested in a more
    systems approach to Understanding the Brain. And also
    physicists, and chemists, and getting more people involved,
    because we think that new discoveries will come from that.
        Mr. Fattah. I just want the record to be clear. So we have
    created language in the report that required the creation of
    the interagency working group.
        Dr. Cordova. Right.
        Mr. Fattah. It was co-chaired by NSF and NIH.
        Dr. Cordova. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Fattah. And that the brain initiative is an outgrowth
    thereof. So that I just think it as important so we can be as
    supportive as we want to be, that you include an understanding
    that the Congress shares totally in this effort.
        Dr. Cordova. Thank you.
        Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Mr. Jenkins.

                              GREEN BANK TELESCOPE

        Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was taking a quick
    look. The temperature in Honolulu is 64 degrees right now. At
    Green Bank, West Virginia, where there is another telescope, we
    are going to get up to 64. So it is not driven by the weather
    that you are wanting to go to Hawaii. And I am excited to know
    of your interest in visiting a telescope, because we proudly
    have the Green Bank Telescope in my district. And it is only
    four and a half hours away, so we will be happy to do a field
    visit.
        Good morning, and welcome. I am glad to have you. And for
    the members of the subcommittee I had the honor of having
    dinner with the EPSCoR folks and having an opportunity to sit
    with and talk with the Director at that time. So thank you very
    much.
        I would like to delve in a little bit. I visited Green Bank
    yesterday and had the opportunity to speak with the Director
    there, Director Dr. Karen O'Neil. Give me if you would not
    mind, Madam Director, the current NSF funding vis a vis that
    project? Obviously I am most interested in the Astronomy
    Portfolio Review Committee's recommendation from two years ago
    and where this project sits vis a vis this particular budget.
        Dr. Cordova. Mm-hmm. So Congressman Jenkins, we do, as I
    said in my opening remarks, really listen to decadal surveys.
    And there is an astronomy, the most recent decadal survey, and
    then followed up by as you pointed out the Astronomy Portfolio
    Review, in which they, within the context of a projected
    budget, set priorities. And because our budget is limited, we,
    in an effort to do new things and expand our horizons, also
    need to look with an eye to divest things that have been going
    on for a long time and afford us, with a careful divestment, of
    the opportunity of doing new things with limited dollars. And
    so the Astronomy Portfolio Review did identify Green Bank,
    among several other telescopes as you know, as being one to be
    divested. But the astronomy group does not do that lightly. So
    we have had an ongoing study, and we should have a report by
    the middle of this calendar year, on what the environmental
    landscape looks like, what potential partners could be. And we
    would like to proceed in a very careful orderly fashion.
        I personally have talked with the President of West
    Virginia University about this and his deep passion for this
    telescope, and also previously with Senator Rockefeller, of
    course, who shared that passion. And we are, we are committed
    to doing the right thing. And a lot of these telescopes, of
    course, once they have been operating a long time are great for
    raising new students and giving them an awareness of the
    universe and an opportunity. And so we are looking at outreach
    opportunities, we are looking at training opportunities. And we
    will let you know just as soon as that study is done of what
    divestment options are possible.
        Mr. Jenkins. Is there a basic philosophy? What I am hearing
    you say, and there is no direct correlation I assume between
    the budget request as the chair indicated, the proposed budget
    is actually higher than what you are currently funded at, is
    that correct?
        Dr. Cordova. That is right.
        Mr. Jenkins. So while you are seeking more money, what you
    are saying philosophically is that through this process you go
    in and evaluate projects and through this review structure you
    then may divest yourself. So out with the old, in with the new?
    Is this a process you go through? So regardless of where we
    stand budgetarily, there is no direct correlation necessarily
    between the funding you receive and the projects you are going
    to fund over the course of the year?

                         ASTRONOMY FACILITY PRIORITIES

        Dr. Cordova. Well Congressman, there is a great indirect
    correlation. Because if we were, I mean, astronomy is a very
    expensive field. And these telescopes we were talking about
    earlier, LSST and DKIST among them, are big costly facilities
    which are deemed appropriate by the scientists and really the
    whole astronomy world comes together in this priority setting
    exercise. And so the budget, as you pointed out the budget
    request is 5.2 percent higher. That is not enough. It is over
    all fields of science and engineering, as you know. So there
    are budget numbers that are given, both constant and just a
    little bit of increase, to these review committees when they
    get together. And it is in that context that they make these
    decisions.
        Mr. Jenkins. What is your power and authority in the
    funding mechanism? You know, after Congress, you know, passes a
    budget, or through whatever mechanisms you are funded, it seems
    to me the ball is then in your court and you are in the,
    theoretically the bully pulpit. You are the holder of the purse
    strings. People come to you through their application process.
    You are the decider. What leverage, because I think you would
    have a significant amount of leverage. Because I know Green
    Bank, for example, works with NASA, they work with EPSCoR, they
    work with the STEM emphasis in education, higher ed
    institutions like WVU. I politely want to challenge the NSF to
    take what I believe is an asset like Green Bank Telescope, the
    only fully directional telescope in the world, and all of those
    players around, and challenge them to step up to the plate and
    engage in a collaborative way. Because I would think you would
    want one plus one to equal three. Let us figure out how to use
    your dollars, taxpayer dollars that are appropriated through
    this process, to their maximum extent possible. Could I
    challenge you to get the NASA folks, and the higher ed
    institutions, and others to try to work collaboratively? And as
    you, through this process, these coming months, let us see if
    we cannot take a critically important asset and make it as
    useful as possible so the next time we have a review committee
    they say we cannot afford to lose this.
        Dr. Cordova. Right. Well, I accept your challenge,
    Congressman Jenkins, and look forward to working with you.
        Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Madam Director. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. I know that Mr. Serrano would feel the same
    way about the Arecibo Telescope as well. And it is vitally
    important that we protect these assets, and at the very least
    that we are working to make sure that if indeed, they are shut
    down that we have replaced them. But it is a vitally important
    facility----
        Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. At Green Bank as well as
    Arecibo.
        Dr. Cordova. Yes. And I have talked as early as just one
    week ago with Administrator Bolden about the Arecibo Telescope.
    As you know, he has visited it recently. And so NASA is one of
    the potential partners. And divesting does not mean that it
    will not continue, it simply means that our share in it will be
    different at the end of it. And that is, that is not an
    unwelcome outcome if we have good partners and it can be
    sustained to do good science.
        Mr. Culberson. And my concern is the same as Mr. Jenkins,
    and I know everyone on the committee, when I ask about the
    Inspector General and the independent cost verification and the
    audits. It is because it is so important to protect your
    sterling reputation, and we do everything we can to make sure
    that the public understands that you are spending their hard
    earned money wisely and carefully and that you have done
    everything you can to ensure that, as Mr. Fattah said, it would
    certainly help with the Pentagon, you have got the ability to
    have independent outside cost verification and audits. So let
    me at this time recognize Mr. Kilmer.

              SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE U.S. AND ISRAEL

        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for being
    with us. Last year Congress established a national policy under
    the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act to pursue
    opportunities to deepen the relationship between the U.S. and
    Israel. And I understand the NSF is currently pursuing some
    collaborative research between researchers and engineers in our
    two countries. I am supportive of that and I would like to see
    that level of activity expanded. Does the NSF plan to continue
    supporting collaborative research between, within academic
    research between the U.S. and Israel and plan on expanding the
    breadth and depth of support for additional research between
    our two nations?
        Dr. Cordova. Good morning, Congressman Kilmer.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks.
        Dr. Cordova. NSF does support significant collaborations
    between U.S. and Israeli researchers as you pointed out. In
    fact, I went through the tables and counted 57 such
    collaborations. These are typically as you know bottom up or
    researcher driven. However, in some areas there are specific
    opportunities that encourage U.S.-Israeli collaborations and
    these are built upon clusters of excellence that exist in both
    the U.S. and Israel.
        I have made three trips to Israel myself, in fact I have an
    honorary degree from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. And I
    have seen the great technology prowess of many, many
    universities in areas where mutual collaboration is definitely
    warranted. So we look forward to, we do not set aside, as you
    know, particular money to collaborate with particular countries
    in general. But we are increasingly collaborating with
    international partners at the forefront of science.
        And let me add something of interest also in response to
    your question, and to Ranking Member Fattah's question. Today
    we are putting out a public press release that announces the
    new head of our International Science and Engineering Office.
    And this is an office which you approved in our spending plan
    that to give it the proper attention I would separate it out as
    directly reporting to me, and now we have a new Head. And I
    think you will be pleased. I do not know if the notice has come
    out now, or in an hour from now, but I think you will be
    pleased to see who is going to be leading that and her
    background.

                          SUPPORT FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH

        Mr. Kilmer. I want to go to a different part of the world.
    As the Arctic is becoming more and more navigable its
    importance to our national security also rises in importance.
    You know, I understand that NSF is making some investments to
    study the Arctic, such as Sikuliaq, the Arctic Observing
    Network. What are the NSF's plans for enhancing funding to the
    Geosciences Directorate to utilize that infrastructure
    investment and how does NSF plan to respond to the need for
    enhanced arctic research and effective infrastructure
    utilization within Geo?
        Dr. Cordova. The NSF recognizes of course the importance of
    arctic research and I am the Chair of a subcommittee of the
    National Science and Technology Council, which is an
    interagency committee devoted to research in the arctic. We
    spend at NSF about $150 million per year on arctic research,
    with about $100 million by the arctic section of Polar Programs
    and the remainder distributed throughout other programs in the
    agency.

                      OCEAN OBSERVATIONS INITIATIVE UPDATE

        Mr. Kilmer. One final question. Can you give me an update
    on the status of how the cables and sensors of the Ocean
    Observation Initiative are operating, and what the long term
    operation and maintenance plans are for the Ocean Observing
    Initiative within the NSF?
        Dr. Cordova. My understanding is that the cables are
    working very well, especially in the Pacific Northwest region.
    And they are a model for the investment. I personally am very
    much looking forward to our OOI getting fully implemented,
    which as you know will be very soon.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much. Mr. Jolly?

                THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN STEM EDUCATION

        Mr. Jolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
    here. I do not think I have ever had the opportunity to have a
    conversation with an astrophysicist, so thank you for being
    here.
        I had an opportunity to visit with your team earlier this
    year on the broadening contribution of community colleges when
    it comes to STEM. And I would like to talk to you just briefly,
    get your thoughts, your vision, in terms of the Foundation's
    mission when it comes to STEM, and the evolution of community
    colleges from the fifties, when you know the original mission
    of NSF was stood up. The community colleges today have become a
    first choice institution for many students. The offerings, the
    portfolio are now four-year degrees, many of them focusing on
    STEM, many of them competitive with research universities in
    terms of the education in the sciences, the ability to
    contribute to the work force of the sciences, of engineering.
    And you know, clearly they are not research universities, I
    recognize that. But how has the mission evolved at NSF to begin
    to recognize and include contributions from community colleges?
    Particularly in the broader mission of having a population and
    a work force that is trained in the sciences, but perhaps in a
    way that does not reach the level of basic research, extensive
    basic research I should say, but still contributes to how our
    national STEM needs as well as our work force STEM needs, where
    is NSF in that process? And what is your vision of it coming
    from a research university background?
        Dr. Cordova. Thank you, Congressman Jolly. Yes, I also have
    a background in a system, the University of California system
    that you might know has many, many community colleges. And I
    spent a lot of my time as Vice Chancellor at U.C. Santa Barbara
    and then Chancellor of the U.C. Riverside campuses being
    concerned with students migrating from community colleges to
    the University of California and the Cal State campuses.
        I was also very much struck by a report that the California
    Council on Science and Technology did which showed that fully
    half of the science and engineers baccalaureates in the
    University of California system had their start at the
    community colleges. So that is a huge impetus. So that is one
    thing.
        Another is in our Broadening Participation initiative, and
    as you know we have a big cross-directorate initiative for
    fiscal year 2016 called INCLUDES, and one of its purposes, its
    main purpose, is to broaden participation. As Congressman
    Fattah said, many of the international folks are being called
    back home. We have to further develop our own STEM national
    workforce. And the community colleges are a great place for
    this. They also represent, as you know from Florida, a
    significant change in the demography and we want to capture the
    hearts and minds. And from an astrophysicist, there is nothing
    like talking about the universe to do that for our students.
        So how have we actualized that? We do have programs. And I
    have with me our Head of Education and Human Resources' Joan
    Ferrini-Mundy, who can describe more in follow up information
    on specific programs from community colleges. I know of a
    recent one since I have come on board, which is two dear
    colleague letters to these universities, especially the
    Hispanic-serving ones, to have them make proposals to fund more
    research experiences for undergraduate students at the
    community colleges. There is nothing like an undergraduate
    research experience. And I had such an experience and it
    changed my life.
        Mr. Jolly. Sure.
        Dr. Cordova. And Dr. Varmus at the National Cancer
    institute will tell you the same thing, that we both changed
    from being English majors to becoming scientists because of our
    research experience.
        Mr. Jolly. And now you are here. I do not know if you have
    done something right or wrong----
        Dr. Cordova. Oh, I am here.
        Mr. Jolly [continuing]. And we had a great visit with Ms.
    Mundy, and I want to compliment your leadership team. And we
    have talked about this. And the reason I bring it up on the
    record is really, I represent a community that does have major
    research universities nearby but the fact is it is a community
    where because of the cost of higher education these days, and
    because of the quality of four-year degrees now offered at what
    traditionally had been two-year colleges in the fifties and
    sixties when NSF was first founded, it is a different landscape
    in higher education now and it is an opportunity to capture a
    very different student base that perhaps we had not had the
    opportunity before. I think it is a great opportunity for NSF
    and for us as a country.
        Dr. Cordova. Yes. And I completely agree with that. I have
    been informed that we are investing $66 million in Advanced
    Technology Education for community colleges----
        Mr. Jolly. Sure.
        Dr. Cordova [continuing]. In addition.

                              THE BRAIN INITIATIVE

        Mr. Jolly. Thank you. And if I, is my time up? Do I have
    another--I just wanted very briefly on the brain initiative,
    and I concur with Mr. Fattah's comments. What is your
    assessment of where we are? What is the maturation in terms of
    current resources, results to be expected? I mean, is this an
    area that we are expecting breakthroughs? And if so, are the
    current resources sufficient? Is it an area for dramatic
    discoveries if we were to increase that investment?
        Dr. Cordova. I think it is absolutely the area for the most
    dramatic advances. You know, it is interesting that we spend a
    lot to explore the first moments of our universe. We spend a
    lot to explore the nature of matter and particle accelerators.
    And the most complex organ that we know of in the universe is
    ourselves, our brains. And we know the least about that. There
    is a huge horizon for understanding it better. And I compare it
    to the days, my early days, when astronomy changed to
    astrophysics. The astronomers of yore collected photographic
    plates of the heavens and they made a lot of advances. In my
    own field, which is high energy astrophysics, so you have to
    get above the atmosphere, the real advances came when the
    physicists and engineers stepped into the picture. And they
    said we can launch rockets and satellites and new kinds of
    detectors, new sensors that we are developing through our young
    brains. And they made incredible advances. The field I ended up
    in, x-ray astronomy: we did not know there were x-rays given
    off by other astrophysical sources. And we do now because of
    technology. And so it is technology, I think in part, that will
    give us a better understanding. And that is why the emphasis on
    neurotechnologies, on how to image the brain in real time. And
    in addition through our social and behavioral sciences we will
    understand more about how people react and understand more
    about the behavior of the brain. But both are necessary. We
    need the technologies in order to really investigate the brain.
        Mr. Jolly. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I
    yield back my second round.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Mr. Honda.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Dr.
    Cordova. Thank you for joining us today. I would like to
    commend you for your efforts to advance America's scientific
    leadership. And for decades the U.S. has been seen as a beacon
    for encouraging free thought, which you were just talking
    about, and supporting fundamental scientific research. Students
    and innovators from around the world have flocked to the U.S.
    to study and do research. And the research they perform not
    only pushes the bounds of our understanding of the universe but
    also directly fosters U.S. prosperity and global leadership and
    awards for the social sciences.
        Much of this fundamental research, scientific discovery,
    and promotion of STEM education supporting tech innovation is
    supported directly by the NSF and the programs your agency
    supports play a major role in keeping the U.S. on the cutting
    edge of science and engineering and truly makes the U.S. the
    innovation capital of the world. And so I look forward to
    working with my colleagues on this committee to make sure that
    NSF has adequate resources to continue to support scientific
    research, from anthropology to zoology, through scientific
    advances that will push the bounds of human understanding and
    inspire future generations of innovators and power the present
    and future U.S. economy.
        Having said that, one of my staffers is an astrophysicist
    from the University of Santa Cruz. So he was very excited about
    your background.
        Dr. Cordova. Wonderful. I have a t-shirt with Santa Cruz
    and my own field on it, cataclysmic variable star with U.C.
    Santa Cruz on it.
        Mr. Honda. With that----
        Dr. Cordova. I just want to connect.

                           HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING

        Mr. Honda [continuing]. Reclaiming my time, in the area of
    high performance computing, I commend NSF for its important and
    historic role in advancing our nation's competitiveness through
    the support of a vast computing infrastructure and the science
    and engineering applications it enables because that is
    critical. The NSF should plan and commit its vision for
    maintaining and modernizing this world class big data and high
    performance computing that supports all areas of scientific
    research and education, including the most demanding and
    challenging science problems. And in view of the NSF's
    considerable expertise in high performance computing for open
    science, what is NSF's plan to maintain and modernize its high
    performance computing infrastructure, software, and
    applications?
        Dr. Cordova. We have, as you know, a whole division that is
    focused on computing infrastructure information for science and
    engineering. And we have a lot of assets around the United
    States in high performance computing. In previous testimony I
    have talked about results from the Blue Waters computer, and
    from the Texas Stampede computers. But those are only two of
    the many facilities that we have. So I would be very happy,
    Congressman Honda, to provide you with backup materials that
    describe all of those assets and exactly what the plan is for
    advanced computing infrastructure going forward.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         IMPORTANCE OF FUNDING A WIDE VARIETY OF SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES

        Mr. Honda. Thank you. In the last Congress we saw an
    unprecedented expansion of congressional interaction with NSF's
    scientific grant award process. And the NSF was required to
    share a large number of documents and correspondence relating
    to projects that were funded by the Foundation. The intended
    goal of gaining access to the information seemed to be to
    demonstrate how some research programs, particular those in the
    social and behavioral sciences, were not in the ``national
    interest,'' and that it was wasteful and irresponsible of NSF
    to fund them. This targeting and the mischaracterization of
    social and behavioral science through a 15-second inflammatory
    sound byte rather than being thoughtful discussions and in an
    informed debate, was very troubling to me. And the funding and
    publishing of scientific research needs to remain in the hands
    of scientists and the peer review process and not subject to a
    lot of the political pressures that we impose. Could you speak,
    and you mentioned earlier, speak briefly to this point, and
    perhaps give some examples to highlight the important of
    funding a wide variety of sciences, including social and
    behavioral sciences? And how is the funding of social science
    in America's national interest, since you mentioned briefly
    about neuroscience also? So I would be very interested in
    hearing your response to that.
        Dr. Cordova. Right. Well, thank you. Well, clearly we
    believe that the social and behavioral and economic sciences is
    a vital part of our whole portfolio. In fact, so vital that if
    one looks in detail at our cross-directorate initiatives for
    fiscal year 2016, one can see that the social and behavioral
    sciences are very much involved in all of those.
        The social and behavioral and economic sciences study with
    scientific tools the behavior of institutions and individuals
    and response to change. SBE is NSF's smallest research
    directorate, representing less than five percent--
        Mr. Honda. Mm-hmm.
        Dr. Cordova [continuing]. Of the total of NSF's research
    and related activities account, and around three percent of its
    total portfolio. The impact of the social and behavioral
    sciences has been enormous. You asked for a couple of examples.
    I will just give you a very few. We contributed mightily in the
    social sciences to the FCC's notion of spectrum auctions, which
    have netted over $60 billion in revenue for the federal
    government. That is the apportioning of the airwaves via a
    practical application of game theory and experimental
    economics. Almost 20,000 kidney transplants take place in the
    U.S. each year and the waiting list continues to grow. A Nobel
    Prize Winner funded by NSF led a team of researchers that
    developed a computational technique that greatly expanded the
    pool of safe exchanges in the chain of cooperating pairs of
    donors and recipients. A third example would be in SBE-funded
    research that studied nonverbal communication cues that has
    been picked up by the Army, specifically the Army Research
    Institute, which now incorporates nonverbal communication
    education into soldier training. And you can imagine where that
    would be very important. And then in the mid-1980s that
    directorate, SBE, made a commitment to fund the National Center
    for Geographic Information and Analysis at three universities.
    I had the opportunity to visit one of those and see close
    hand----
        Mr. Honda. Mm-hmm.
        Dr. Cordova [continuing]. The tremendous things they are
    doing. And it has really changed the whole development of the
    multibillion dollar geographic information industry. So those
    are just a few select examples.
        Mr. Honda. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                     SAFEGUARDING THE TAXPAYERS INVESTMENT

        Mr. Culberson. Thank you. I completely agree that the work
    that you do and the grants that you award, the scientific
    research that is conducted by universities and researchers
    across the country, should be driven by the facts and the
    sciences and all of us should do everything we can to eliminate
    political considerations from those decisions. But as each one
    of us are responsible to our constituents to ensure that we are
    doing our best to ensure our constituents have faith that we
    are spending their money wisely. We are sort of, in a sense we
    are trustees of the public treasury. I do think it is important
    that the NSF do everything you can to be careful when the
    awards that you give out. Do not do anything to damage your
    sterling reputation. Always think about how would a taxpayer
    see this research? If a taxpayer reads about this on the front
    page of the New York Times, or reads about it, what would be
    the reaction of the average taxpayers to how you are spending
    their money? I think the reputation of the NSF is the greatest
    in the world and we will do everything on this committee to
    help protect you from political influence, whether it be from
    the right or the left. But do be keenly aware--you have a
    marvelous reputation to protect and be conscious that dollars
    we spend are hard earned and very precious and very scarce.
    From my perspective the most important thing is to ensure that
    none of the grants that you give are going to do anything to
    damage or diminish that sterling reputation, that you are
    following the facts and letting science lead the National
    Science Foundation----
        Dr. Cordova. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. To discover the true nature of
    the universe. The cutting edge research that you have, we can
    continue to fund it and have the faith and trust of the
    taxpayers.
        Dr. Cordova. Great. Well, I am hoping, Mr. Chairman, that
    our recent instructions, our guidance as of the beginning of
    this year--it came out at the same time as the new OMB guidance
    at the end of December--our guidance to investigators to now
    have a non-technical part of their abstract that will directly
    address how the science that they are proposing serves the
    national interest will really serve to have that moment of
    focus in which we all take cognizance of what you just said,
    how important it is to do just that.
        Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield for just one
    second, because I think that the Congress--and as President
    Truman signed the National Science Foundation into existence--
    the Congress set it up so that it would be a merit-based
    process with the National Science Board and so on. I do not
    think that is divorced from political guidance. So, when
    President Kennedy went to Rice University in 1961 and said, you
    know, we are going to put a man on the moon, given that is our
    policy direction from an elected official about direction and
    where we are going and what we are going to do; that is not
    trying to be an engineer, though.
        So, I think there is a happy mix. There are issues that are
    important to the country and to the country's, you know,
    challenges that the Congress needs to set appropriate
    direction, but I do not think that we should ever get in the
    middle of discerning, you know, from a merit-based process, you
    know, what science might be. I mentioned this point earlier
    about a scientist funded 30 years ago to look at what neurons
    might fire in the brain of a monkey, that would have been
    laughed at on the floor of the Congress, but nobody is laughing
    now because it is helping people to be able to control movement
    through their thoughts. But this is the same absolute same
    researcher, research staff and focus from three decades ago,
    so, you know, we have to find a happy marriage, and I trust my
    Chairman, as we go forward.
        Mr. Culberson. And we will do it together, arm in arm. That
    is why I have also been such a big believer in the decadal
    surveys as the gold standard----
        Dr. Cordova. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. As the North star by which we
    should guide our strategic plan for the decade ahead, whether
    it be in heliophysics, astrophysics, the earth sciences, the
    planetary sciences. I would love to--I really and sincerely ask
    the subcommittee's help and anybody out there to help us figure
    out how do you do a decadal survey for the manned space
    program? I do not know how you conquer--untie that knot. The
    decadal survey is designed to identify strategic goals for the
    decade ahead that are apolitical, based on the merits, in a
    peer-review process. That is what I know all of us on this
    subcommittee want to see the National Science Foundation do in
    the precious, scarce, hard-earned tax dollars that you are
    responsible for spending. We want to make sure that you are
    investing them carefully, following a strategic plan like that,
    that is apolitical and I think that is the intent.
        Mr. Honda is correct to point out, we do not want to insert
    politics into your work. But, with President Kennedy's guidance
    to the nation, that it was in the national interest to go to
    the moon and do it first--we are delighted that you are leading
    the agency.
        And I have taken too much time. I want to recognize my good
    friend from Alabama, Ms. Roby.

                            IMPROVING STEM EDUCATION

        Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr.
    Cordova, for being here today.
        I do want to quickly point out I have some family members
    with me, some cousins of mine from Alabama that are here
    visiting, and we were walking over--I am dragging them to all
    my hearings. I want them to see Congress at work, and I have
    explained this is sometimes the only exercise we get, running
    up and down these concrete halls in high heels.
        But, we were talking on the way over, as I was explaining
    what this hearing was about, they are the beneficiaries of STEM
    education, which is what I wanted to talk about today, and I
    understand my colleague, Mr. Jolly already touched on this a
    little bit, but, you know, efforts to improve and advance
    science and technology, engineering and mathematics is a top
    priority for me.
        And in my home state of Alabama, I have witnessed how STEM
    education can be used as an effective and innovative tool in
    the modern classroom. I was at a school in Huntsville, Alabama,
    where the partner with the school, at a STEM elementary school,
    and they were learning how to make a mechanical finger. It was
    very impressive stuff. And I understand that in this year's
    National Science Foundation's budget, you provide a total of
    $1.2 billion for STEM education.
        I am interested in learning more about your new initiative
    to improve STEM and mainly, as it relates to traditionally
    underserved students. So, I know Mr. Jolly touched on this, but
    if you do not mind?
        Dr. Cordova. Yes, he did.
        No, I would be very happy to do it, and let me also welcome
    your family members here.
        Mrs. Roby. Thank you.
        Dr. Cordova. It is good to see you.
        And I would like to point out to them that the leader of
    our STEM initiatives, Joan Ferrini-Mundy--Joan, if you would
    raise your hand--is here. Yes, is great that you brought them
    here.
        So, yes, we do--so, let me say to all that we--the NSF
    spends considerable monies across all the directorates--it is
    not just in Dr. Ferrini-Mundy's division--on what we call
    broadening participation. And that is to encourage students at
    all age levels, young and older, to get involved in STEM--
    science, technology, engineering, and math--and perhaps just be
    happy to be inspired by it, like I was inspired by looking at
    the night sky when I was a young woman. And that encouraged me
    to become an astrophysicist, where I could ask questions and do
    studies of the stars and galaxies, or even become a scientist
    or engineer.
        And so we have many, many programs, and in the new budget
    that we are proposing,--one of our four major initiatives is
    called INCLUDES; it is an acronym, but it also just stands on
    its own. It is to include more people in the whole science and
    engineering enterprise. And what we are trying to do is the
    following, we have a lot of great efforts going on everywhere I
    go across the country, and I do make many visits to
    universities and colleges and schools. I see wonderful outreach
    efforts, everything from science fairs to very sophisticated
    involvement of undergraduates and graduate students in science.
        And what we do not see, what we realized is lacking, is
    that other places do not know of these great efforts, and so we
    are trying to build, as I know the Chairman has asked us to do
    so, an online resource, for one thing, so that teachers--I have
    a daughter who is a teacher of young students in elementary
    school--so that they will have the tools that they need in
    order to help students do more experimentation, enjoy science,
    and really understand better, the scientific method that leads
    to discovery and innovation.
        So INCLUDES is an effort to network all the good stuff that
    we are already doing across the country in a much more profound
    way in order to raise the next generation to be more involved
    and knowledgeable about science and engineering.

                      CYBERCORPS: SCHOLARSHIPS FOR SERVICE

        Mrs. Roby. That is great, and I appreciate you taking the
    time to go through that with me.
        My time is going to expire, but very quickly, the
    cybersecurity has become you know, very important, a major
    career in this century and many of our youth are fully engaged
    with cybertechnologies at a young age. Can you give us an
    example of how, examples of how NSF's CyberCorps: Scholarships
    for Service programs have allowed students to advance--and my
    time is expired--to advance into careers of cybers?
        Dr. Cordova. Yes, and we will be happy to give you the
    details on that. We have made a big investment in that at the
    urging of Congress, that our students who are getting more
    cybersecurity education are then getting the opportunities to
    work for those agencies that are really very involved in it,
    and we think this is a great contribution to the nation. And
    when I talk with university presidents, it has actually
    encouraged them to have new curriculum in their universities
    for students who want to learn more about cybersecurity. It is
    obviously something that is incredibly important to us on a
    very personal level, if you buy something online, and a much
    bigger level, when it comes to agencies and companies and all
    the assets that they have. We want to protect them, so, yes, we
    have a big commitment there.
        [The information follows:]

         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Roby. To international security, as well.
        Mr. Fattah. If the Gentlelady would yield for one second?
        Mrs. Roby. Yes, sir.

                          WOMEN IN THE STEM WORKFORCE

        Mr. Fattah. One of your questions about STEM education, one
    of the areas is how to get more young women. And as one of the
    leading scientists in the world, you, obviously, are in a
    unique position, but the Foundation has set up some additional
    policies to make it more likely that researchers can stay and
    do the work they do, notwithstanding some of life's
    circumstances as they develop.
        I was in Israel last week and I met with the head of the
    Weizmann Institute and they have a very interesting program
    where because sometimes when they are trying to track women
    scientist, they have challenges with the family making a
    decision, and so they just decided, Mr. Chairman, to do it the
    old-fashioned way, and they increased the offer by fifty
    percent and they have been very successful. I met some great
    scientists there.
        But if you would talk a little bit about some of the
    policies that have been implemented and how that has helped the
    Foundation in this regard, that might be useful.
        Dr. Cordova. We do have a program called ADVANCE, which is
    a program at universities to help women go through the whole
    university pipeline. I was actually the principal investigator
    for that program at Purdue University, and this has been
    extremely successful in ensuring that women are given every
    consideration in advancing along from being post-docs to
    beginning professors and then eventually full professors.
        We also have a lot of family-friendly policies that we have
    adopted in our Career-Life Balance program, and that is
    available to our young scientists called career scientists and
    our post-docs. And I, again, in going around to universities, I
    always meet separately with groups of young women or young
    career scientists and minority scientists, as well, to listen
    to their particular struggles and how well is NSF doing in
    providing them with lifelines. They are very, very pleased at
    the Career-Life Balance. This means if they are going to have a
    child, we do some special things to give them extra
    consideration for timing and extra money for technical support.
    So we actually do give financial resources to help with their
    balance of life and career.
        Mrs. Roby. I guess I will yield back.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. Of course.

                         DR. CORDOVA'S EXAMPLE IN STEM

        To follow up on those worthwhile questions, I would just
    like to ask you an open-ended question. Tell us a little bit
    about your own story, for the young ladies that came in with
    Ms. Roby and other young people watching you here today. Tell
    us a little bit about your early life and what led you to make
    the decision to become a scientist and what led you to Stanford
    and then what led you on to Caltech, two great universities.
        Dr. Cordova. Let's see, so how much time?
        Mr. Culberson. No, in thinking in terms of who is listening
    to you----
        Dr. Cordova. Yes, of course.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. These young ladies out here--
    what inspiration, guidance, advice can you give them and other
    young people?
        Dr. Cordova. Thank you.
        Well, first of all, I think inspiration can come from
    almost any source, and it has been very interesting to me in my
    own career. My first inspiration was--this was before we had
    Google--was in something called the World Book Encyclopedia.
    Anybody remember that? Yes. And so I was doing a science fair
    project and I opened it up to the atom and I saw the Bohr model
    of the atom, which any scientist will tell you is not a very
    good model anymore, but it was the questions. When I saw that
    the questions you ask are ``How do we know that?'' That is such
    an important question. When you hear about discoveries that are
    made and if you say that is amazing, how do scientists know
    that that is true? Well, the whole pursuit of science is about
    finding out the truth, and the truth is beautiful. I mean, that
    is the other thing that you learn, is that when you discover
    something for the first time.
        And so to rapid, fast-forward my own career, in graduate
    school, when I was getting all null results on a class of star
    that I was looking at with telescopes on satellites, I was
    notified by an amateur astronomer that one of my star systems--
    they are binary systems--went into outburst. And I had enough
    chutzpah to confront my advisor and say, Let's use the last
    remaining gas on this telescope--it was managed by NASA Goddard
    Space Flight Center--to point at this object because I think
    you are going to see something extraordinary from it.
        And he said, How do you know that? Well, fortunately, I had
    done the reading of the theorists about what could happen, so I
    crossed my fingers behind my back and I said, Trust me, I am
    your graduate student, I know this. And they pointed the
    satellite there and it was amazing--it was the first discovery
    of soft x-ray pulsations from a close binary star, and the
    signal-to-noise was something like 200, so it was not just a
    little minuscule signal in the spectrum; it was an enormous
    thing.
        Mr. Culberson. You could detect it visually?
        Dr. Cordova. Yes, visually by amateurs dating back to 1855
    that would go into these optical outbursts. Nobody knew they
    were binary stars originally, but then they surmised that, and
    nobody knew that they would produce these copious x-rays
    because you have a degenerate star accreting mass from another
    star. So the degenerate star would, say, be a white dwarf that
    would accrete mass from a red star that was very close by, as
    close as the earth-moon connection. And all the physics that
    you learn in that process is just extraordinary.
        So like anything else, one thing leads to another. But the
    process of discovery--so let me just share with you one more
    detail. So I was at Caltech at the time as a graduate student,
    and as I said, my thesis was all null results until that point,
    and I was over the top. So I went home--my parents lived close
    by in Pasadena--and my mother was in the kitchen. We have 12
    children in our family; I have to set that stage. I came in and
    I said, you know, Mom, guess what happened? And I told her
    about these stars and the whole thing and she came up to me,
    put her hands on me and said, France, I do not understand a
    word of what you are talking about, but I understand that it is
    terribly exciting and I am just thrilled for you, and gave me a
    hug. So, you know, discovery is a beautiful thing and it leads
    many other scientists on different pathways and that is what it
    is really about.
        Mr. Fattah. Well, it is fascinating, Mr. Chairman, it is so
    fascinating that you asked this question. I am so happy, and I
    am going to capture that and put that up on my Web site so that
    school kids in my district can hear your explanation. But it is
    really this intersection between observational and theoretical
    astrophysics that really is your hallmark, so I think that for
    us, it is, you know, we are in the same space, we are in a
    different game, but it is somewhere between the observation and
    theoretical that we are going to work through your budget
    requests, and thank you.
        Mr. Culberson. And you often do not know where the research
    is going to lead, it may look like it is a dead end or a rabbit
    trail, but it could lead to revolutionary new discoveries. And
    particularly in this era of interconnectedness with the
    extraordinary advances in communication using--I mean these
    devices are now everywhere. I know that the work you have done
    in high-energy astrophysics----
        Dr. Cordova. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Culberson. They have only recently, because of the
    Internet, be able to tie gamma ray bursts when an amateur
    astronomer spots a visual----
        Dr. Cordova. Right.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Outburst, because of the speed
    of the Internet. Telescopes all over the world and satellites
    are able to do today what you did intuitively as a graduate
    student, and shift the satellite or the ground-based telescope
    over----
        Dr. Cordova. Automatically.

                    THE BEAUTY OF INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY

        Mr. Culberson. To see what a gamma ray burst is. Talk to us
    a little bit about and the value of the Internet and bringing--
    tying together young people who you are talking to over the
    Internet and these young folks, that their work that they are
    doing as amateurs, can have a dramatic impact on----
        Dr. Cordova. Could you hold that up once more so while I
    talk?
        Mr. Culberson. Yes.
        Dr. Cordova. So this device [cellphone] that the Chairman
    is holding has many technologies that make it successful--not
    just one--everything from the plasma screens to the electronics
    to the batteries and so on. And on every one of those, I
    believe, the National Science Foundation has funded the initial
    basic research that went into that.
        What Steve Jobs did when he put together these devices
    originally was to bring him and his team, bring all those
    technologies together. And that is another amazing thing about
    innovation, is it takes many different discoveries, and it is
    this, what if I put this with this, And what could I create?
    And also, I might say he was also an artist--he took
    calligraphy in school--and so he developed this beautiful
    optional choice of font systems and all that we have.
        Mr. Culberson. Beauty is an important part of the design.
        Dr. Cordova. Beauty is what makes it possible for a woman
    to have that in her purse and you to have that in your pocket
    and it does not take up, you know, as much space as a desk.
        Mr. Culberson. Soon on our wrists.
        Dr. Cordova. Yes, and soon on our wrists or on our glasses.
        So this is very important to put together all of these
    technologies to develop these products.
        Mr. Fattah. Chairman, if you would just yield if just one
    last second?
        Mr. Culberson. Oh, no, please, continue.
        Mr. Fattah. This is just because in the Chairman's state,
    they have this event, South by Southwest.
        Mr. Culberson. South by Southwest.
        Mr. Fattah. Yeah, so we do not have that in Pennsylvania.
    We have to work on that.
        But to make your point, right, you know, there was a
    company that rolled it just 48 hours ago, a flying car deal,
    right, that puts together the Google self-driving car
    technology with aviation's well-known automatic pilot take-off
    and landing, and they have a concept that would have this car
    in 800 yards take off and land somewhere, and you do not have
    to have human interaction; that is, that the car self-drives,
    and the aviation side is autopilot, and it is the combination
    of technologies that heretofore, were separated, being united,
    which makes your point, which is why we have--even though I am
    interested in neuroscience, we have to invest in science
    broadly in order to make real achievements, because we really
    do not know in every instance what is going to come of it.
        Dr. Cordova. Absolutely.
        Mr. Culberson. Absolutely.
        Mr. Honda. And you guys are talking about my district, you
    know that. (Laughter)
        You got to remember that GPS has a part of this, so we have
    the aeronautics portion of being able to move cars around.
        Mr. Fattah. Well, you started this with the T-shirt deal,
    so this love-fest has been going.
        Mr. Culberson. Mr. Jolly, any follow-up?
        Mr. Jolly. No questions.

                              NEW NSF HEADQUARTERS

        Mr. Culberson. We have a couple questions about NSF
    headquarters. I can certainly submit those for the record. I am
    concerned about the slippage in about six months and $60
    million, according to the Inspector General. Does your budget
    request--I would ask very briefly--include that those costs
    that you are expected to incur as a result of the move and
    the----
        Dr. Cordova. No, this budget request is for this [FY16]
    year. Just a couple of sentences about the background. The
    whole shell of the building will be built out by this fall, and
    our current budget request is for information technology and
    furniture and those sorts of things to get those all ready for
    the move-in. Any costs incurred by delays, which actually, we
    are now through a lot of work and a great head of that office
    that I hired recently, has made a lot of progress in moving
    back from the worst-case scenario. You were quoting kind of
    worst-possibility numbers, so I am looking forward to this.
    Those will come in the fiscal year 2017 request, those kind of
    delays.
        But this year's request has to do with the things that GSA
    requires us to do in order to be ready for the building, which
    will be all shelled out by this fall.
        Mr. Culberson. Your 2016 request does not include any of
    those increased costs that came about----
        Dr. Cordova. No.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. As a result of the union
    negotiations?
        Dr. Cordova. No, and as I said, we are really trying--
    working very hard to mitigate those, and as you can imagine,
    GSA is a great partner in that.
        Mr. Culberson. Do any of the--do you need all of the IT and
    furniture funds requested in 2016?
        Dr. Cordova. In 2016, yes; that is my understanding,
    because they are long-term procurements.

                       DESIGNATING FUNDING BY DIRECTORATE

        Mr. Culberson. There has been some discussion, some other
    members of Congress have suggested that we recommend specific
    science research directorate funding levels in your
    appropriations. We typically have not done so in the past, and
    would like you, if you could, to address that. Should Congress
    designate funds by science research directorate and how would
    that impact a peer-review process?
        Dr. Cordova. Okay. This is a really big deal.
        When we last did this, I believe it was in fiscal year--
    when Congress last did that, it was in fiscal year 1999. Our
    budget for NSF was half of what it is now; it was $3.69
    billion.
        Mr. Culberson. However, grant requests were far smaller.
        Dr. Cordova. Far smaller. It was around half, around 30,000
    proposals, as compared to over 50,000 now.
        So that is one thing to really keep in mind, the whole
    business of the merit-review process, the recognizing as we
    have all alluded to: the decadal reports, and the workshops and
    all the community input; that is a many-months long process. We
    start thinking about our fiscal year 2017 requests and how to
    do that starting in April, and that is at my level. The
    directorates have already been thinking about how to put
    together the budget, sweeping together all of these kinds of
    inputs.
        And so the other thing--it is a very time-consuming process
    and I cannot imagine that if we had directorate-funded levels,
    then, do you really want all of those scientists and engineers
    in your office asking about--we will not use the lobbying
    word--but asking about setting priorities? We have these
    decadal types and other review processes, you know, in ocean
    science and planetary science and astronomy and astrophysics
    and so on. I have been tremendously impressed since I have come
    to NSF at how cross-disciplinary and working together all of
    the assistant directors who head the different directorates
    are, and they make these decisions about what to do and how to
    work together in order to leverage resources and make progress
    in certain areas that are deemed of great importance by the
    scientific communities, in a very rational, reasonable way.
        And we have retreats on this. I went away for a couple
    days, twice last spring/summer with the ADs to really mull in
    detail how to put together a very good budget. We have spent
    much of this hearing talking about the nature of discovery and
    how one thing can lead to the other and you have to be very
    responsive. And we are able to do that because we have the
    flexibility in the directorates by working together to be
    flexible to be cross-directorate, and also to put the budget
    together through the wisdom of the program officers and
    directors on staff, together with all this other input.
        And I think it would really be a different situation for
    Congress to have everybody in their door asking. I mean how do
    you choose, Mr. Chairman, between one telescope and another
    telescope? We have already had some telescopes discussed, at
    least four of them, at this hearing; how do we choose the
    priority in Congress without some, you know, decision-making
    process of NSF between a telescope and a ship? And there are
    just so many decisions going down to very small level in STEM
    education to, you know, the biggest facilities.
        Mr. Culberson. Those are all very valid concerns and we do
    want to do everything we can do prevent politics from being
    inserted into your decision-making process. And I think it is
    also vital that we recognize that NSF, NASA, the scientific
    experts that space--the space exploration and scientific
    research that the nation does is a strategic asset to the
    entire country, and I think it is important for none of us--
    none of us should think that the work that you do or NASA does
    as either a jobs program or a parochial or a local issue; it is
    in the national interest. And by investing wisely and
    sufficiently in both the National Science Foundation and NASA,
    you are going to help all of those districts all over the
    country. So I think those are very valid concerns.

                       DEVELOPING THE NSF BUDGET REQUEST

        I would also like to ask about the--when you begin to put
    your budget together, for example, for next year in April--you
    are already beginning to kick that around right now--I assume
    at some point during the year, you have got to submit what you
    believe NSF will need next year to the Office of Management and
    Budget and then the final recommendation that we receive in
    Congress comes from OMB.
        One thing that has always aggravated me is we do not get a
    recommendation directly from the scientific community when it
    comes to NASA or NSF; we are hearing from OMB, and we ought to
    be hearing from you. Legal Services submits their budget
    recommendation directly to the Congress.
        Dr. Cordova. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Culberson. What would be your thoughts on having NSF--I
    would like to see NASA submit their recommendation directly to
    us and bypass OMB, so we are hearing the best recommendation of
    the minds in this space community, as to what this committee
    should fund. What do you think about having NSF just submit
    your budget recommendation based on the best recommendations of
    your team and following the decadal survey, directly to the
    Congress and bypass OMB?
        Dr. Cordova. Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to your----
        Mr. Culberson. Speaking as a scientist. [Laughter.]
        Dr. Cordova [continuing]. Remarks as I----
        Mr. Fattah. If the gentlelady would yield for a second?
        Dr. Cordova. I always will.
        Mr. Fattah. I think it was a social scientist named
    Banfield who wrote a paper a long time ago called Metaphysical
    Madness, right? And it was really the choice between what
    political people would come up with and what empirical science
    would, you know. And he figured out that we would probably end
    up at about the same place, notwithstanding, you know,
    whichever way you get to it, Mr. Chairman.
        But, you know, I think that for administrative witnesses
    and administration witnesses, it is difficult for them.
        Mr. Culberson. It is difficult.
        Mr. Fattah. Step outside of their role and speak, because
    they are here representing the Administration.
        So I just yield back.
        Mr. Culberson. That is true. But speaking as a scientist--
        Dr. Cordova. Thank you. Thank you. [Laughter]
        Speaking as the head of the National Science Foundation, I
    agree.
        Mr. Culberson. I would sure like, as a matter of policy--
        Mr. Fattah. It is a great paper; it is called Metaphysical
    Madness. The scientist's name is Banfield.
        Mr. Culberson. As a believer in letting the scientists lead
    this work without political interference and then following and
    funding the best recommendations of the best minds in the
    business, I think it would be a wonderful thing for the future
    for us to find a way to have the National Science Foundation
    and NASA submit your recommendations on what you think your
    funding level needs to be directly to the Congress and bypass
    the green eye shades over at OMB, so we know what you need.
        Dr. Cordova. For the record, I do not have any comment on
    that. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Culberson. Mr. Honda.

                          DEVELOPING DIVERSITY IN STEM

        Mr. Honda. Or, you know, just jumping in this thing now. I
    think Congress probably has a fiduciary responsibility to
    produce a balanced budget that would reflect the entire values
    and aspirations of this country first so that the different
    departments and activities of this government will have
    resources from which to operate. And I think that since 2009--I
    may be wrong--but 2009, we have not had a, what you call a real
    budget, and we have not had a balanced budget for the longest
    time.
        So I think operate on the CR, but we move forward based
    upon past decisions. There is really a reduction in funding,
    and if we want to see increased funding and a broadening of our
    vistas to go beyond the moon and go towards Mars and Europa and
    places like that, we are going to have to put up or shut up.
    And I think that, you know, that is where the primary
    responsibility lies; it is with us.
        And I really appreciate the difficult position that all of
    you folks find yourselves in wanting to do--to reach for the
    stars without being tethered, and I think that the Chairman and
    the ranking member also agrees that this is what we--this is a
    dream that we would like to see because it really turns us on.
        And you mentioned different programs and several were
    touched on teaching and learning programs, and I think that one
    of the areas that NSF is helpful is creating opportunities
    through programs like LSAMP and Noyce that encourages STEM
    majors to become K12 teachers, STEM teachers. Having said that,
    and from your own background experience, I assume Latina, and
    also the aspiration of this country when we say that we want to
    have more underrepresented folks in the area of STEM, what are
    some of the things that we need to look at as congressional
    members to allow NSF to have that flexibility to move forward
    and encourage, recruit, put yourself out in front of
    populations that are underrepresented in the STEM field?
        I don't know if this question is clear, but, you know, I am
    just trying to meld, again, our understanding of society, which
    is social sciences, and the need for more representation in the
    STEM field.
        Dr. Cordova. To be a competitive vibrant nation, we do need
    to have all citizens engaged and certainly to have the access
    to science and technology and learn about those wonderful
    careers. So that is really what our initiative called INCLUDES
    for the fiscal year 2016 budget is all about, taking the
    different pieces, and you mentioned a few programs. We have a
    number that either focus on minorities, women, the disabled, or
    emphasize them more indirectly--taking all of those programs
    and maximizing their efficacy by tying them together and
    linking what we have learned in best practices so that
    knowledge base becomes something that everybody can use.
        So it is really about scaling up our efforts. That is the
    biggest challenge that we have in the United States. It is not
    that we do not have wonderful universities and high schools in
    our various districts doing great things, but we have so many
    that have no idea and could really benefit from what we are
    learning.
        So I have actually challenged our engineering directorate
    to help us think about a more systems-approach to expanding
    that knowledge base and those best practices. First, define
    what we know through evaluation and assessment, what we have
    learned, and then ensure that there is a network so that it
    connects with others so they can learn about how to do
    programs. Especially to marry programs to whatever their asset
    base is in their communities.
        This is also going to be a community-action approach where
    we call upon local groups and mayors and even governors to work
    with our science and education from kindergarten through
    university to work on this.
        Mr. Honda. Yeah. In the counts of equity, a lot of our STEM
    programs start from fifth and sixth grade and I think that we
    ought to look at neighborhoods and populations pre-K to third
    and fourth grade where we lose a lot of the youngsters that we
    say that we want to target. And in terms of equity, also, we
    seem to go towards districts and schools where there are
    programs already operating in, and with equity in mind, equity
    and resources, having NSF target their resources, both
    financial and human resources, towards school districts that
    are underperforming, but we know that there is potential there
    if you apply that resources that you have to schools like in
    impacted neighborhoods.
        And I think that is how we can bring NSF and Silicon Valley
    to Philadelphia and other places that we need to put our
    efforts in so that we can prove that there are youngsters there
    that can be successful in the STEM area, but we just haven't
    put the resources in there. And I think equity is one of those
    things that may be a principle that NSF may want to look at in
    terms of the distribution of the resources.
        Dr. Cordova. That is a point very much on the mark and we
    have been doing that, and actually, from the initial conception
    of this, we have expanded it to include the whole socioeconomic
    equation and equity, and I couldn't have more passion around
    this having my own children involved as teachers in these kinds
    of challenging school districts. So I have the vision of them
    in front of me as----
        Mr. Honda. Great. Thank you.
        Mr. Culberson. Mr. Fattah.
        Mr. Fattah. I will submit some questions for the record,
    but thank you very much.
        Mr. Culberson. I just want to thank you again for your
    service to the country. The National Science Foundation is a
    national treasure and we will do everything we can to help
    protect you, to fund you at a level that you need to continue
    to do the great work that you have been doing.
        OMB could certainly submit their own recommendation, but I
    am certainly going to do everything I can to change the law so
    that we get the best recommendations and the best minds at
    NASA, the space exploration community, and the scientific
    community when it comes to NSF, so Mr. Fattah and I and our
    colleagues know you think you need for the future, not what
    necessarily--does not matter who is in the White House--what
    the bureaucracy thinks that you need, with as little political
    interference as humanly possible. I deeply appreciate your
    service.
        Dr. Cordova. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, this idea is growing on me. It is
    growing on me.
        Mr. Culberson. No matter who is in the White House.
    [Laughter.]
        Dr. Cordova. Thank you for your leadership.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate your service.
        And the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                              Thursday, March 26, 2015.

          OVERSIGHT HEARING--FEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN NEUROSCIENCE AND
                                NEUROTECHNOLOGY

                                   WITNESSES

    JO HANDELSMAN, PH.D., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR SCIENCE, OFFICE OF SCIENCE
        AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
    JAMES OLDS, PH.D., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, NATIONAL
        SCIENCE FOUNDATION
    STEVEN HYMAN, M.D., DIRECTOR, STANLEY CENTER FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
        BROAD INSTITUTE OF MIT AND HARVARD
    ZACK LYNCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEUROTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION
        Mr. Culberson. The Commerce, Justice, Science
    Appropriations Subcommittee will come to order.
        I want to welcome everyone to this morning's hearing to
    discuss Federal investments in neuroscience and
    neurotechnology. Our ranking member, Mr. Fattah, has been a
    champion in Congress on this very important issue for many
    years. It has been my privilege to work with Mr. Fattah, my
    predecessor Frank Wolf on this very important topic, and I
    thank him for encouraging us to have this hearing today.
        I would like to welcome our witnesses this morning, Dr. Jo
    Handelsman, associate director for science at the Office of
    Science and Technology Policy. We are delighted to have you
    with us here this morning, Dr. Handelsman, thank you. And Dr.
    James Olds, the assistant director for biological sciences at
    the National Science Foundation; and Zack Lynch, executive
    director of the Neurotechnology Industry Organization; and Dr.
    Steven Hyman, director of the Stanley Center for Psychiatric
    Research at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.
        I look forward to your testimony on this vitally important
    and emerging field with exiting new developments taking place
    all the I time, and I thank you sincerely, Mr. Fattah, for
    helping put this together and making this possible and keeping
    the focus of this committee on this cutting-edge and
    extraordinarily important research, and I am looking forward
    to----
        Mr. Fattah. Thank you.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Your remarks, sir.
        Mr. Fattah. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me just note that in this discussion about the
    operations of the Congress and bipartisanship, that this entire
    effort has been bipartisan from the beginning. And this hearing
    is further evidence of it because the chairman has, in a very
    tight window, you know, allowed us to go forward from where we
    were last year where we had our first ever hearing in the
    appropriations process on neuroscience.
        We are to continue that this year, and I want to thank you,
    but it is not surprising because the chairman and I worked
    together on another subcommittee where we did some very, very
    important work on brain health in terms of veterans. When he
    previously chaired the Veterans and Military Construction
    Subcommittee, you know, we worked together and made major
    investments through the VA and Epilepsy Centers for Excellence
    and post-traumatic stress and suicide prevention, and on and on
    and on. And the VA, obviously, was one of the entities that--
    the departments that worked with the Interagency Working Group.
        So I want to welcome our witnesses. We have done a lot in
    this committee since 2011 when we created the Interagency
    Working Group, and we are now working aggressively. We have
    doubled the amount of dollars through the National Science
    Foundation focused on this after the creation of what is called
    a budget theme, and the understanding of the brain, we are
    going to hear more about that day.
        And last year's appropriations bill moved to include an
    important element of the Nation's scientific enterprise, our
    National Labs, working with the National Science Foundation on
    the development of a national brain observatory. So I am
    excited. We are going to hear about where we are with the BRAIN
    Initiative in terms of mapping of the brain. We are going to
    hear a lot from your testimony today.
        And, again, I thank the chairman because he has through--I
    mean he has got a lot of interests in terms of space
    exploration, but it has no way had him step back from a
    commitment to make sure that we keep our eyes focused on the
    greatest scientific mystery that we know of, which is how our
    brains, which controls everything else, actually functions, and
    so I thank the chairman and look forward to your testimony.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
        This is an extraordinary and exciting subject. We are
    honored and privileged to have each one of you with us here
    today to help keep us apprised of the cutting-edge work that is
    being done in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
        And we will of course enter your written statement into the
    record without objection, and would welcome you to summarize
    your statement as best you can.
        Thank you, and we will start with you, Dr. Handelsman.
    Thank you.
        Dr. Handelsman. Thank you. Chairman Culberson, Ranking
    Member Fattah, and members of the committee, I thank you for
    the opportunity to speak today on the Federal investments in
    neuroscience and neurotechnology. The White House and OSTP
    support several neuroscience and mental health activities,
    including the Interagency Working Group in Neuroscience, the
    BRAIN Initiative, the National Alzheimer's Project, the
    initiatives to tackle mental health issues affecting veterans,
    service members, and military families.
        Diverse sectors of the American population face risks
    related to brain health--from concussions in athletes to
    Alzheimer's in the elderly. Recent studies estimate that as
    many as 5.1 million Americans age 65 and older have
    Alzheimer's; 18 percent of service members returning from Iraq
    and Afghanistan have PTSD or depression; and each year
    approximately 2.5 million civilians in the U.S. sustain a
    traumatic brain injury.
        Scientists have been exploring the underlying nature of
    these brain disorders with the hope of developing preventive
    strategies, treatments, and perhaps cures.
        One obstacle has been the absence of sufficiently sensitive
    neurotechnologies to see with precision what is happening
    inside the active brain. The Obama Administration's BRAIN
    Initiative intends to help overcome this particular obstacle.
    Since its launch in 2013, the BRAIN Initiative has grown to
    include investments from five Federal agencies--NSF, DARPA,
    IARPA, NIH, and FDA. These agencies have refined the goals of
    the BRAIN Initiative, developed funding opportunities, and
    awarded initial grants.
        Dr. Olds will share with you some of the exciting work at
    NSF.
        Work funded by other agencies is focusing on recording
    activity in the human nervous system, enhancing and developing
    new neuroimaging technologies, fostering developments in data
    handling and advanced analytics, and understanding capturing
    the brain's computational abilities.
        Federal investments of the foundation of the BRAIN
    Initiative but completion of the broad goals of this initiative
    will require complementary efforts by a variety of
    organizations outside the Federal government.
        To date, private sector partners have made commitments
    totaling over $500 million in just the first 2 years of the
    initiative.
        The Federal engagement in neuroscience is much broader than
    just the BRAIN Initiative. With the encouragement of Congress,
    including members of this committee, an Interagency Working
    Group on Neuroscience was established in 2012 to coordinate
    neuroscience research across the Federal government and
    identify opportunities for international collaboration and
    communication. The Neuroscience Working Group includes
    representatives from more than 20 Federal agencies and
    departments that have interests in neuroscience research.
        I describe some of the working group's interagency
    coordination activities in my written testimony.
        With regard to international collaboration, for example,
    last month the National Institute on Aging and its HHS sister
    agencies convened a followup to the 2013 G8 dementia summit, at
    which international partnerships for interdisciplinary research
    on the causes, prevention, and treatment of Alzheimer's were
    discussed.
        Also, NSF and NIH, in collaboration with German, French,
    and Israeli science organizations, have jointly funded
    collaborative research in computational neuroscience to
    facilitate international sharing of brain experimental data as
    well as analysis tools.
        On the domestic front, great strides have been made over
    the past year in mental health care for our service members,
    veterans, and their families, including improvements in
    continuity of mental health care and mobilization of community
    clinicians and peer counselors to increase access to services
    and to assist in suicide prevention.
        Thanks again for the opportunity to be here today. While
    there is still certainly much to be done to meet the needs of
    Americans facing neurological disorders and diseases, Federal
    investments are already making progress toward improving our
    understanding of the underlying neuroscience that will lead to
    preventive strategies and treatments. I thank the committee for
    its continued leadership and vigorous support for these issues.
    And, of course, I will be pleased to answer questions of the
    members.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Dr. Handelsman.
        Dr. Olds, we look forward to hearing from you, and, you
    know, not only is your work so important on helping veterans
    and traumatic brain injury, it is also, I think, relevant and
    it will be interesting to know what--if at some point during
    the questioning you might be able to offer us any insight about
    how would you potentially spot someone like this pilot of the
    German aircraft that might be on the brink of doing something
    terrible that it looks like his act was a deliberate act. And
    it may indeed be work that is done by--by scientists like
    yourselves that might be able to help airlines spot something
    like that about to happen.
        So we look forward to your testimony, Dr. Olds. Thank you.
        Dr. Olds. Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member Fattah, and
    committee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify
    before you today on this important topic.
        My name is Jim Olds, and I am the Assistant Director for
    Biological Sciences at the National Science Foundation. I am on
    leave from George Mason University where I am a professor of
    neuroscience.
        Today I will outline the NSF's focus on understanding the
    brain. I hope to make three overarching points. First, the
    brain may be the most complicated system that we know of in the
    universe. It is a big data problem. Second, neurotechnology has
    advanced neurobiology to the point where we can explore new
    questions that were previously unapproachable. And, third,
    understanding the brain is an international effort that is
    bigger than one country and requires coordinated resources.
        Mr. Chairman, historically significant advances in brain
    research have resulted from broad areas of research in
    neuroscience and related fields. However, there remains much to
    be discovered if we are to achieve a comprehensive
    understanding of how the healthy brain's structural
    organization and dynamic activities produce cognition and
    behavior and how the brain can recover functions lost to
    disease or injury.
        Allow me to share one example. The current state-of-the-
    art, noninvasive functional brain-scanning technology is off by
    a factor of 1,000 when it comes to resolving the actual neural
    code of human brains, both in time and space. If we are going
    to truly understand the brain, we are going to need a next
    generation of tools that will allow us to resolve brain
    function at the speed of thought.
        In its fiscal year 2016 budget request, NSF initiated
    ``Understanding the Brain,'' a multiyear effort that combines
    cognitive science and neuroscience activities with NSF's
    participation in the BRAIN Initiative.
        NSF's overall goal with this activity is to enable the
    scientific understanding of the full complexity of the brain in
    action and in context.
        Understanding the Brain will draw on existing research
    investments to foster greater collaboration and to accelerate
    fundamental research. We will invest in neuroscience, cognitive
    science, neuroengineering, and the neural bases of learning,
    and how the brain adapts to changing environments. NSF is
    requesting $144 million in fiscal year 2016 for investments in
    Understanding the Brain. This almost doubles NSF's historical
    investment and builds on $92 million awarded in fiscal year
    2014.
        In April of 2013, President Obama announced the multi-
    agency BRAIN Initiative. I know that Congress was very much
    involved in its creation, and I want to specifically
    acknowledge and thank this Committee's foresight in this
    matter.
        Since its creation, NSF has targeted significant funding
    for the BRAIN Initiative. This is an exciting time because
    neurotechnology advances are allowing us to pursue an
    understanding of the brain that was opaque to us in the past.
    NSF is uniquely positioned to advance research on understanding
    the brain by bringing together a wide range of scientific and
    engineering disciplines, each of which brings its own unique
    perspective to the brain challenge.
        NSF has consistently been a catalyst for transformative
    breakthroughs. For instance, I mentioned earlier the limit on
    functional imaging technology in representing brain activity.
    Just this past year, NSF funded a novel project to develop a
    new generation of brain measurement technologies, and if
    successful, this will transform our ability to observe the
    dynamic activity in living brains. This is a great example of
    how rapidly NSF works to accelerate discovery.
        In fiscal year 2014, five NSF directorates invested $11
    million in 36 highly interdisciplinary proof-of-concept awards
    called EAGERs that focused on neural circuit function. These
    strategic investments in fundamental research and
    infrastructure will transform our understanding of the brain,
    reveal the neural basis of thought and behavior, and show how
    to maintain a healthy brain throughout our lives.
        To close, I want to note that understanding the brain is an
    international challenge that is bigger than one country. Just
    as modern physics needs CERN--the largest particle physics
    laboratory in the world--neuroscience needs internationally
    coordinated resources. This includes creating the ability to
    share the vast amounts of data that will be generated by the
    challenge.
        I thank this committee for recognizing the size of the
    brain challenge and encouraging NSF to work not only with other
    agencies, but other nations. NSF will continue to work with
    multiple partners and stakeholders to address important gaps in
    our knowledge and to enable scientists working across
    disciplines, institutions, and nations to collect, share, and
    analyze the new data that will reveal the biological principles
    that produce the functioning human brain.
        Our goal, as always, is to provide the best possible
    science for the country. Thank you, again, for the opportunity
    to testify and for your attention.
        Mr. Culberson. Dr. Olds, thank you very much.
        As we go through the--in your opening statements, I would
    particularly be grateful and we may do--we will certainly do
    some of this in the questioning as well, talk to us about some
    of the successes. We are very supportive of the investment.
    That is why we are here today. Very supportive of the
    collaboration. That is why we are here today. Really appreciate
    the work that you are doing. Delighted to hear about the
    collaboration and the money that has been invested in the past
    and that needs to be invested in the future. We are supportive
    of that. That is why we are here today. Tell us about some of
    the exciting new discoveries. I mean, that is where we really--
    that is what we want to hear about today, and what--what is
    working and what is not, and where, then, do we need to focus
    our attention, as you could, if you don't mind, in your opening
    statement? We will get into that in some of the questionings
    too, but I would love to hear it in the opening. Thank you.
        Mr. Lynch.
        Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Fattah, members of
    the subcommittee, I am Zack Lynch. I am the founder and
    executive director of the Neurotechnology Industry
    Organization, and I thank you for the opportunity to provide
    testimony today on behalf of NIO on how to maximize the
    societal return on Federal investments in neuroscience
    research.
        NIO is a nonprofit trade association that works to
    accelerate the development of treatments and cures for brain-
    related illnesses. With over 100 members, NIO represents
    emerging neuroscience companies, academic brain research
    institutes, and patient advocacy groups across the United
    States and the world.
        Today more than 100 million Americans suffer from a brain-
    related illness. That is one in three. These include
    Alzheimer's, autism, addiction, depression, epilepsy, multiple
    sclerosis, Parkinson's, schizophrenia, stroke, and many more.
    They also include post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain
    injury, which disproportionately affects members of our armed
    services.
        The combined economic burden of all these diseases has
    reached over $1 trillion a year in the United States alone. And
    this economic burden is accelerating as the population ages and
    expands, creating unprecedented demand for new treatments to
    cure neurological diseases and psychiatric illnesses.
        Now, in neuroscience, Federally funded research has always
    provided the scientific foundation upon which the private
    sector builds the next generation of therapeutic products. The
    National Institutes of Health continues to be the largest and
    most innovative funder of basic neuroscience worldwide. This
    investment in brain science and the SBIR program is critical
    for ensuring that the pipeline of neuroscience innovation
    remains robust.
        Accordingly, NIO requests that Congress appropriate at
    least $30.7 dollars for the NIH in fiscal year 2016. This 2.2
    percent increase keeps real purchasing power flat, adjusting
    only for an increase in the biomedical research and development
    price index.
        When it comes to the brain, however, we must do more than
    simply fund basic neuroscience research. We must improve public
    health. We must stimulate broad economic growth. And we must
    create new jobs.
        Two years ago, recognizing both the unique challenge and
    opportunity in neuroscience, President Obama launched the BRAIN
    Initiative. This ambitious effort aims to invigorate investment
    in neuroscience in much the same way that the human genome
    project and the national nanotechnology have done previously.
        Our industry is tremendously excited and optimistic about
    this program and its prospect to spur innovation, and we thank
    Congressman Fattah for his continued efforts in this
    initiative.
        I think it is most important to note that unlike any other
    area of life science research, neuro--investing in neuroscience
    will create direct economic benefits far beyond just reducing
    healthcare costs and alleviating human suffering.
        Let me give you two brief examples: Information technology,
    a multitrillion-dollar-a-year industry that sits on the cusp of
    being transformed by brain-inspired computing. Neuroscientists
    are researching the human brain for clues on how to design
    computers that can modify their hardware and software in
    realtime and modify themselves based on experience, just like
    the human brain does. As well as create radically efficient
    computers, the human brain runs on less electricity than a
    single light bulb. This area of cognitive computing represents
    a competitive advantage for American companies and will
    significantly impact economic growth and job creation and
    national security if we choose to invest wisely today.
        Education. Total expenditures in education have reached
    over $1 trillion a year, and yet the results are not helping
    our citizens remain globally competitive. Neuroscience can help
    us leapfrog this education performance gap. By developing fully
    personalized learning systems that tap into our natural
    neuroplasticity, we can safely accelerate learning, knowledge
    creation, and innovation.
        Now, looking forward, the convergence of neurogaming and
    neuromodulation with advances in self-learning computing will
    open up an entirely new realm of value creation of purely
    digital experiences that can be created and consumed with
    virtually no impact on global physical resources.
        For example, one could sell virtual experiences complete
    with emotional stimulation with unique landscapes or immersive
    health environments that enhance mental well-being.
        NIO believes that the BRAIN Initiative can and should play
    an essential role in accelerating the translation and
    commercialization of breakthrough neurotechnology. Accordingly,
    we ask that Congress allocate $300 million to the BRAIN
    Initiative in fiscal year 2016.
        Additionally, we recommend the consideration of a budget-
    neutral program modeled on the Orphan Drug Act that will
    increase private investment into much needed treatments for
    neurological and neurodegenerative diseases.
        Investing in neuroscience offers both treatments to
    terrible diseases but also a grand opportunity for economic
    revitalization and dramatic improvements in individual
    resiliency.
        Today's neuroscience funding is inadequate if we want to
    lead the 21st century and beyond. I call on your subcommittee
    to strengthen our commitment to neuroscience funding to take
    advantage of the opportunities associated with the brain. I am
    confident that this approach will provide new treatments to
    terrible brain-related illnesses, transform industries, and
    create entirely new economic drivers for growth and jobs if we
    invest properly.
        Thank you for your attention, and I would be happy to take
    questions when you open it up to the panel.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Lynch.
        Fascinating. Cognitive computing is exciting, but I share
    some of the fear of others in the idea of artificial
    intelligence. We want to avoid a Skynet situation. Dr. Hyman.
    Thank you. Look forward to hearing from you.
        Dr. Hyman. Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member Fattah,
    members of the subcommittee, my name is Steven Hyman, and I am
    offering this testimony both in my capacity as president of the
    Society for Neuroscience, and as a fellow of the American
    Association for the Advancement of Science. I am also director
    of the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad
    Institute of MIT and Harvard, and serve as Harvard University
    Distinguished Service Professor of stem cell and regenerative
    biology.
        The mission of the Society for Neuroscience is to advance
    understanding of the brain and the nervous system. AAAS, of
    course, has a broader mandate led now by newly installed CEO
    Rush Holt, which is to advance science and engineering and
    innovation throughout the world for the benefit of people.
        On behalf of both organizations, I deeply thank you for
    your support for neuroscience research and for the opportunity
    to testify here.
        In order to be responsive to the chairman, I will--instead
    of summarizing my remarks--I will try to put in context some of
    the advances that have come from the kind of funding we have
    had if you will also forgive me for the errors which will
    undoubtedly crop up from spontaneity.
        I think something to put these needed successes in context
    is probably well known to all of you, but that is not just the
    economic cost or the numbers created by brain disorders--one in
    three Americans is a very good number--but the impact. So while
    brain disorders can kill, stroke kills, and, tragically,
    suicide, suicide remains among the three leading causes of
    death for young people in this country, most of the damage done
    by brain disorders is through disability, whether it is a child
    with autism who, if they are at the more challenging end of the
    spectrum, may never succeed in education and won't be able to
    work in ordinary circumstances; schizophrenia, which is perhaps
    relevant to the incident with the aircraft that you reference.
    We don't know yet what was going on. But particularly cruel
    because onset is in late teens or early 20s just when families
    and society have made a maximum investment in a young person,
    getting them through college or technical school, and then they
    become essentially disabled for the rest of their lives. And
    our treatments are better than nothing, to be sure, but much
    remains desired. And, of course, Alzheimer's disease has been
    referenced already. But, again, we are facing a catastrophe
    here not only in terms of the individuals but also caregivers
    and families who get removed from the workforce.
        Now, the problem--and I think Dr. Olds said this very
    well--has been that the brain is not only complex, but I would
    add one other factor which is a required technological advance,
    which is it is inaccessible in life. Cancer is a very hard
    problem, but we neuroscientists would say, perhaps unfairly,
    that it is an easier hard problem because a surgeon does an
    excisional biopsy and hands the scientist the disease, whereas
    for the human brain, which is poorly modeled in animals in many
    cases--not all cases, especially the thinking parts of the
    brain--you know, we can't reach in and take tissue. And so we
    have to examine the brain indirectly, which is why some of
    these imaging initiatives are so important.
        That said, based on basic science and tools and
    technologies that have emerged in the last few years, there has
    been to my mind really breathtaking progress, and it hasn't yet
    led to treatments that generalize, but I think we finally are
    beginning to see a path.
        Let me give you just a few examples of these successes.
        So, for autism and schizophrenia, these were very
    mysterious illnesses. We could do brain imaging, but, again,
    the--exactly as Dr. Olds said, we are really looking only at
    ensembles of millions of neurons firing. We are not seeing what
    is actually going wrong. We had always known these disorders
    run in families. I mean, they don't--it is--they were not like
    Mendel's peas. It is not like, you know, in any family if one
    sibling has it, the other will have it. It skips generations
    and so forth, but we have known that these are highly
    genetically influenced illnesses.
        The problem for common illnesses is that they are not
    caused by a single gene creating a problematic mutation, as in
    the case of Huntington's disease, but many hundreds of genes
    contributing small effects. We had no possibility of detecting
    these.
        What has happened because of the--really the Federal
    investment in research across NSF, NIH, Department of Energy,
    is that the cost of sequencing DNA has come down about a
    millionfold in the last decade. It is really quite remarkable.
    Everyone has heard of Moore's Law about transistors on a chip.
    The cost of sequencing DNA makes that look rather torpid. Where
    I work now, the cost of a whole human genome is between $1,000
    and $2,000. And I would add the bill we pay to Amazon for
    putting the data in the cloud is $500. So these costs are
    converging, and we need our colleagues to improve some of the
    computing.
        But the point is, based on this technology, we can now
    afford to and accurately study many tens of thousands of
    patients. And as a result, the community has created durable
    global collaborations, and as a result, we now have the first
    literally 110 genes that are involved in causing schizophrenia.
    Now, these are--these are early clues, and there will be many
    more, and it is very hard to put them to work, but all of a
    sudden we have gone from a complete black box to light at the
    end of the tunnel, and pharmaceutical industry, which has fled
    this area as too difficult is now starting to dip their toes
    back in the water.
        One other really interesting example is something called
    optogenetics. Optogenetics is a tool in which one can, using,
    say, an injected viral vector in the brain of an animal or even
    making a transgenic animal, another fantastic technology,
    introduce an ion channel that comes from microorganisms in
    invertebrates, so something discovered in basic science, and
    then these channels get activated by light--I mean, all of us
    know our house plants, you know, move toward the light. What is
    the mechanism? There are all of these kinds of light sensitive
    channels in nature, but we can exploit this with fiberoptics to
    control--to turn on and turn off the cells in the brains of
    animals and begin to really understand how circuits are
    working. And this has absolutely in the last 3 or 4 years
    revolutionized our understanding in animal models of behavior.
    And while we are not going to put fiberoptic devices in human
    brains, it has also inspired a number of investigators,
    undoubtedly funded by both NSF and NIH but also involved with
    the DARPA aspects of the brain project, to think about how
    these principles might apply to human diseases, Parkinson's
    disease and other diseases before we have begun to know the
    circuitry.
        It is a really exciting time, and I would just end by
    saying that one of the things that the Brain Project does,
    which I think I am really very--I have been in the government,
    but I am really pleased with how the government has worked on
    this--has created a bottom-up endeavor that is going to build
    new tools--because we need these tools and technologies to get
    inside our skulls, literally--and engage these broadly for
    science but also ultimately in the service of human health and
    also will bring new kinds of thinkers into all of our
    portfolios. People who have been funded perhaps by the
    Department of Energy who have never thought about biology or
    the brain before, and so I absolutely, on behalf of the
    organizations I represent and also personally, thank you for
    your support of these endeavors, and I would be delighted to
    take any questions.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Dr. Hyman.
        It is an extraordinarily exciting field of research, and
    you think about the size of the human genome and how little we
    know about what those genes do. We don't know, what, over 90--
    what is the percent--what percentage of the genes in the genome
    do we know what they----
        Dr. Hyman. Well, you know, that is even a tricky question
    because often, you know, nature reuses the same gene in
    different cell types for different purposes. And so even where
    we know one or two purposes, we often don't know what they are
    doing in the brain. We understand best the 1 to 2 percent of
    the genome that codes for the protein building blocks of cells.
    The rest, which when I was in college we were told was junk, is
    actually quite, quite busy, and we are just at the earliest
    stages of understanding what the other 98 percent of the genome
    is doing.
        Mr. Culberson. I suspect God doesn't do anything that
    doesn't have a purpose.
        Dr. Hyman. That is a very good maxim to live by. Yeah.
        Mr. Culberson. Absolutely.
        Absolutely fascinating, but I noted also, and you didn't
    mention this in your summary, Mr. Lynch, about the importance
    of us making sure that we have got legislation encouraging
    companies to invest in orphan drugs, which is something you
    mentioned obliquely, but----
        Mr. Lynch. Yes sir.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Really, really important
    because a lot of these medications and these problems are--
    involve populations that may be too small for the companies to
    be able to see that there is an economic benefit, and that is
    just vitally important.
        Some studies have mentioned that many neurological
    disorders stem from a misfolding of a protein in the brain
    which can lead to a cascade of effects that result in ALS or
    Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other neurological diseases. And
    traumatic brain injuries apparently also cause a similar
    misfolding of proteins with a cascading effect in the brain.
        Has it been solidly established that this protein
    malfunction is a potential root cause of these neurological
    diseases. And if we have indeed identified the root cause of
    these issues, could you tell us where we are in finding a cure
    and being able to either stop or reverse the cascade effect in
    the brain when these proteins----
        Dr. Hyman. Yeah, it is really quite clear. I mean,
    proteins, first of all, you know, come out--they are read out
    as a linear structure. And then there are all of these
    mechanisms inside the cell to make sure they have exactly the
    right confirmation to do their job----
        Mr. Culberson. And then some of the folding, I understand,
    is just a result of random chance about where they are
    positioned in the cell. They don't have enough elbow room to
    fold correctly.
        Dr. Hyman. You should teach biology. That is exactly--and
    then but they get stabilized, depending on negative and
    positive charges, or, you know, they will bounce around
    stochastically. And then they will come to the right
    confirmation. And then there are other proteins called
    chaperones which help them, you know, stay in the right
    confirmation. This is complex process that often fails, and
    normal cells must have a mechanism to degrade and remove these
    misfolded proteins.
        Mr. Culberson. So complex, in fact, you have had to
    crowdsource it. I have signed up for that project to do the
    protein folding, and I let the computer run it in the
    background, and you have really got--I also signed up for the
    one classifying galaxies, which is--that is what I do for fun.
        Dr. Hyman. But, well, the force is----
        Mr. Culberson. But it is so vast a problem you literally--I
    am sorry.
        Dr. Hyman. No, no. No, I am sorry. No, no. I was going to
    say gravity works--for galaxies--doesn't work at that scale----
        Mr. Culberson. I mean, the scale of the problem is so huge;
    crowdsourcing is one of the best ways and the size of the----
        Dr. Hyman. Yeah. There are a lot of quantitatively talented
    people who might be spending their lives in finance who, you
    know, make--could really, you know, in their extra time do some
    really good things here thinking about protein folding and
    other problems.
        But at any rate, you are absolutely right. It has been
    extremely frustrating, to take one example, that the gene that
    causes Huntington's disease, which is rare but not, you know,
    terribly, terribly rare, invariably lethal, with a terrible end
    course or some forms of--some of the familial forms of
    amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
        Mr. Culberson. My sister-in-law's family has it.
        Dr. Hyman. Well, right. So you--I don't have to tell you
    how awful these conditions are.
        Mr. Culberson. She is clear, but her sister is not.
        Dr. Hyman. Yeah. So, again, technological innovation has
    given us--I don't want to over promise, but I think it has
    given us some really promising clues. So you can think of these
    mutations that cause protein misfolding or other mischief----
        Mr. Culberson. Or injury.
        Dr. Hyman. Or injury--as poisons in every cell, and the
    idea that a drug will work in all of the--now, in ALS, of
    course, it is really motor neurons, but they are affecting
    other cells. The fact that--the idea that you could sort of
    somehow neutralize this poison with a drug is very challenging.
    A new idea, based on the ability to deliver RNA molecules,
    which would interfere with translating from the DNA message
    these aberrant proteins that--the mutant form of Huntington or
    some of these familial forms of genes that cause ALS--and
    literally try to shut that gene off in the brain or in motor
    neurons is an entirely new, you know, last year or two this
    idea of gene silencing, which I think is an, you know, unproven
    but a really interesting idea, but we couldn't think about it
    without the technological advance of how would we get these
    neutralizing molecules into the right cells. Still an unsolved
    problem, but something probably some of your members might even
    be thinking about.
        Mr. Culberson. The poison you were referring to could also
    be thought of, I guess, in terms, perhaps, of like
    inflammation. I have been a subscriber to the Journals Nature
    and Science for over 20 years and don't pretend to understand
    all of it, but I read them cover to cover and----
        Mr. Hyman. I don't understand them.
        Mr. Culberson. Yeah. I know, but it is fascinating and
    noted that there was an article I know a year or two ago about
    the effects of chronic inflammation as a root cause of cancer,
    for example, as just a constant source of irritation or causing
    damage that then triggers an uncontrollable cascading mutation
    of cells. Is that similar to what you are talking about here?
        Dr. Hyman. Well, it is----
        Mr. Culberson. Conceptually.
        Dr. Hyman. It is conceptually similar. I think, in familial
    ALS and Huntington's, there is actually a very precise target,
    which is this mutated gene, that is leading to these terrible
    symptoms and death. And we can at least know exactly what we
    need to shut off, whereas in inflammatory disorders, there are
    many, many molecules involved and----
        Mr. Culberson. But to prevent the inflammation is to
    prevent the underlying----
        Dr. Hyman. That is correct. Absolutely. Absolutely.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. And the subsequent problem.
        One of my other passions--I am going to turn it over to Mr.
    Fattah--a long-term passion of mine that I hope in the time I
    am privileged to chair this subcommittee and work with you and
    all our other members is to identify--be able to identify in
    the future a genetic problem like that in an unborn child
    through the amniotic fluid and whip up a protein fix that you
    could then inject back into the amniotic fluid which the child
    would then breathe and repair and cure the child's disease
    before she is born. So that is absolutely possible. Isn't it?
        Dr. Hyman. Yes. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues--maybe they
    want me to quiet down, but there is yet another exiting
    technology called CRISPR/Cas-9----well, I will explain what
    this is. So----
        Mr. Culberson. CRISPR----
        Dr. Hyman. CRISPR, C-R-I-S-P-R, hyphen, C-a-s 9, and it is
    in the news because leading scientists have said, We better
    call a halt on any human experimentation right now, see where
    we are ethically and in terms of safety, which is not to end
    the research. But let me describe was this is.
        Bacteria get infections too. Viruses invade them and kill
    them, and so bacteria need to have an immune system. And what
    they do is they, in some cases, is they--they form a memory
    of--they don't want to cut up their own DNA, so they form a
    memory of what the DNA of the viruses that afflict them. And
    they have invented basically molecular scissors to cut the DNA
    that gets recognized. We as a community----
        Mr. Culberson. When that DNA shows up, the molecular
    scissors go into action and chop it up.
        Dr. Hyman. Right. Something binds to it----
        Mr. Fattah. Zombie immune system.
        Mr. Culberson. Zombie immune system. That is nice. Got to
    use that.
        Dr. Hyman. Yeah, exactly.
        Mr. Culberson. Can you plagiarize that?
        Dr. Hyman. Mr. Fattah, if that is not copyrighted, you
    know----
        Mr. Fattah. I am a public figure. You can use it.
        Mr. Culberson. Zombie immune system.
        Dr. Hyman. But basically we can now use the same system,
    and this is now widely used in both microorganisms and animal
    models to cut DNA where we want because we can engineer the
    recognition strips, these so-called guide RNAs, and cut DNA.
    And then there are other well-known mechanisms to insert new
    pieces of DNA.
        So this is now an experimental tool that we are using to
    put the genes we discover about schizophrenia into cell lines.
    But the idea is that in a human potentially--and, again, this
    is really fraught and it is really early--you could do
    pregestational diagnosis. You could find the mutant gene for a
    single--for monogenic disorders like----
        Mr. Culberson. Huntington's or----
        Dr. Hyman. Huntington's, that are caused by a single gene.
        Mr. Culberson. Right.
        Dr. Hyman. You could design guide RNAs. You could cut out
    that version and then replace it with a healthy version.
        Now, there are all kinds of safety risks. There are all
    kinds of ethical risks because people might want to use this
    technology to make people taller or whatever.
        And we really have to think deeply about this, but I think
    we are entering an era where exactly what you have imagined may
    become possible.
        Mr. Culberson. Texas Medical Center, which I am proud to
    represent, I have been pushing them for years on this. And they
    tell me it is possible.
        Dr. Hyman. Absolutely. And that is a great institution.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Thank you for letting me take so
    much time, Mr. Fattah.
        Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, no. Thank you for your interest
    in these and all matters of science. So you can see my chairman
    is engaged. So it is very important.
        I want to make sure we go back because, in order to respond
    to the chairman, you kind of ad-libbed your remarks, and I want
    to make sure that we put on the record--this is a very
    important part of our process, hearings and public record--the
    scientific challenge in front of us.
        So the human brain, as best as we understand, about 100
    billion neurons, 100 trillion connections. It runs on low
    electricity and it does a lot, and we don't understand much of
    it. Is that right, Dr. Olds?
        Dr. Olds. I would say that we are very good stamp
    collectors right now and we are working diligently on coming up
    with a theoretical framing for a rule set for how those 100
    billion neurons work with each other.
        Mr. Fattah. I went out to Stanford and met with one of your
    colleagues, Dr. Newsome. He says, you know, if we are talking
    about looking at a map, we don't see the highways, the roads.
    We don't really have a good understanding and, even if we did,
    we don't understand the traffic that is on there. Right?
        So Paul Allen came into Philly. He announced a major
    investment into a cell institute. Now, he has already put a
    half a billion dollars into a brain institute. The cell
    institute is to look at the 50-plus trillion cells in the human
    body.
        But one of the things--the reason I was there--it was in
    Philly, but the reason I was there was that, in the cells in
    the brain, we don't yet know all of the cells in the brain and
    the cell types. Is that accurate?
        Dr. Olds. That is accurate. So a simplifying approach to
    understanding the brain is to take the 100 billion cells and
    classify them into their different types.
        Mr. Fattah. Right.
        Dr. Olds. And we are in the process of doing that, but----
        Mr. Fattah. But we are not there yet.
        Dr. Olds [continuing]. We are not there yet.
        Mr. Fattah. Right. Because I want the chairman just to work
    with me here so we have got a system in which there is a lot of
    interactions with the neural network that we don't understand,
    and we don't understand even the basics, the, you know, kind of
    identification of all the cells.
        So, the effort here is one of, you know, from just a task,
    it is a gigantic task. Right? So one of the things that the
    committee did in last year's bill was we did move to
    internationalize and to create collaborations and we have
    tasked the National Science Foundation with having--with
    developing an international conference because there is these
    efforts.
        And the committee has supported my work, whether it is
    Israel or the EU and others, to try to kind of cobble together.
    The EU has now put a billion and a half euros on the table for
    the Human Brain Project, Henry Markram. There are a lot of
    interests in trying to work together because there are, based
    on the World Health Organization's number, over a billion human
    beings with a neurological disease or disorder. Right?
        And the contention is that, at least as I approach this, is
    that we need a basic understanding of how a healthy brain would
    function as at least part and parcel to trying to figure out
    what to do about some of the challenges.
        So as the National Science Foundation is understanding the
    brain, we saw the EAGER grants, which were great, and we see
    your request this year.
        The basic next steps, as you see it, where we need to go,
    if you could talk to the chairman and I about that in terms of
    the cost side. Right?
        So, you know, we know on the health side we spent a lot of
    money. We spent $210 billion last year on care for Alzheimer's.
    Right? So I know we spent a lot of money.
        We spent $500 billion on mobility challenged Americans. So
    these are people who have suffered from stroke or some
    traumatic brain injury. And so we are spending a lot on the
    care side. We are spending a paltry amount of money in trying
    to figure out any of this.
        And the way I would phrase it, Mr. Chairman, is the Allen
    Institute, which just spent a half a billion dollars, they have
    now completed an essential framework for how the mouse's brain
    works. Right? And it is about a million neurons?
        Dr. Olds. No. Ten.
        Mr. Fattah. Ten million. Right.
        So they got this thing, so that is about where we are. Ten
    million versus this 100 billion. And that is a mouse. And the
    translation from animal to human is about 1 percent in
    neuroscience, different from, in all other areas it is about 50
    percent. So if you can find a cure in an animal, 50 percent of
    the time it will work in a human being.
        When you talk about the brain, it is 1 percent translation.
    So even when you find something that makes a mouse, you know,
    operate a little bit better, restore memory, whatever, you
    can't bet the ranch that you are going to be able to translate
    it to a human being. Is that correct?
        Dr. Olds. Correct.
        Mr. Fattah. All right. So talk to the chairman about where
    we need to be going over the next, me and him are going to be
    here for the next 10 years doing this, and we want to see at
    the end of this or sooner major relief for these families who
    have these challenges. Right?
        We also are interested in the science and the sexiness of
    this, but at the heart of this is human beings, a billion of
    them worldwide, 100 million in our own country. And so talk to
    us about how you see us not just this year, but over the next
    period of time here what we need to try to get done.
        Mr. Culberson. Yeah. Where we need to focus our efforts.
    That is a great question, probably the best question----
        Mr. Fattah. To make disruptive progress.
        Mr. Culberson. Yes.
        Dr. Olds. So in June we are going to be engaging in
    something called an ``Ideas Lab'' in collaboration with the
    Howard Hughes Medical Institute intramural campus at Janelia
    Farms, just across the river.
        Mr. Culberson. Where?
        Dr. Olds. Janelia Farm of Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
    It is just north of the Dulles runway.
        And the goal of that meeting is to pull together scientists
    from disparate fields to crack a very simple circuit in the
    brain, the olfactory circuit. It is one of the most ancient
    circuits in the brain. It is conserved across evolution.
        It is tractable from an engineering standpoint because the
    sense of smell doesn't go through a relay nucleus like the rest
    of our sensations do. And the goal is to take a very simple
    circuit, bring together scientists from a wide variety of
    disciplines, and crack that simple mechanism.
        Mr. Fattah. Can you yield for a second?
        Dr. Olds. Sure.
        Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Culberson. Oh, please.
        Mr. Fattah. I was just at the Weizmann Institute in Tel
    Aviv, well, in Israel, right outside of Tel Aviv, and they just
    created this, they have been working on this bionic nose with
    some funding from the National Science Foundation.
        These 6 million neurons that are right up here, they are
    below the blood-brain barrier. So they are very interested,
    neuroscientists are very interested in them because they can
    reach them.
        But this nose is at University of Penn, they developed some
    ability of getting dogs to sniff out cancer. So they have been
    able to get this bionic nose to sniff cancer and, also,
    explosives and illegal narcotics. And it is fascinating.
        But go right ahead.
        Dr. Olds. So the next steps would be to actually understand
    how more complicated circuits work. This olfactory circuit is a
    relatively simple one. There are more complicated circuits,
    such as the mammalian hippocampus, that play a critical role,
    for example, in Alzheimer's disease.
        When we catch Alzheimer's disease, the cells of the
    hippocampus die, and that is the same circuit that allows us to
    remember episodic memories, the movie of your life, if you
    will. That is a devastating symptom.
        It is a circuit that we known an awful lot about. The input
    and outputs are not as well known as with the olfactory
    circuit, but it is a circuit that is tractable. And it would be
    a logical next step.
        So the goal is to actually develop an understanding of how
    relatively simple important circuits work in the brain and then
    bring together that understanding of circuits to actually see
    how circuits communicate with one another in the brain.
        So that yields a road forward where we can actually
    understand how circuits that actually may be involved in
    diseases like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or autism actually, in
    their communication, go awry and what potential therapeutic
    strategies might be. But that all starts with an understanding
    of the healthy brain.
        Mr. Fattah. Well, Mr. President, it is good to see you
    again.
        As President of the Society for Neuroscience, you have, the
    chairman mentioned earlier about this misfolding protein issue.
    And there is a member of your group, Dr. Soto, who is at the
    University of Texas at Houston, who has spent some considerable
    amount of time looking and he has really been working, he
    thinks that this, that the idea of this misfolding protein is,
    you know, the key to a number of these different disorders.
        I am trying to get, and I didn't get it directly from what
    Dr. Olds said. We are going to try to start with one place and
    move to the next place. I am trying to get a sense of where, if
    we were going to make a major leap forward, you sense that we
    need to be investing resources and efforts.
        Dr. Hyman. Yeah. I think there are--one way of thinking
    about it is there is a shared mechanism. Right? A protein has
    misfolded and the cell chokes on it, doesn't--is unable to get
    rid of it.
        And that might be something across many different diseases.
    But for each particular disease it is one or another protein
    that is genetically producing a protein given to misfolding or
    sometimes a disposal mechanism that isn't working.
        So I think there are two major useful areas of focus. And,
    again, I think there is some--there have been some very
    important investigators in Texas, Huda Zoghbi's lab at Baylor,
    for example, that has found a lot of these mutations that are
    devastating in children.
        So I think one important focus is to identify these genes
    and figure out ways in which we can potentially silence them
    or, if the CRISPR/Cas-9 scenario works out over time, even
    replace them in an embryonic stage, again, with all of the
    ethical concerns that need to be addressed first.
        But the alternative, which is more general, not disease by
    disease, is actually to better understand the mechanisms by
    which cells clear misfolded proteins and to see whether there
    are ways in which we can improve that set of processes in a way
    that might work across many different diseases. I won't go into
    the technical, you know----
        Mr. Culberson. You see that as one of the root causes of a
    lot of things----
        Dr. Hyman. It is a very--there are a lot of--yes. Yeah.
    Yeah.
        And then, again, you mentioned something that is new, but
    interesting, is that, in traumatic brain injury, this protein
    Tau, which has also been implicated in Alzheimer's disease, may
    not only create inappropriate tangles inside of neurons, but
    when they die, it may be released and almost infect neighboring
    neurons and spread some of the damage. Again, early, but
    really, really interesting and important work.
        Mr. Fattah. Last question for, okay.
        Mr. Lynch, the Potomac Institute released a study on
    neurotechnology 3 years ago, and they said that, from an
    economic standpoint, the economics of this in terms of GDP
    would be more impactful than any of the other economic
    revolutions in our country if we were able to figure out some
    of these problems, solve them, and build the industries that
    would benefit from them.
        So you are involved on the industry development side of
    this. In terms of venture capital, in terms of the work, one of
    the things that I have seen internationally is there is a lot
    of action in this space--right?--people trying to figure out
    diagnostic tools, people trying to figure out, you know,
    treatments.
        And where do you see America relative to the development of
    the neurotechnology industry?
        Mr. Lynch. Well, thank you for that question.
        I would like to return, in answering you, to the point you
    were trying to make earlier, which is these are exceedingly
    complex problems we are trying to solve.
        And to Dr. Hyman's points earlier, much of the
    breakthroughs that we are talking about that he articulated,
    whether it was neurogenomics, CRISPR/Cas-9, optogenetics, those
    were all borne out of the Federal investment in the human
    genome project. Right?
        And so what we are talking about here is: How are we
    actually going to solve these problems with the brain and
    develop treatments and cures for individuals who are suffering
    and alleviate these problems that are occurring with these
    families and the drag on the economy as a whole? We need to
    invest in fundamental brain research, in the BRAIN Initiative.
    We need to step it up and push forward.
        So what I represent is the neurotechnology industry. There
    are currently 800 companies worldwide right now that are
    developing treatments for neurological diseases and psychiatric
    illnesses. About 450 of those reside in the United States
    itself.
        Last year this industry generated about $150 billion in
    revenue in and of itself. That includes selling pharmaceuticals
    for anxiety, depression, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis. So there
    is a big pharma element to this industry.
        But the breakthroughs--they have basically left the ``R''
    in neuroscience aside because of the hyper-complexity
    associated with developing these new treatments and are looking
    to these gentlemen to actually find some new technology so that
    we can get some insight into how we are going to develop these
    next-generation treatments.
        So from the venture capital side, we have been hosting a
    neurotech investing and partnering conference for 10 years now,
    and each year it brings together, you know, a modest number of
    companies, you know, 250 people, you know, 50 companies
    pitching their treatments, you know, to try and get venture
    capital funding.
        And what we have seen over the past decade is a continuous
    increase in the interest of venture capital to fund these
    companies. Now it is up to about $1.5 billion a year across
    about 120 deals last year. Okay? But the problem that we are
    beginning to see----
        Mr. Fattah. That is what Potomac was saying, that, if
    America misses the boat here, you know, it is kind of lights
    out, that this is like the area in which, the next wealth-
    building phase in the world is going to operate in.
        Mr. Lynch. I couldn't agree with you more. Humanity has
    progressed through an agricultural revolution, an industrial
    revolution, and we are in the midst of an information
    revolution.
        And the next revolution, the technological revolution that
    will transform how we all work, live and play on a daily basis,
    will be the neurotechnology revolution. It will impact our
    laws, how we do marketing, how we entertain ourselves, how we
    treat each other, how we provide new ways for people to
    experience life, and it will impact every industry in different
    ways and create new industries like ``neurotainment''--right?--
    completely new forms of entertaining far beyond the therapeutic
    impact that it will have.
        Mr. Fattah. One of the other jurisdictions we have is the
    Commerce Department. So I have spoken with the Commerce
    Secretary when she was here about Commerce developing a
    neurotechnology focus so that we could make sure that American
    industry is focused on this trade space and ways that we need
    to, and she has agreed to do that.
        So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back to you.
        Mr. Culberson. I think a big part of this is the cognitive
    computing, I guess, that you mentioned earlier.
        Let me ask Dr. Olds, if I could, on behalf of the National
    Science Foundation, to talk to us about the number of grant
    proposals you receive in the neuroscience discipline.
        And of those that you receive, how many does the NSF fund?
    Just ballpark. And give us a--Mr. Fattah and I an idea of where
    the most productive areas might be for us to help you target.
        Dr. Olds. So I can give you now ballpark numbers on the
    number of awards that we have given per year. So from 2009 to
    2013, when we were spending approximately $70 million a year,
    we were making on the order of 150 to 200 awards per year.
        In 2014, we awarded in the neighborhood of 250 awards. In
    2015, this year, we expect to award something like 300. And if
    the appropriation that the President requested for 2016 comes
    through, that would be about 400 awards.
        On the number of proposals, I would need to get back to the
    Committee on that, and I will.
        Mr. Culberson. Ballpark percentage that you are able to----
        Dr. Olds. I would say we can fund about 20 percent--
    somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 percent of the proposals.
        Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, you were asking about
    breakthroughs earlier. Let me interrupt your train of thought
    and tell you I was.
        Mr. Culberson. Oh, please. That is the benefit of this. It
    is free flowing.
        Mr. Fattah. Something that you will be excited about.
        So Keith Black, who is the head of neurosurgery at Cedars-
    Sinai, was doing some research that showed that you can use a
    part of the venom from a scorpion that will only attach to non-
    healthy cells in the brain, and it allows the surgeon to now
    just go in and pluck out the tumor that otherwise is hard to
    discern.
        So this is where nature, you were talking about God's sense
    of humor, whereas nature--there is a lot going on out there,
    but this was a fascinating piece. I knew you would be.
        Mr. Culberson. It is fascinating.
        Mr. Fattah. So I wanted to share that with you. I am going
    to send you the paper. They are doing the clinic trials now. So
    it is working out quite well.
        Mr. Culberson. Right.
        Mr. Fattah. So they can, you know, and Senator Kennedy, we
    know lots of people who had these brain tumors not to a good
    result.
        But this particular technique enables the surgeon by
    utilizing something called chlorotoxin 35, which is part of the
    venom from an actual scorpion spider. It kind of lights up the
    runway, you know, for the snippers to come, you know.
        Mr. Culberson. Fascinating. It is extraordinary. And the
    advances come from you all sparking off each other; so, I know
    how important the collaboration is.
        And you really often don't know where the advance is going
    to come, and it is up to the Federal government to invest in
    this basic research because the private sector just--either
    cannot--they just simply don't have the resources. You can't
    stay with it. You have got to make sure your shareholders'
    expectations are met in the shorter term.
        So it is up to us to invest in a lot of these. It may just
    turn out to be dead-end rabbit trails, but otherwise wouldn't
    get done.
        I wanted to ask Dr. Olds about supercomputing. And National
    Science Foundation had funded Blue Waters, one of the most
    powerful supercomputers in the world.
        And, if you could, talk to us about how this resource is
    being used to support brain research. And how is the United
    States holding up in the ongoing effort to build the biggest,
    fastest, best computer on Earth?
        Dr. Olds. So----
        Mr. Culberson. The Japanese leapfrogged us, I know,
    recently, but that is--I just want to make sure we are the ones
    standing at the cutting edge of that work.
        Dr. Olds. So thank you for the question. That is two
    questions. I am going to answer the first one first and the
    second one second.
        Blue Waters, of course, is one of the most powerful
    supercomputers in the world and is hosted in Illinois at the
    National Center for Supercomputing. In the area of
    neuroscience, it is being used in a number of really exciting
    areas. One is brain imaging, where it is improving the
    resolution of blood flow imaging, which is really important in
    diagnosing stroke and ischemia in the brain.
        It is also being used to elucidate the structure of ion
    channels, which Dr. Hyman mentioned earlier. These are
    critically important. These ion channels have three-dimensional
    shapes, which is critical to their function and how they
    interact with neurotransmitters and drugs. And so Blue Waters
    is being used for that.
        It is also being used to simulate and model the process of
    vesicle fusion to the membrane presynaptically--that is
    involved in neurotransmission. If you don't have a
    neurotransmitter being released from the membrane, then you do
    not have communication between cells.
        And then, to me, one of the most exciting areas that Blue
    Waters is working on has to do with gene expression in the
    brain in the context of Alzheimer's disease.
        We have been talking about misfolded proteins in
    Alzheimer's disease, but, really, the important thing to think
    about Alzheimer's disease is that there are about 8,000 brain-
    specific genes that are expressed in the brain, and these
    genes--you can think of their expression across all the brain
    cells as being a dynamic network which is under exquisite
    control.
        When we are healthy, that network is operating in one mode.
    When we have a disease like Alzheimer's, it is operating in
    another mode that may require supercomputing to actually
    understand. So Blue Waters is being used in that context, and I
    think that is really important.
        Getting back to the question of how we are doing in terms
    of supercomputing, I would just go back to what Mr. Lynch was
    talking about.
        You know, we have a proof of concept--an existence proof in
    the human brain--that we can have real high-performance
    computing, exascale computing, if you will, functioning on 20
    watts of electricity.
        So there is something about the architecture of what is in
    here that is fundamentally different from what is in, you know,
    the laptop computer. If we could understand that, I think it
    would be a gigantic step forward in terms of having a permanent
    lead in high-performance computing.
        Mr. Culberson. Well, how do we deal with the--once the
    computer becomes self-aware and can learn--you mentioned
    cognitive computing--it opens up all kinds of wonderful
    possibilities, but, also, terrifying possibilities as well.
        Talk to us a little bit about, if you could, each one of
    us, some of your personal concerns about how we are going to
    deal with that when we cross that threshold. You know, some of
    the greatest minds in the country continue to talk about the
    concern about AI, that it may not be a happy experience.
        Dr. Hyman. Mr. Chairman, I think there are a lot of
    technologies that we focus on all for benefit with therapeutic
    purposes to solve important engineering problems that have
    other uses that we wouldn't be so happy with or that we worry
    might get away from us.
        And maybe the earliest experience of this country in
    thinking about that is nuclear proliferation, which is, after
    all, knowledge of certain advanced technologies. And we can see
    the challenges there, but I think the challenges are going to
    be even greater because these are going to be widely
    disseminated not-classified technologies.
        And one of the things that I have actually been involved in
    is to help people thinking about inventing these technologies,
    not--not AI, but invasive deep-brain stimulation for regulating
    behavior.
        So DARPA has these very interesting advanced projects
    really aimed at servicemen and -women who have traumatic brain
    injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, but, also, chronic pain
    syndromes who may have become addicted to pain medicines
    because of their injuries.
        And as an alternative to waiting for the development of new
    medications, they are studying the ability to directly
    stimulate circuits in the brain, something that has worked
    very, very well for Parkinson's disease.
        But they understand that, once you are stimulating brain
    circuits, you know, this could be a good and therapeutic thing,
    but it also could change personality, personal identity.
        So they have appointed an ethical, legal, and social issues
    panel to help them oversee this research that I am privileged
    to serve on, and they take it quite seriously. But I think it
    is a kind of model.
        The Genome Project did that. They had an ethical, legal,
    and social issues panel that actually Jim Watson, James Watson,
    had initiated. And the idea here is not to stop these
    technologies because they have so much benefit, but, really, as
    a community, to think through the really difficult problem of
    maximizing the benefit, but somehow controlling the risks.
        Mr. Fattah. It is kind of like not to minimize, but it is
    just like everything else. I mean, it is like the automobile.
    You know, if used for its purpose, fine.
        And that is why I think OSTP at the origins of this effort
    with the Interagency Working Group put together a ethics group.
    I know the president, Amy Gutmann, was involved and some
    others.
        So, you know, it is a big concern. However, as Newt
    Gingrich said, it is the larger challenge for the country. If
    we can't delay Alzheimer's by 5 or 6 years, you know, we are
    going to go bankrupt.
        Mr. Culberson. Well, I am not questioning that.
        Mr. Fattah. We have got to figure out our way forward and
    we have got to make sure that people don't misuse the
    technology.
        Mr. Culberson. You know, that is why we are here. Very
    supportive of the work. But I just think, with your talent at
    this table, it is important to talk about the ethical
    challenges and what would lie ahead for the human race if we
    actually develop a computer that is able to function at the
    level of the human brain, can learn a task----
        Mr. Fattah. But to get closer to your line, there are
    issues here that are useful for us from an intelligence
    standpoint and other things for national security that are also
    beneficial and is closer to the line you are concerned about,
    but have some utility.
        Mr. Culberson. Well, that day is coming soon. And we have
    got a panel of great talent here. I just want to get your
    thoughts about AI and cognitive computing and what are we going
    to do when we hit that threshold.
        Mr. Lynch. Sure. I mean, with any new technologies, there
    is both promise and peril. And we need to have extreme
    vigilance as these technologies come to market and are being
    researched.
        I personally know right now that IBM, Facebook, Google, HP,
    Qualcomm, all the major chipmakers around the world, some of
    the major software companies, are hiring neuroscientists
    because they see the competitive advantage that brain-inspired
    computing can actually bring to their organization.
        So, in a way, you know, the cat is kind of out of the bag,
    and we need to have these public conversations around, ``What
    are the limits to these technologies? And how do we design them
    in initially?''
        Mr. Culberson. Right. They just called a vote, and I want
    to let Mr. Fattah close up.
        But I really would also like to ask about what is this
    device and the instant gratification that it brings doing to
    our kids and the evolution of our minds.
        Because this is changing us. And the human instinct for
    instant gratification--you see the Google searches. If people
    don't get what they find within a few nanoseconds, they are
    switching. It is altering behavior, and I think it is really
    worrisome.
        Can you talk to us a little bit about that, any one of you
    who want to dive in.
        Dr. Olds. So Nicholas Carr wrote an article recently. I
    think it was called Is Google Ruining Us? And----
        Mr. Culberson. Well, in particular, these things.
        Dr. Olds. Right. And----
        Mr. Culberson. Sometimes I want to hit it with a hammer.
        Dr. Olds. I think that he raised the point that, as we
    become used to answering questions instantly without thinking
    about them intellectually, that would change the plasticity of
    our neural circuits and, potentially, would produce some long-
    term change.
        As I told Mr. Carr at the time he was researching his book,
    I would be skeptical about that and I think we really need to
    actually look at the evidence very carefully with regard to
    long-term changes in human brains as a result of the IT
    revolution that is going on.
        Mr. Culberson. Physical changes. What about behavioral?
    Then I want to let Mr. Fattah close up on this. But, I mean, he
    has gotten me on another question.
        But it worries the heck out of me because you don't see
    kids playing in the yard anymore and looking for bugs or doing
    things like all normal kids should be.
        Dr. Olds. I agree.
        Dr. Hyman. I mean, you are absolutely right. And, again, we
    have got--we are not very good at having broad conversations
    about how to control the downside of technologies where we are
    all too good at sometimes having deadening regulation. You
    know, you are not going to outlaw, you know, email or iPhones,
    but we have to deal with cyberbullying. Right?
        And so I think we really need to have more serious
    conversations that somehow affect the way society handles these
    issues or things that are really beneficial and wonderful will
    then have very much unintended consequences.
        Mr. Culberson. But you are seeing changes in human behavior
    with this instant access to information and gratification----
        Dr. Hyman. Yeah. Absolutely.
        Dr. Olds. If I may, I think this is an example of why we
    need research in social, behavioral, and economic sciences as
    well as the basic biological research, because this is an area,
    clearly, where we are looking at complex human behavior as it
    interacts with machines. And that would be SBE.
        Mr. Culberson. That is a social behavior headline no one
    wants----
        Mr. Fattah. Let me jump on the more positive side of this
    for a minute.
        So, you know, I was out in the Napa Valley, the Staglins.
    They had a son who had some challenges with schizophrenia. And
    since that time, he is doing great, but they engaged themselves
    in this effort and raised a lot of money, over $250 million of
    private money, particularly for schizophrenia-related research.
    And they fund early investigators.
        And part of what seems to be emerging as part of some of
    their research is that some of this gaming activity can be
    therapeutically useful and that part of the challenge--it is
    not the totality of the challenge--but part of the challenges
    of some of these young people. It is almost always young people
    who face these schizophrenic circumstances and almost always
    boys, not in every circumstance, but more so than not just
    getting the brain functioning slightly more efficiently by
    activity actually provides some benefit.
        And then I was out in Tom Cole's backyard at the University
    of Oklahoma's, got a program called a center called K20, and
    they were developing these games that my teenager likes, these
    sim games, but imbedding in the game, you know, things that we
    would want, you know, interest in STEM education and going to
    college and, you know, hiding these notions in nuanced sort of
    ways inside the game so that even the kids are playing them
    they are getting indoctrinated with positive messages.
        So I think, you know, some of this we are going to have to
    run with and just try to improve as we go, Mr. Chairman.
        But I do want to, as we go to wrap up, I want to thank the
    chairman again because it is not the norm in a majority-
    minority situation that there would be a hearing like this, and
    I want to thank you.
        But it just shows that the interest in this matter is not
    partisan and we intend, you know, well beyond this
    administration, which has got, you know, 20 more months and has
    done some important work--but this is work that we are going to
    be engaged in for a long time going forward that we need to
    deal with.
        And we need to do it on all of the fronts. We didn't talk a
    lot about traumatic brain injury today, but we have close to 3
    million Americans--and I am not talking about servicemembers
    now--3 million--a lot of them young people--not all of them--
    but, you know, riding their bikes, playing games, who end up
    with very serious injuries.
        And the things that we thought we knew about traumatic
    brain injuries in the past we now know differently, and there
    is a lot more that can be done. And this is an area where we
    want to do, that we need to, also look at because it is very
    different from the disease side.
        These are actually, we had our own colleague who was shot
    in the head, Congresswoman Giffords, and, you know, in past
    circumstances, you wouldn't see the kind of recovery that has
    happened. But, you know, it is because of the great work that
    is being done. But we need to work in this space more.
        And I know that the chairman and I did work on this on the
    veterans' side, but this is on the civilian side, it is a very
    important issue, too.
        So I want to thank the chairman and I want to thank our
    guests.
        Mr. Culberson. This is a team effort.
        Mr. Fattah. It is a team effort, and we are going to keep
    going. All right.
        Mr. Culberson. It so important, and it is something we are
    arm in arm on, as I have been a member of the subcommittee
    since I first got on Appropriations in 2003 and always dreamed
    of having the privilege of being able to chair it to be able to
    help make sure that these--as Mr. Jefferson said, he liked the
    dreams of the future better than the memories of the past.
        And I will continue to do everything I can to help make
    sure that these dreams of the future come true from our work
    that we do arm in arm----
        Mr. Fattah. Together. Right.
        Mr. Culberson [continuing]. And remembering, also, that Mr.
    Jefferson liked to say that liberty is the firstborn child of
    science, which is absolutely true.
        So it is exciting and so worthwhile. And we will continue
    to work together, Chaka, to make sure that we are providing you
    the research, the support that you need, and get out of the way
    as much as possible.
        Because, as a Texan, we also understand that the less
    government, the better, and get out of the way, and
    particularly when it comes to the sciences, let you follow the
    facts.
        Mr. Fattah. And let me thank OSTP for shepherding this, and
    you have done a great job, Dr. Rubin and Dr. Hogan and the team
    there, because this is a massive enterprise stretching across
    both the government and the private sector and private
    foundations and academia and hospitals. I mean, there are just
    a lot of people, including people focused on ethics, who have
    to be part of this. So thank you and----
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you for making this happen.
        Mr. Fattah. Somehow I think we might be having another
    hearing on neuroscience next year this time in the
    appropriations process.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Culberson. Maybe a lot sooner.
        Thank you very much.
        And the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.

                               W I T N E S S E S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Bolden, C. F.....................................................    87
    Cordova, F. A....................................................   253
    Handelsman, Jo...................................................   321
    Hyman, Steven....................................................   321
    Lynch, Zack......................................................   321
    Olds, James......................................................   321
    Pritzker, Hon. Penny.............................................     1
    Sullivan, Kathryn................................................    57

                                      [all]